[VixTD]

In a club teams game last night (IMP scoring):

---

Both pairs were playing Acol, four-card majors, 12-14 NT. All were reasonable players.

Result: 5♠(N)-1, NS-50

East had reserved her rights after an agreed hesitation by North over 4♥.

I asked South why he had bid 4♠, and he said he had no defence against 4♥, so it looked clear to him to bid 4♠.

Do you think pass is a logical alternative to 4♠, and could 4♠ have been suggested by the hesitation? (If not, what about the 5♠ bid?)

If you're going to adjust the score, what would you adjust it to?

[Cyberyeti]

No LA, style of overcall might be important, but if partner is unlikely to have 4, even AKxxx, xxx, xxx, xx is only 5 losers with a 2-1 trump break whether the K♣ stands up or not. It looks like S was walking the dog all the way, I'd have bid 4♠ immediately.

I think it's equally likely partner was thinking of doubling as bidding so I'm not sure there's any useful info imparted here anyway.

[helene_t]

I am generally reluctant to ruling use of UI but here I think I would rule 4♥+1. South said he had no defense so without the BIT he would presumably have reasoned that 4♠ might well push them into a makeable slam. Without that comment I would not have been so sure that the BIT suggested anything in particular. If the BIT means that North was considering doubling 4♥ then it may well make 4♠ less attractive because it could be a phantom. But South thinks he has no defence so presumably he wouldn't be so concerned about a phantom.

[pran]

Much depends on regulations in force here, and in Norway every bid beginning with the 3♦ by East should be served with a STOP. (Competitive auction). Absent any information to the contrary I strongly suspect that this was forgotten.

Did the hesitation before the alleged slow pass exceed 10 seconds?

[VixTD]

pran, on 2015-July-03, 06:36, said:

Much depends on regulations in force here, and in Norway every bid beginning with the 3♦ by East should be served with a STOP. (Competitive auction). Absent any information to the contrary I strongly suspect that this was forgotten.

Did the hesitation before the alleged slow pass exceed 10 seconds?

I don't know, I only know that it was an agreed hesitation, but it's not really relevant anyway as it wasn't played in Norway.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2015-July-03, 06:36, said:

Much depends on regulations in force here, and in Norway every bid beginning with the 3♦ by East should be served with a STOP. (Competitive auction). Absent any information to the contrary I strongly suspect that this was forgotten.

Did the hesitation before the alleged slow pass exceed 10 seconds?

This did not occur in Norway, so Norwegian regulations are irrelevant. In England, the Stop card procedure does not apply to this auction, as there were no jumps. Since the procedure does not apply, the question "did the hesitation exceed 10 seconds" is irrelevant — normal tempo is usually (depending on the player involved) considerably less than this.

I see Vix already provided a shorter answer.

[blackshoe]

The questions here:

1. Was there a BIT? Yes, as was agreed.
2. What, demonstrably, could the BIT have suggested? Seems to me it suggests partner was thinking of bidding on.
3. Did the partner of the player who made the BIT choose from among LAs one which demonstrably could have been suggested? He did, unless there's no LA to 4♠
3a. What are the LAs? South argued (of course he did!) that he didn't think there was an LA to 4♠. So did the yeti. I'm not so sure.
4. Were the NOS damaged by the choice? Clearly.

When a player who makes a BIT could have been thinking of bidding on, or could have been thinking of doubling, these two things do not cancel each other out, so that there is no UI problem. if his partner takes an action which could have been suggested by either of these possibilities, the UI laws come into play.

I think pass is an LA, but I also think "reasonable" is a pretty vague description of the players. I would poll. Unless the poll confirms that there is no LA to 4♠ (and it seems to me that if the BIT could suggest doubling, that's at least one LA) Then I would adjust the score.

Question: if the LAs are 4♠ and double, do we adjust to 4♥ doubled +1? I would argue that if South doubles, North who had actually been thinking of 4♠ might take it out, and we're back to adjusting to 4♥ undoubled plus 1. Or are we?

[lamford]

I think that nothing is demonstrably suggested because I agree with Cyberyeti that North is equally likely to have been thinking of doubling. If he was thinking of bidding 4S, he would surely have done so at these colours. I don't think Pass for South over 4H is an LA - he tried to buy it in 3S, but that failed; now he is saving rather than bidding 4S to make. I would have also bid 4S on the previous round. It seems clear that Pass is an LA to 5S, but for the same reasons it is not demonstrably suggested. The only way to rule is to poll 10 players of equal ability.

[WesleyC]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-03, 07:29, said:

When a player who makes a BIT could have been thinking of bidding on, or could have been thinking of doubling, these two things do not cancel each other out, so that there is no UI problem. if his partner takes an action which could have been suggested by either of these possibilities, the UI laws come into play.

Here's a related question: If partner had given UI on this hand not via a break in tempo, but by pulling out a double card, thinking for a while and then replacing it with pass card what action(s) would that suggests that our hand takes?

