序： 迟疑是桥牌比赛中经常发生的行为，源于各种合理或不合理的原因，因此也非常容易在日常训练、交往桥牌或低级别的比赛中被忽视，最后形成习惯性迟疑或犹豫的不良习惯。 通常在稍高级别的比赛中，这种行为非常容易被申述， 进而受到不利的判罚。
这个案例的另一个值得注意的是：比赛中的好成绩不但是对选手水平的认可，同时也是对追求更高、更远、更强的目标而付出努力的奖励；是否高水平的选手可以依据经验滥用桥牌竞赛规则？回答一定是否定的。Frank Merblum虽然选择了向仲裁委员会申述， 但是仲裁委员会最终的维持原判的裁决，并对Frank Merblum“申述没有律法依据”的申述做出警告。
且行且思考应该是个原则。
APPEAL CASE 1/6
Event: Norman Kay Platinum Pairs Norman Kay铂金双人赛
Session: 1st semifinal 半决赛第一场
Subject: Break in tempo 迟疑
Break in tempo of approximately 30 seconds and distinctly reaching for some bid card, then
withdrawing his hand. 迟疑大约30秒， 同时拿起叫牌卡，最后PASS
最终定约：4♥加倍 Contract: 4♥ doubled
首攻： 没有记录 Opening lead: Not recorded
桌面结果： 西4♥加倍宕三， 南北得分+500 Table result: Down three, North-South plus 500
裁判裁决： 西4♥加倍宕三 -500， 南北得分 +150 Director’s ruling: Down three, North-South plus
150
仲裁委员会裁决： 西4♥加倍宕三 -500， 南北得分 +150 Committee ruling: Down three, North-South plus 150
事实 The Facts:
叫牌结束后召请裁判。南在PASS东的4♥前有30秒的迟疑，并触摸过叫牌盒内的叫牌卡。
裁判询问了4名参赛牌手。一名牌手称北的加倍是“50-50”，但是如果有犹豫存在，成功加倍的可能性几乎是100%。这名牌手也质疑南PASS，认为应该叫5♣。其他三名被问询的牌手全部选择PASS.
The director was summoned after the final pass. It was reported that prior to passing East’s 4♥, South hesitated for 30 seconds and touched the bid cards inside of the bidding box.
The director polled four players. One player said that North’s double was “50-50,” but after a hesitation, the likelihood of that double being successful reached nearly 100%. This player also
questioned South’s pass instead of bidding 5♣. Three other players who were polled passed.
裁判裁决： Director’s Ruling:
根据问询的结果，依照16B和12C, 裁判裁决PASS是合乎逻辑的选择，并调整结果为：西4♥宕三， 南北+150，东西-150
Based on the results of the poll and in accordance with Laws 16B and 12C, the director ruled that pass was a logical alternative and adjusted the results to 4♥ by West, down three, North–South plus 150, East–West minus 150.
申述 The Appeal:
南北就裁决进行申述。 北、东和西参加了听证。筛选员问过北关于其申述的依据，同时告知他被问询的选手一致认为PASS是一种合乎逻辑的选择；北同时被告知全体陪审员包括三名国内比赛的冠军自己都会选择PASS.
North-South appealed the ruling. North, East and West attended the hearing. The screener asked North what basis he had for his appeal, and informed him that the poll was unanimous in finding pass as a logical alternative. North was also told that the panel included three national champions who would, themselves, pass.
北称他相信加倍明显是正确的，而PASS不合乎逻辑。他还称即使没有犹豫他也会加倍。双方一致同意呈现的事实是准确的，东西同意裁判裁决并多提供些信息。
North said that he believed doubling was obviously correct and that passing was not logical. He also said that he made the bid he would have made without the hesitation.
Both sides concurred that the facts as presented were accurate. East-West provided little more than agreement with the director’s ruling.
最终决定 The Decision:
30秒的犹豫和触碰叫牌卡形成非法信息（unauthorized information (UI)）。即使对于北本人都是很清楚的，非法信息明显是建议持边缘牌力的时候不要PASS，同时PASS是不够成功的叫品。被问询的牌手和仲裁委员会成员发现PASS是合乎逻辑的选择，并这种选择是自愿的。北的关于没有获得非法信息也会选择加倍陈述， 是与73条他有尽量避免从非法信息中获得利益的义务不匹配。
The 30-second hesitation and reaching for a bidding card constituted unauthorized information
(UI). It was clear even to North that the UI demonstrably suggested that he not pass with marginal hands and that passing would have been less successful. The polled players and the Appeals Committee found pass to be a logical alternative with most of the polled players, choosing pass for themselves. North’s statement that he made the same bid he would have made without the UI is not a justification for his double since he has a Law 73 obligation to carefully avoid taking any advantage from that UI.
因此，根据73、16和12条例规定， 正确的调整是去掉加倍，同时根据本条线桌面的坐庄和防守裁定： 西4♥宕三， 南北+150，东西-150
Accordingly, by use of Laws 73, 16 and 12, the correct adjustment is to remove the double and
impose the same line of play and defense as occurred at the table: 4♥ by West, down three, North-South plus 150, East-West minus 150.
北是有经验、高水平的牌手，他应该知道他没有合理的机会赢得仲裁， 因为裁判的合法分析没有任何瑕疵。他也应该知道，针对高水平选手的民意调查也会选择PASS. 仲裁委员会对北“申述没有律法依据”的申述做出警告。
North is an experienced, high-level player and he should have known that he had no reasonable chance to win this appeal since he could present no flaw in the director’s legal analysis. He knew, too, from the poll that other high-level players would choose to pass. The Appeals Committee assigned North an Appeal Without Merit Warning.
DIC: Terry Lavender
Chairperson: Michael Huston (non-voting)
Committee members: Craig Allen, Ed Lazarus,
Mark Rabinowitz, Chris Moll and Ray Miller
本篇文章来源于微信公众号: 温州桥牌沙龙
