Do you feel you can pull?

[Echognome]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sjxxhakjxxdcjt8xx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♥ - (2♦) - 2♠ - (4♦)

4♠ - (5♦) - X(H) - (P)

?[/hv]

 

Partner hesitates for awhile and then doubles. You had planned to pull to 5♠. Do you still do so?

[Winstonm]

Only if you want to go to committee. ;)

 

Winston

[Guest Jlall]

No, why would i ever pull? I have only 3 spades, I have a pard Xing in front of me in a forcing pass auction, My trumps are jack high, I have the AK of a suit partner is likely short in. I would not pull over any X, but DEFINITELY not over a slow double (which demonstrably suggests a pull).

[david_c]

Partner hesitates for awhile and then doubles. You had planned to pull to 5♠. Do you still do so?

No. It's against the rules.

[Walddk]

If you do, I will call the law and you will be sentenced to 3 years on stale bread and luke warm water. You will get the worst possible result for your side, so maybe 4½ years instead of 3.

 

Roland

[mikeh]

Iff I was truly sure that I was bidding 5♠ absent a tempo break, I bid 5♠ after the tempo break. I am not going to let my partner's break in tempo make me change my bid, any more than I would have passed had partner made a lightning double.

 

The committee may disagree with me, and, if so, I will try to accept their ruling without getting upset.

 

I think Justin posted on this idea earlier: it might not be a bad idea, if playing with screens, to write a quick note when bidding 4♠: 'if partner doubles 5♦, I am pulling'.

 

However, this note-writing has problems of its own, which could be the topic of another thread if the idea of note-writing in these situations took off.

 

My main worry is whether my decision to pull might have been formed when I first became (perhaps subconsciously) aware of the beginning of partner's break in tempo. If that were the case, then I think I have to pass. But otherwise, I make my bridge bid and worry about the committee later.

[Al_U_Card]

Like MikeH, I think the issue is more of "Who's zoomin' who?" on this auction and where should you be? Pard bid 2S freely, you have a 2 suiter with support and 1st rnd control of D. Forcing pass issues aside, even if he just barely has his bid, (the black KQ's say) 5S is a make and 5D dbld may not be a great result down 2.

 

When the 2D overcaller bid 5D, isn't he showing a lot of guts (read hope of making or going down only 1 or 2)?

 

Can opener still have thots of slam? (Pard could have the black AQ's for instance)

[Fluffy]

I think Justin posted on this idea earlier: it might not be a bad idea, if playing with screens, to write a quick note when bidding 4♠: 'if partner doubles 5♦, I am pulling'.

This doesn't work, you write the note only when partner has begun to think adn you noticed it. And you have already used the ilegal information.

[Robert]

Hello everyone

 

I joined the pass asks partner to double in hi level auctions some time ago.

 

Partners' double in my methods is forward going. If he really wants me to bid 5S, I will do so.

 

Playing normal methods, I pass. True the black KQs will make 5Ss, but if your big Ox of a partner holds the Diamond Ace or even AK, there can be a big hole in our side suits. His slow double might be a result of good values, but a wasted Ace or even AK of diamonds will produce a minus score 'if' we pull.

 

I have never lost in committee and this hand is not one that I want to attempt to continue my unbroken winning streak.

 

Regards,

Robert

[Blofeld]

Why was I planning to 5♠? I think this hand is much more suited to a pass.

 

That said, if I'd decided to pull to 5♠ over a double then I shouldn't let partner's hesitation affect my decision: bidding 5♠ would be the ethical thing to do.

[MickyB]

I disagree Owen - it isn't unethical to pass for fear of a ruling against you.

[luis]

Firts of all the legal issue: Can you legally pull or not.

Assume pd doubles in tempo, would you bid 5♠? Then you should bid 5♠ now, I fail to understand the UI explanations, pass can also be based on UI, the opponents can argue pd broke the tempo on purpose to make you pass the double fearing you would pull a quick double.

But pd might have been thinking about a forcing pass, a double or even a 5♠ bid by himself so it's not clear at all what the hesitation means. He could be deciding between a heavy penalty of 5♦ or making a slam try, who knows?

When the meaning of a hesitation is absolutely unclear there is no UI.

 

Then since you can legally pull should you? With a void in diamonds I think it is a close call, with a 4th spade and less defensive heart values a pull would be automatic, now I think it's up to your judgement and table feeling.

