[Helmer]

Hi

Again the law and ethics.

The result doesn't matter. But it went 2 off - swich two cards from LHO and it has minimum - the contract will make.

Scoring: MP

---

YOU ME YOUR P MY P
1♣    P   1♦       P
1♥   P    1 NT    P
P     2♠  *P       P
???

*P admitted hesitation.

Before you bid, remember if pard has minimum the pass might had come faster (right) - if pard has minimum and wants to escape - where to?

What is your bid and comments.

Thanks

[whereagles]

At matchpoints, I'll double.

Hesitation or no hesitation, the hand is ours, so I have to act and double seems the only bid in that case.

[mr1303]

AT matchpoints, double is 100% clear-cut. Otherwise you might as well just hold up the white flag, and say please bid as much as you like over us, you'll never get punished.

[FrancesHinden]

double is obvious in either case

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: This discussion would have been much easier if you had posted the problem without explaining that there was a hesitation. Personally, I think that it would be interesting to have a serious debate about whether or not one should double without worrying about UI. Equally significant; - if there wasn't any debate (assume that everyone that that bidding 3♥ was "obvious") this would also be very useful after you introduce UI to the picture.

Comment 2: I don't like the bidding style that N/S is using. I know that you didn't ask me to comment on this. None-the-less, its very difficult for me to make reasonable assumptions about what type of hand partner might have. Case in point: Partner advanced 1D rather than bidding an immediate 1NT. Partner can't support either of my suits, introduce Spades, or rebid Diamonds. What the hell is he bidding on? Would he randomly advance 1♦ holding a 5332 (maybe even a 4333) with primary Diamonds? Life would be a lot easier if partner immediately clarified range and shape by advancing 1NT holding a balnzced hand with no 4 card major. In a simialr fashion, I really don't like the 1♥ rebid by opener holding a balanced hand. If partner has a Heart suit he would have shown it already or he'll show it next round.

Comment 3: Lets consider this hand without UI. To some extent, my choice of bids depends on a subjective evaluation of the skill level of the opponents. The 2♠ bid doesn't make much sense. I have 4 spades. Partner bid Diamonds and then 1NT. He was unable to support either of my suits. It "feels" like partner has a 3=2=5=3 shape and was unable to bid NT for whatever reason.

I lean towards double. LHO's balancing decision seems almost suicidal in a no fit auction like this one. Equally significant, LHO has no place to run.

With this said and done, LHO must have some reason for chosing to introduce Spades. Maybe he's an idiot. Maybe he decided to sandbag on the first round. Maybe he is sitting on a 5=1=3=4 with weak Spades and decent defensive honors.

Personally, I like double. Even if LHO has honors sitting over us, I think that he bit off more than he can chew.

Comment 4: Life gets much more difficult if partner hesitates. The hesitation certainly suggests that doing something is better than passing. Personally, I'm not sure whether doubling is completely clear cut in the absence of the double. (As I noted earlier, to some extent this happened because I don't really understand the auction so far)

[mcphee]

I also and not fond of the bidding structure. However I think in view of the hesitation I must pass. Maybe I am too much of an imp player, but I am not so sure dble is 100% had partner passed in tempo. Not passing in tempo indicates partner was thinking of something and I do not feel it's right to dble now.

[mikeh]

Double is clear.

To rule that South cannot double, because of the slow pass, is tantamount to ruling that there IS NO HAND on which South may double.

Because, if I were going to create a dictionary example of the type of hand on which S should reopen with a penalty double, it would look a lot like this... although I might have doubt that S could logically hold a hand as good as this and get the opportunity to double!

S has 3... count them... 3 Aces

S is shortest in the suit his partner bid

S has extra trump length and texture in the suit

S knows that N has either a ♠ honour or at least 3 card length (probably both) because of the 1N

If I were on a Committee, I would rule an appeal by EW (from a ruling that the result stood) to be frivolous, whether at mps or imps.

Those who violate Burn's Law of Total Trump (as I suspect West has here) get no forgiveness

[kenberg]

In hesitation auctions I always make the same bid I would have made providing I am truly confident that it really is the bid I would have made. I don't think it is so clear here. I realize some very good players think double is obvious but I don't. For example, if 1NT passed out was about to give you plus 90, and 2S is about to give you +100, the situation is already better and maybe you should leave well enough alone. After being given the info about what does happen, and what would happen with a mild change (I trust the "switch two cards" does not mean give left hand opponent one of my aces for one of his deuces), it's hard to see this completely objectively. I don't much understand the auction, it seems lho might have four spades and a bunch of clubs, but at any rate they seem to be in a bad spot and maybe I will just leave it.

