[whereagles]

Sometimes it's clear what it suggests, others (like this one) it may suggest so many things that one cannot reasonably block action.

[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2014-October-26, 12:15, said:

IMO, partner's hesitation before bidding 2♠ implies that he's unlikely to hold 3♠s. This unauthorised information suggests double over pass and pass over 3♠.

Several legal and bridge experts, whose views I respect, judge that the break in tempo does not suggest one call over another, so I admit that I may have suffered from a blind-spot -- but I have yet to discover what it is.

The blind spot is that the UI denied several things:
- the weak hand with 3 spades (indeed suggesting pass/double over 3♠)
- the balanced 8 count (suggesting 3♠ over pass/double, i.e. the exact opposite)

The UI suggested that partner holds:
- a doubleton spade with a five card minor (suggesting 3♠ over pass/double)
or
- an invitational balanced hand (11 HCP) that got worse on the auction (suggesting double/pass over 3♠)

If you look at all the hand types that the UI might indicate or might deny, you simply conclude that there are too many possibilities to be able to interpret the UI in such a way that you can indicate LAs that are demonstrably suggested by it.

Rik

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2014-October-26, 12:15, said:

IMO, partner's hesitation before bidding 2♠ implies that he's unlikely to hold 3♠s. This unauthorised information suggests double over pass and pass over 3♠.

Several legal and bridge experts, whose views I respect, judge that the break in tempo does not suggest one call over another, so I admit that I may have suffered from a blind-spot -- but I have yet to discover what it is.

I think you see the matter very clearly.

[WesleyC]

Thanks to everyone who took the the time to respond. Special thanks to Trinidad for several well written responses (which happen to align with my personal opinion ).

At the table Partner held: [Kx xxx Kxxx T9xx] - which looks like the world's most obvious 2S bid to me!
He was worried about the opponents' 9 card heart fit and was considering an ambiguous 2NT bid to put more pressure on South to compete in hearts directly (rather than comfortably balancing 3H in the pass-out seat).

On the other side of the table, I concluded that my choice of action wasn't limited by the hesitation. A combination of Matchpoint Madness, over-aggressive opponents and table feel (South's 3H bid was also made after a significant hesitation) led me to a speculative double on [AQxxxx Qx Axx Kx]. Declarer failed to find the Qh so we picked up +200 and 97%. There was no director call, but the hand was brought up at pub that night, so I needed to clear my name!

[whereagles]

Trinidad, on 2014-October-26, 17:19, said:

If you look at all the hand types that the UI might indicate or might deny, you simply conclude that there are too many possibilities to be able to interpret the UI in such a way that you can indicate LAs that are demonstrably suggested by it.

Nicely put. That was my point as well.

[nige1]

deleted

[ggwhiz]

WesleyC, on 2014-October-26, 20:41, said:

I concluded that my choice of action wasn't limited by the hesitation.

I don't think you succeeded here.

Whatever the reason for the hesitation was, and I agree it is unclear but is part of the equation, double caters to ALL of them. I would have bid 3♠ as the all eggs in one basket bid that I could defend as not catering to every possibility which the "speculative" double clearly does.

[gszes]

It seems totally improbable that responders
initial pass was with any kind of strongish hand since they failed to
take any action over 3h. To me that means there is a very strong indication
that responder was trying to decide between weak alternatives with hands
ranging from xx xxx xxxxx(x) xx to xxx xx xxxxxx xx all weakish* hands but
with decent quality minor giving them good reason to think it may play better
than 2s. The point being is that w/o the hesitation we would have little to
no reason to assume p has a long "good" minor and UI would seem to indicate
we must PASS since double would be strongly indicated by the UI.

*there may be some minor suit hands where responder is near top of min but this
only further reinforces why opener must pass.

[neilkaz]

mcphee, on 2014-October-26, 02:20, said:

I do not quite follow the reasons for paying any attention to partners hesitation. Who cares what he did, we aresupposed to bid wht we have. The double is take out and partner was likely considering if pass was was worth the risk.

As others have said, partner may have been thinking about several things, but since he failed to hit 3♥ he certainly wasn't thinking about passing 2♥X.

[Vampyr]

WesleyC, on 2014-October-26, 20:41, said:

Thanks to everyone who took the the time to respond. Special thanks to Trinidad for several well written responses (which happen to align with my personal opinion ).