[WesleyC]

On the question of whether passing 4H is a logical alternative: given South was prepared to bid 5S in the direct seat with no further information, how could passing 4H possibly be a logical alternative?

However, it does seem clear that passing 5H IS a logical alternative. If the director felt (based on the players involved) that North's hesitation was significantly more likely to be based on a choice between 4S and pass, rather than double and pass (and i'm not sure this is true) then adjusting the score to 5H undoubled making for +650 would be a reasonable ruling.

[mycroft]

• 3♠ makes no sense to me, except "bad" or "lazy" thinking. I can't even buy "walk the dog", as South has no idea where the lamp post *is*. And anyway, "your partner's thinking can certainly cause LA issues when you decide to play games". IMP scoring, white on red, (almost certainly) 10-11 card fit, we are only going to get to play 3♠ when it's wrong. If they bid 4♥ as they did, don't I want to bid over it? If they bid 3NT, don't I want to bid over it? If they bid 4♦, am I any farther ahead than if I forced them to show support at the 5 level? (A: possibly, if we think we can convince them to stop in "4♦ always makes". That dime looks pretty shiny.) So why give them the round to get it right?
  
• Sure "bidding or doubling". But North was considering doing *something*. If he wanted to sacrifice, well, so do I. If he wanted to double, well, one of his tricks isn't cashing (the spade East should have for my bid), so without a confident double, this is making, so I want to sacrifice.
  
• Having said all that, I'd have to peer-check for people who would bid only 3♠ with this hand to find out if they'd go. I *think* everybody would, because they were "hoping to buy it in 3, but since I have to..."
  
• Now, over 5♦, this is interesting. I still have one more spade than partner expects, but East's pull should give away the spade situation to him anyway. Should I not let partner make this decision? Does the UI that partner had a decision to make (and therefore will again) imply that I should take it out of his hands? Not sure.

I don't like this, and I *want* to rule "if you were going to bid 4♠ over 4♥, you would have done it over 3♥. Now, pass is a LA once partner makes it clear that pass is not going to be the right choice." But I don't think I'm going to find anybody who passes here (that doesn't mean I'm not going to try!) I also don't think that the 5 level call is influenced by the UI; it's just really bad bridge. On the other hand, it almost certainly means *South* didn't think partner was thinking of doubling, whether we might or not :-).

If I am adjusting the score, I guess it's because I said "for someone who only bids 3♠ the previous round, pass is a LA." So 4♥+1, NS -650 it would be.

[steve2005]

As an aside how did S hold 5♠ to -1? Looks to be -2 barring leading clubs at some point by east.

and should be doubled at imps at 5-level

[weejonnie]

These are the EBU guidelines

10 July 2014 113

8.16.2 What does a hesitation mean?
The L&EC considers that:
(a) A hesitation followed by a pass would normally be willing to hear partner bid on
(b) A hesitation followed by a minimum bid after RHO’s pass would normally have something in hand
© A hesitation followed by a penalty double is normally willing to see it removed

However, in cases such as
1 (pass) 3 [slow],
the 3 bidder might be considering a number of actions, i.e. the pause could have suggested either a 2½ or a 3½ bid.

Which is very helpful - it sort of indicates that 4♠ is demonstrably suggested. I would argue that South should have explained his reasoning better - he can of course do this in the appeals process, of which no doubt the OP advised him.

If the score is rolled back then it will have to be to 4♥ since everything up to then is OK (and we can't allow the 4♠ bid in any split scores) and it looks 100% to be +1. I don't think that X is a LA.

(In the EBU - if the double card is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent then the call has been made - even if another call hits the table)
(If partner makes a confident double e.g. by throwing the card forcefully onto the table, then I, as South, would bid 4♠since a pass is demonstrably suggested)

[WesleyC]

mycroft, on 2015-July-03, 10:50, said:

[list=1][*]3♠ makes no sense to me, except "bad" or "lazy" thinking. I can't even buy "walk the dog", as South has no idea where the lamp post *is*.

Just because you would never bid 3S and then 4S in a sequence like this, doesn't make it an illogical action and you should not let that effect your analysis of the deal. Bidding 3S with the intention of always bidding 4S IS a legitimate tactical choice especially against inexperienced opponents. That fact that South was allowed to play 5S undoubled on this hand is fairly strong proof that it can be successful.

The main reason that bidding 3S then 4S might be correct on this kind of hand is to change the tempo of the auction by allowing LHO to show a heart/diamond fit while suppressing the fact that you have a big spade fit. You also retain the ability to pull 4Hx (and avoid guessing if partner doubles 5H).

[VixTD]

Thanks for all your thoughts.

I thought that North is likely to have been thinking of bidding on rather than doubling, but that's probably based on a knowledge of the players rather than pure bridge sense. In general players at the club compete too much and double too little. I wasn't sure if pass was a logical alternative to 4♠. I'm prepared to accept that it isn't, but then it probably is to 5♠, so I'll leave the score adjustment I made on the night to NS -650.