So here it went down 2. On another day it might go down 1 for still a good score, even undoubled. Apparently with a little change that would not affect your partner's bidding, it makes. Anyway, I pass.

[1eyedjack]

I am quite suspicious of the 2S bid. If this is one of those players who thinks that it is unsafe to overcall 1S but it suddenly becomes safer to back in at a higher level after both opponents have limited their hands to show the balance of points without a fit, then good luck to him. But I am going to assume that he is a competent player.

I chose pass and pass when I voted, but my style here is for doubles to be take-out orientated despite the preceding auction. Perhaps that is not very sensible, but in that context I would have expected partner to have doubled 2S with maximum and Spade doubleton. If we really have the majority of Spades on the hand I reckon to beat par by passing out 2S. Assuming the more standard meaning of double by either seat is penalties then I am more inclined to change my vote to double without UI, pass with UI (I think that double is definitely suggested by the UI and pass is an LA).

A bit out of MP practice, so don't read too much into my vote!

[PeterE]

kenberg, on May 5 2006, 07:02 PM, said:

In hesitation auctions I always make the same bid I would have made providing I am truly confident that it really is the bid I would have made.

Why ? It is not the correct approach reading Law 16A:

Quote

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

If the UI suggests a call (and there are other LAs) you are not allowed to chose your call, even if you could prove (with a polygraph) that it were the one and only call you ever had in mind to chose.
Your obligation and your restrictions go further...

[Blofeld]

Of course it's the correct approach, Peter.

It isn't your job to decide what action the hesitation suggests, nor what the logical alternatives are. If you were always making a call, then go ahead and make it. Perhaps the director will agree that there were no other LAs.

[foo]

Helmer, on May 5 2006, 06:59 AM, said:

Hi

Again the law and ethics.

The result doesn't matter. But it went 2 off - swich two cards from LHO and it has minimum - the contract will make.

Scoring: MP

---

YOU ME YOUR P MY P
1♣    P   1♦       P
1♥   P    1 NT    P
P     2♠  *P       P
???

*P admitted hesitation.

Before you bid, remember if pard has minimum the pass might had come faster (right) - if pard has minimum and wants to escape - where to?

What is your bid and comments.

Thanks

I actually do not think there is a UI problem here.

Responder has a legitimate problem that will often cause a break in Tempo: "It's Our hand. We've bid every other strain and the misfit light is clearly out. What kind of hand can LHO have that can legitimately Balance with 2S but could not bid 1S earlier? What are Our Agreements under this unusual circumstance? How do I maximize the chances for Us to get a good score?"
Etc, etc.

I think the only potentially fast call for Responder is X w/ spade shortness, and that is only if they are sure that X here is for T/O rather than Business.

I also think that X'ing for penalties by either Opener or Responder when it is so easy to calculate that We have at least 1/2 the deck and most likely 21-22 HCP in a misfit auction is not a something that should =ever= be barred by Law 16A concerns. Especially when staring at AJXx of Their trump suit in addition to everything else already noted.

I agree with others that the "Matchpoint X" for penalty is 100% clear here.

[PeterE]

Blofeld, on May 6 2006, 05:48 AM, said:

Of course it's the correct approach, Peter.

It isn't your job to decide what action the hesitation suggests, nor what the logical alternatives are. If you were always making a call, then go ahead and make it. Perhaps the director will agree that there were no other LAs.

Prove it !

I gave one law (73 C is the other) to prove my approach. I am sure - FWIW - that this is the only lawful interpretation.

[paulg]

Blofeld, on May 6 2006, 10:48 AM, said:

Of course it's the correct approach, Peter.

It isn't your job to decide what action the hesitation suggests, nor what the logical alternatives are. If you were always making a call, then go ahead and make it. Perhaps the director will agree that there were no other LAs.

In this case it is clear that partner has extra values.

I believe Peter is correct. The Law specifically says you must consider the logical alternatives and the 'I'd always bid it' argument is insufficient.