At the table Partner held: [Kx xxx Kxxx T9xx] - which looks like the world's most obvious 2S bid to me!
He was worried about the opponents' 9 card heart fit and was considering an ambiguous 2NT bid to put more pressure on South to compete in hearts directly (rather than comfortably balancing 3H in the pass-out seat).

On the other side of the table, I concluded that my choice of action wasn't limited by the hesitation. A combination of Matchpoint Madness, over-aggressive opponents and table feel (South's 3H bid was also made after a significant hesitation) led me to a speculative double on [AQxxxx Qx Axx Kx]. Declarer failed to find the Qh so we picked up +200 and 97%. There was no director call, but the hand was brought up at pub that night, so I needed to clear my name!

I don't think you have. At all. I was going to write something similar to nige1's posts, but I hesitated because, like him, I wondered what I was missing. As it seemed to me that double was the least ethical thing you could do, and I didn't know why someone had posed such a WTP question.

Those who have shown some agreement with you have, IMO, overthought the problem.

ggwhiz also put it well. You can call your double "speculative"; I call it "flexible".

[jallerton]

Trinidad, on 2014-October-26, 08:27, said:

Hi Graham,

The OP wrote:


I realize that there is a growing group of people out there who only play bridge over the internet. But this deal was clearly played with 52 pieces of card board in the fingers of four players sitting around one table, like they used to do in the 20th century. This was reality, without a place for the word "virtual". Wifi, dodgy or not, was not the cause of the hesitation.

Rik

Yes, when 20th century players make a mistake, they say "Sorry partner, pulled out the wrong card" rather than the modern equivalent of "misclick".

[nige1]

WesleyC, on 2014-October-26, 20:41, said:

Thanks to everyone who took the the time to respond. Special thanks to Trinidad for several well written responses (which happen to align with my personal opinion ). At the table Partner held: [Kx xxx Kxxx T9xx] - which looks like the world's most obvious 2S bid to me!
He was worried about the opponents' 9 card heart fit and was considering an ambiguous 2NT bid to put more pressure on South to compete in hearts directly (rather than comfortably balancing 3H in the pass-out seat). On the other side of the table, I concluded that my choice of action wasn't limited by the hesitation. A combination of Matchpoint Madness, over-aggressive opponents and table feel (South's 3H bid was also made after a significant hesitation) led me to a speculative double on [AQxxxx Qx Axx Kx]. Declarer failed to find the Qh so we picked up +200 and 97%. There was no director call, but the hand was brought up at pub that night, so I needed to clear my name!

Thank you, LesleyC. Directors sometimes disagree over the interpretation of UI law. Here, among the majority who agree with Trinidad's and your judgement are top players like phantomsac and top directors like gordontd. I think the WBFLC should include a simple instructional example like this in their paradigm rulings book. The few dissenters such as Fluffy, Vampyr and I would be able to learn the appropriate ruling in such a case, then use it to inform our own bidding decisions, although it's doubtful that we could ever understand it.

[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2014-October-28, 05:41, said:

Thank you, LesleyC. Directors sometimes disagree over the interpretation of UI law. Here, among the majority who agree with Trinidad's and your judgement are top players like phantomsac and top directors like gordontd. I think the WBFLC should include a simple instructional example like this in their paradigm rulings book. The few dissenters such as Fluffy, Vampyr and I would be able to learn the appropriate ruling in such a case, then use it to inform our own bidding decisions, although it's doubtful that we could ever understand it.

The simple example to remember is the poppa - momma auction:
1♠-2♠;
... 3♠ (invitational)

assuming that 3♠ is the only invitational bid.

Now, poppa knows that momma does not have the straight down the middle invitation. Either she was thinking between pass and 3♠ -in which case she would be minimum for the 3♠ bid- or she was thinking between 3♠ and 4♠ - in which case she would be maximum for the 4♠ bid. Poppa doesnot know which one of the two it is. So, the UI does not demonstrably suggest accepting the invitation over passing.

In the past, I believe Fluffy and others (Gnasher?) have argued that doubt between pass and 3♠ occurs more often than doubt between 3♠ and 4♠. Therefore, it would be more likely that the hesitator has a minimum invitation and that would mean that declining the invitation is suggested over accepting it. They do have a good point there. If the difference in probability between the two possible interpretations of the UI is getting large one should choose the more likely interpretation. My personal opinion is that this is not the case yet in the 1-2-3♠ example, but that is a matter of judgement / taste / gut feeling. I would not rule against someone who declines the invitation when 75% of his peers would have done the same (and, hence, accepting it would have been an LA, but only barely).