I also don't see the point in bidding 3♠ and then 4♠ when you know you aren't going to buy the contract in 3♠. I don't know why the final contract wasn't doubled (I did ask at the time); perhaps that bolsters my theory that these players don't double enough. I didn't ask how if only went off one, but perhaps East cashed three red-suit winners and switched to a club, more out of hope than as a product of clear thinking.

I did also wonder whether EW might end up in diamonds rather than hearts, or might make only ten tricks in hearts, but maybe these are unlikely. They don't really affect the outcome significantly.

[mycroft]

WesleyC, on 2015-July-04, 07:44, said:

Just because you would never bid 3S and then 4S in a sequence like this, doesn't make it an illogical action and you should not let that effect your analysis of the deal.

See item 3. When it doesn't make sense to me, I poll players for whom it does make sense, exactly because of the effect that puts on my analysis.

Quote

Bidding 3S with the intention of always bidding 4S IS a legitimate tactical choice especially against inexperienced opponents. That fact that South was allowed to play 5S undoubled on this hand is fairly strong proof that it can be successful.

Exactly. It works against inexperienced opponents. Which also helps me find people to poll.

Quote

The main reason that bidding 3S then 4S might be correct on this kind of hand is to change the tempo of the auction by allowing LHO to show a heart/diamond fit while suppressing the fact that you have a big spade fit. You also retain the ability to pull 4Hx (and avoid guessing if partner doubles 5H).

Well, until your partner tank-passes 4♥, it works just wonderfully. And why does 3♠, partner's pass into 4♠, partner doubles 5♥ mean I don't have a guess? Also, *this* South avoided guessing if partner doubled 5♥ by - sacrificing before partner got a chance.

From a bridge perspective, I *like* not allowing the opponents to show double fits (or deny double fits) in "guess" auctions. I also like telling partner what I have, so she knows how much defence she has. And I don't have to guess if I bid 4♠ - I've made my guess, let the opponents take the last one. But that's my style - and again, shouldn't affect my ruling. I'll note that I didn't think I could find anyone who only bid 3♠ and would pass 4♥ even without the UI; and that unlike the OP, I didn't think that the UI, whatever it showed, could suggest 5♠ over pass of 5♦.

[WesleyC]

mycroft, on 2015-July-06, 14:16, said:

From a bridge perspective, I *like* not allowing the opponents to show double fits (or deny double fits) in "guess" auctions. I also like telling partner what I have, so she knows how much defence she has. And I don't have to guess if I bid 4♠ - I've made my guess, let the opponents take the last one. But that's my style - and again, shouldn't affect my ruling. I'll note that I didn't think I could find anyone who only bid 3♠ and would pass 4♥ even without the UI; and that unlike the OP, I didn't think that the UI, whatever it showed, could suggest 5♠ over pass of 5♦.

I agree with all your comments here and for the record I would never bid anything other than 4S on this hand.

It's somewhat off-topic but I remember the last time I bid 3S into 4S in a similar auction.

(1H) - X - (3D*Bergen) - ??? to me holding [JTxxxx --- Jxxx xxx]

If you've got the agreement that 3S into 4S suggests this kind of hand, its definitely a viable choice.

[nige1]

VixTD, on 2015-July-03, 04:55, said:

In a club teams game last night (IMP scoring): Both pairs were playing Acol, four-card majors, 12-14 NT. All were reasonable players. Result: 5♠(N)-1, NS-50 East had reserved her rights after an agreed hesitation by North over 4♥. I asked South why he had bid 4♠, and he said he had no defence against 4♥, so it looked clear to him to bid 4♠. Do you think pass is a logical alternative to 4♠, and could 4♠ have been suggested by the hesitation? (If not, what about the 5♠ bid?) If you're going to adjust the score, what would you adjust it to?

---

Assume that the director judges (perhaps with the aid of a poll) that pass is probably an LA over 4♥ and certainly an LA over 5♥, especially for a South who earlier bid only 3♠. (The director might ask South why). North may have been thinking of sacrificing or doubling but, IMO, the former is more common and in either case, North is likely to have sufficient values to reduce the chance of opponents making a slam. Hence, IMO, North's hesitation suggests sacrificing rather than passing. EW might have doubled 5♠ and they slopped a trick in defence but they don't seem guilty of serious error. The director might rule 4♥+1 if he reaches the same conclusion.

[ddrankin]

I agree with adjusting to 4♥ but I can't see a line that the defense can give up the overtrick, other than cashing two club tricks early, which seems quite unlikely, if not totally improbable. Can someone enlighten me?

[aguahombre]

Repeating theme. Attention, all dog walkers: if you didn't bid it previously, not bidding it now is a LA for you. Cite my source? Common sense. If I had to sit in for someone who died after bidding only 3S, it might be different. That might have been the cause of partner's BIT.

Anyone with a learning curve should know they are at the mercy of partner's BIT when they do this, and it is only one of the reasons not to slow-roll. "I was always gonna..." doesn't cut it.