In this case, the auction suggests that partner has Hx or xxx in spades but could he be as weak as:

xxx
xx
KJTxx
Qxx

At matchpoints I think you have to double as they appear to be in your suit and it is highly likely that it is your hand. I'm not sure this auction would happen at IMPs but if it did then I'd probably have to pass after a hesitation.

paul

[kenberg]

I'll add on a bit to my statement that "In hesitation auctions I always make the same bid I would have made providing I am truly confident that it really is the bid I would have made", since it seems to have produced disagreement. In my opinion I not only am allowed to do so, I should do so. I should not let the hesitation affect my choice of bids. Sometimes you are stuck since you cannot really be sure what you would have done, and then it is sensible to try to "think like a committee" and make a call that will stand up. But if I am sure I would have made the call, I make it. If the call is rolled back by the authorities, I accept their decision. As a factual matter, I don't often have my calls rolled back, so maybe my judgment is not so far off here.

Take this hand for an example. As the cards lie it is down 2 for a top, doubled or not. Our poster tells us that a modest change in the hands would allow the 2S to make. Suppose the hands are so arranged that 2S makes and I decide that I would double w/o the hesitation, but not with. When the smoke clears they score up 110 instead of 670. Doing well by doing good, I guess, but I can't say I would feel right about it.

Something like this came close to happening some years back. I had had a call rolled back (it does happen) and I was at a tourney, we were bidding diamonds, they were bidding clubs, the auction was 3C on my left and partner tanked. I had every intention of bidding on to 3D before the tank but I decided, keeping in mind the recent rollback, to pass it out. I didn't want to get a rep. Ok, this will be a shaggy dog story because partner emerged with a double (easy to pass with or w/o a hesitation) and we beat a vulnerable 3C by two tricks. Had she passed it around to me, my ethical intentions would have converted the plus 110 of 3D to a plus 200.

If I am clear in my mind as to what the call would have been, I make it. If it gets rolled back, I accept the decision. If I found I was frequently being rolled back, I would examine my thinking, but that isn't happening. Deciding in advance what a committee will think is more than I an handle, and again this hand is a case in point. More than one poster has said double is completely clearcut. Not only do I not think it is clearcut, I wouldn't have done it. They would not see pass as a LA, I can barely see X as a LA. So I just do what I think is right and let others explain later why I was wrong. IMO the main thing is to trust opponents, the director, and yourself to all be trying their best to do what is right unless there is clear reason to believe otherwise, and to accept graciously a committee's decision as to who was right. Even if they are wrong.


I will carefully consider the thoughts of those who disagree with this approach.

Ken

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

first of all 2S is a normal call, ... just look at
reopening tacticts described by Lawrence et.
all, Spades are a safe suit, oppoenents
are limited.
A suit Jxxxx and some random 8 count
would be sufficient for a 2S call but not
for a direct 1S call, ... at least some players
require a certain suit quality.

For the actual question: It certainly depends on
level and exp., if you dbl or not, but I would
have passed without the hesitation and I will pass
now.
I will look at the answers of the player better than
me will certainly reconsider my strategy, but I would
pass.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: It certainly matters how weak 1D could be,
and if partner could have passed 1H.
We know they have at most a 7 card fit, but the
points could be 20-20 and it is not clear that we can
make 1NT.

[foo]

P_Marlowe, on May 6 2006, 09:08 AM, said:

Hi,

first of all 2S is a normal call, ... just look at
reopening tacticts described by Lawrence et.
all, Spades are a safe suit, oppoenents
are limited.
A suit Jxxxx and some random 8 count
would be sufficient for a 2S call but not
for a direct 1S call, ... at least some players
require a certain suit quality.

For the actual question: It certainly depends on
level and exp., if you dbl or not, but I would
have passed without the hesitation and I will pass
now.
I will look at the answers of the player better than
me will certainly reconsider my strategy, but I would
pass.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: It certainly matters how weak 1D could be,
and if partner could have passed 1H.
We know they have at most a 7 card fit, but the
points could be 20-20 and it is not clear that we can
make 1NT.

Balancing 2S after the opponents have found a fit or if the opponents have not ended in NT after a mistfit auction is reasonably normal. This is not either situation.