This 1-2-3♠ example is pretty clear: there are only two possible decisions (accept / decline) and there are only two possible interpretations of the UI (min / max). If one is mathematically aware (like Fluffy and Gnasher) one would be able to tell the difference in likelihood. In practice, many cases are much more complicated and this case is one of them. There are three possible decisions (pass / double / 3♠) and several interpretations for the UI. It is extremely unlikely that these interpretations are equally likely, so one will be the most likely. But at the table, I will not be able to reason which one it is. Even sitting at home, I can't say whether it is more likely for the hesitator to have a 10-11 point balanced hand or a hand with a minor on the side (but we could run a sim). If the player at the table will not be able to reason what interpretation is more likely then you cannot say that the UI suggests one alternative over an other.

Rik

[ggwhiz]

Trinidad, on 2014-October-28, 08:53, said:

If the player at the table will not be able to reason what interpretation is more likely then you cannot say that the UI suggests one alternative over an other.

You certainly can when the UI suggests 3 or 4 possibilities and you choose a double that would be a minority position given the 6th spade to cater to all of them.

[gordontd]

ggwhiz, on 2014-October-28, 12:41, said:

You certainly can when the UI suggests 3 or 4 possibilities and you choose a double that would be a minority position given the 6th spade to cater to all of them.

What is suggested by a call is not determined by the choice you make in response to it; it's closer to being the other way around.

[ArtK78]

I always decide to make my choice of action based entirely on the call that my partner has chosen, and not on the speed he took to choose it. It saves a lot of wear and tear on the brain cells.

[nige1]

Trinidad, on 2014-October-28, 08:53, said:

Even sitting at home, I can't say whether it is more likely for the hesitator to have a 10-11 point balanced hand or a hand with a minor on the side (but we could run a sim). If the player at the table will not be able to reason what interpretation is more likely then you cannot say that the UI suggests one alternative over an other.

Possible inferences: With a balanced 10-11 HCP and 3 ♠s, I'm told that few experts would

• Bid 1N rather than make some kind of raise.
• Bid 2♠ after your double.
• Pass 3♥.

[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2014-October-28, 12:55, said:

Possible inferences: With a balanced 10-11 HCP and 3 ♠s, I'm told that few experts would

• Bid 1N rather than make some kind of raise.
• Bid 2♠ after your double.
• Pass 3♥.

I was talking about a 10-11 balanced hand with 2 spades...

With such a hand they would:

• bid a semiforcing 1NT (the system in play according to the OP)
  
• show a preference with 2♠, but seriously consider bidding 2NT, causing the hesitation
  
• pass 3♥, since they don't want to bid a minor at the 4 level, and they certainly don't want to double opposite partner's possible / likely heart shortness

Rik

[ggwhiz]

gordontd, on 2014-October-28, 12:51, said:

What is suggested by a call is not determined by the choice you make in response to it; it's closer to being the other way around.

I have a lot of respect for your knowledge and abilities but have a hard time imagining that making a double that caters to ALL possibilities when it would not otherwise be the mainstream choice is ok. We know the UI is present and don't know what it indicates but we will surely land on our feet if we give partner bidding room that would normally (or logical alternatively) not be available to them.

I also find it troubling that the hesitator might have considered a semi-psyche of 2nt with no heart cards to muddy the waters and then..... passed? Bad actions that either or both players should know could be to their benefit.

[nige1]

Trinidad, on 2014-October-28, 13:41, said:

I was talking about a 10-11 balanced hand with 2 spades...

With such a hand they would:

• bid a semiforcing 1NT (the system in play according to the OP)
• show a preference with 2♠, but seriously consider bidding 2NT, causing the hesitation
• pass 3♥, since they don't want to bid a minor at the 4 level, and they certainly don't want to double opposite partner's possible / likely heart shortness

Thank you for clarifying, Trinidad. If responder's hesitant 2♠ and subsequent pass might well indicate your example hand, then the BIT suggests that opener double 3♥ rather than pass and pass rather than bid 3♠.