Ideally every bid and every play should be delivered at an even tempo. In practice, all of us sometimes have harder decisions to make and, as a result, spend longer thinking.
If you do pause for a long time, or even bid or play unusually quickly, then your partner is not allowed to be influenced by the fact. Your unusual tempo is, in bridge parlance, Unauthorised or Extraneous Information for your partner. Your opponents may draw inferences but at their own peril. If those inferences prove unfounded, they've no comeback (although, if you deliberately delay to confuse the opposition, that is illegal).
There's usually not much to be inferred if you bid something after a long delay - you could simply have been considering alternatives. If you pass, though, there's a clear inference that you were considering bidding something and that you may therefore have undisclosed values.
Contrary to popular belief, this doesn't bar partner from bidding*. If partner has a clear and obvious bid it would be quite wrong for him to pass just because you paused. What it does mean is that if partner does bid, not only must he not be influenced by your delay, he must be seen not to be influenced. He is guilty unless he can prove his innocence.
What the laws actually say is that a player "may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". There's a lot of talk in directors' circles about what constitutes logical alternatives. The old guideline: "75% of players of your standard make would make that bid" has fortunately been abandoned. It was unworkable because there may not be any one bid that would attract the support of 75% of players. The EBU has an interesting dissertation on the subject. This basically says that a "logical alternative" is a bid that would be seriously considered by at least one in five players of your standard and that some of those players would actually select the bid you chose. Beware though. Just because the bid you chose is a "logical alternative" doesn't mean it's OK. If there is another logical alternative that could demonstrably have been suggested by the Unauthorised Information then you may still find yourself liable for a penalty.
Ultimately, only the director can decide whether your actions could have been suggested by partner's delay. The only advice I can offer is that if your partner is guilty of obvious hesitation then it's best to abandon any notion you may have had of making a "frisky" bid, even if you made up your mind before the delay. The director is not allowed to believe that you had already made up your mind and must rule for the opponents if your bid is not completely justified. However, if your bid is absolutely justified and only a mouse would pass, then make your bid with a clear conscience. If the opponents choose to call the director then that's their prerogative but no director worth his salt should penalise you for making an "obvious" bid.
See also Reserving your rights
| * | Just think, if your pause meant partner had to pass, what an excellent opportunity for the unscrupulous player to shut his partner up. You can just imagine someone thinking "I can slaughter the opponents' contract but I just know partner is going to overcall. I know - I'll go into a two minute trance then he won't be allowed to bid." |
| Back | Copyright © Keith Sheppard, 2001 |