Spades are not a safe suit here since after 1♣-P-1♦-P;1♥-P-1N-P-P-?? there is a very good chance the opponents have 6-7 spades between them and most or all the spade honors you don't have.

If the 2S bidder has KQxxxx and nothing else, they had a 2S WJO earlier in the auction. So they do not have that.

If they had a full opening bid and 4+S, they could have bid 1S in the 1st round. If they had 5+S, even bad ones, and something reasonable they could have acted in the 1st or 2nd rounds.

Please construct a hand that makes sense for the 2S balancer to have after this auction given Opener's hand. Take into account it has to be flawed enough to not have taken action at the one level in the previous two rounds of bidding yet be good enough to bid 2S all by itself with no encouragement from GOP.

...and even if such a hand does exist (doubtful), Opener is still looking at a flat 14 HCP including AJXx of S's when the auction says the Opening side has 20-22 HCP with the hand a misfit and an opponent who could not bid 1S over 1C or over 1H yet can balance with 2S.

Probability and Bridge Logic says the 2S bidder has made a mistake. Particularly at matchpoints, you must punish such behavior. X here feels right at least 80% of the time.

PS: If is not clear the Opening side can make 1N, and especially if it is clear They are not likely to make 1N, why isn't Balancer just passing and making the Opening lead that will get a plus rather than risking a bid?

[kenberg]

Passing rather than balancing is probably my choice but passing and then leading will get a lead penalty since the NT bid is to the left of the balancer. As to what balancer might possibly have, I am thinking something like KQTx, xx, Axx, KQxx. A bit weak for overcalling 1NT on the first round, not suitable for a double. Rather than waiting for the opponents to bid out their hands, I would overcall 1S on the first round. If for some reason I didn't, I would pass out the 1NT. But that's me. I would be interested in seeing what the actual balancer had. I'm betting on something roughly like this.

Ken

[foo]

kenberg, on May 6 2006, 10:45 AM, said:

Passing rather than balancing is probably my choice but passing and then leading will get a lead penalty since the NT bid is to the left of the balancer. As to what balancer might possibly have, I am thinking something like KQTx, xx, Axx, KQxx. A bit weak for overcalling 1NT on the first round, not suitable for a double. Rather than waiting for the opponents to bid out their hands, I would overcall 1S on the first round. If for some reason I didn't, I would pass out the 1NT. But that's me. I would be interested in seeing what the actual balancer had. I'm betting on something roughly like this.

Ken

The point about the opening lead was that GOP knows that S's are the only unbid suit so that is the natural lead on this auction.

As for KQTx.xx.Axx.KQxx , if I'm holding that hand the auction goes (1m)-1S or (1H)-X

Replace the ST with a Sx and I'm probably still bidding the same way.

Balancer has to have long S's and be light on HCP yet not have a WJO for their bidding to be sane.

[Blofeld]

To Peter and Paul:

To me, it's in the definition of 'Logical Alternatives'. A bid is a LA if it would be chosen by a certain proportion of players of your level. At the table this seems impossible to determine: you have to approximate for yourself what counts as a logical alternative, and you have a sample of one person to rely on for judgement. If that person's judgement says always bid one way then in the lack of fuller information it seems slightly absurd to me to assume that there are any other logical alternatives. Even if you suspect that there might be, if you were always bidding one way then I don't know how you can be expected to guess which alternatives would or wouldn't be logical. So you are effectively constrained to picking the single alternative which you know to be logical.

Now it may be that a director will later, with a more complete knowledge of the facts, rule that other logical alternatives exist. I am with Ken here in that I would support such a director's ruling.

Also, you require the players at the table to interpret "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" before making their call. I know that players' opinions of what suggests what in this kind of circumstance often differ substantially, so when this is potentially ambiguous it seems wrong to get the players to interpret it on the fly. What if they know that their judgement of what it might suggest is often wrong?

If for some reason they were absolutely sure that the hesitation suggested one thing (which they would otherwise always bid), [b]and[/i] they were equally certain that there existed other logical alternatives (and knew what they were), then I would agree that they should not bid their original choice. I simply think these circumstances are unlikely in the extreme to actually occur.

I also think (a much more common occurrence) that if a player was considering more than one action and the UI fairly obviously suggests that one is likely to work better, then they should avoid picking that. But that's a different issue.

Prepared to be proven wrong,
Owen