 

Luis

[MickyB]

Firts of all the legal issue: Can you legally pull or not.

Assume pd doubles in tempo, would you bid 5♠? Then you should bid 5♠ now, I fail to understand the UI explanations, pass can also be based on UI, the opponents can argue pd broke the tempo on purpose to make you pass the double fearing you would pull a quick double.

But pd might have been thinking about a forcing pass, a double or even a 5♠ bid by himself so it's not clear at all what the hesitation means. He could be deciding between a heavy penalty of 5♦ or making a slam try, who knows?

When the meaning of a hesitation is absolutely unclear there is no UI.

If pard has hesitated on a clearcut double, then the opponents could argue that, yes. Deliberately hesitating to get partner to pass is cheating, so I don't expect partner to have that hand.

 

There is a possibility partner was considering a slam-try; But most of the time he will have a hand unsure whether to double or compete to 5♠. The UI clearly suggests pulling IMO, and bidding 5♠ will get our side a bad result, either at the table or from the director.

[Trpltrbl]

I am bidding 5♠, I was going to with the thinking and I still am.

My defense is nog so great, but I have nice offensive hand.

I don't think you are going to lose this in a commitee.

 

GBB :blink:

[mikeh]

I think Justin posted on this idea earlier: it might not be a bad idea, if playing with screens, to write a quick note when bidding 4♠: 'if partner doubles 5♦, I am pulling'.

This doesn't work, you write the note only when partner has begun to think adn you noticed it. And you have already used the ilegal information.

Not so: the idea is to write the note when you bid 4♠, since it is reasonable to think that there MIGHT be (not WILL be) a 5♦ bid on your left. Even here, where there can be no suggestion that your decision was influenced by a hestitation, there are issues. You write a note, especially if it becomes common to do so in these situations, and you are telling your screenmate something about your hand in an improper fashion even when he can't read the note. When do you let him read it? When you pull? What if you write a note and then change your mind? can you be certain, even with screens, that your partner won't know that you are writing somethng? And so on.

[Fluffy]

Nice, so you bid 4♠ and write to your screenmate that if he bids 5♦ you will bid 5 :lol: (5♦ bidder is screenmate of south).

 

 

Now seriously, this doesn't work either. You can write the note, and then decide to not use it if partner doubled quick. Even if you could write the note when LHO bid 5♦ (you should be VERY quick mind for that), before moving the tray to the other side it wouln't have any legal value for the director.

[Rebound]

Firts of all the legal issue: Can you legally pull or not.

Assume pd doubles in tempo, would you bid 5♠? Then you should bid 5♠ now, I fail to understand the UI explanations, pass can also be based on UI, the opponents can argue pd broke the tempo on purpose to make you pass the double fearing you would pull a quick double.

But pd might have been thinking about a forcing pass, a double or even a 5♠ bid by himself so it's not clear at all what the hesitation means. He could be deciding between a heavy penalty of 5♦ or making a slam try, who knows?

When the meaning of a hesitation is absolutely unclear there is no UI.

 

Then since you can legally pull should you? With a void in diamonds I think it is a close call, with a 4th spade and less defensive heart values a pull would be automatic, now I think it's up to your judgement and table feeling.

 

Luis

This is precisely why I consider the whole issue of ui rulings a steaming pile of parrot droppings. I can easily see a future thread devoted to a similar hand on which the poster passed in this situation and was accused of using ui to decide not to pull. It's rediculous.

 

To me, it's just a shame people can't just grow up and play bridge. If I feel someone is deliberately trying to influence his/her partner's bidding by behaviour at the table, I will point this out to the director. Most people in this situation will try to bid what they would have in the absence of the hesitation. I think that's all that should be neccessary.

 

All that having been said, if I were to anticipate partner's double and always intended to pull to 5♠ then I would just as well after the hesitation. However, if I were not prepared for partner's double then pass is clear IMO.

[beatrix45]

Firts of all the legal issue: Can you legally pull or not.

Assume pd doubles in tempo, would you bid 5♠? Then you should bid 5♠ now, I fail to understand the UI explanations, pass can also be based on UI, the opponents can argue pd broke the tempo on purpose to make you pass the double fearing you would pull a quick double.

But pd might have been thinking about a forcing pass, a double or even a 5♠ bid by himself so it's not clear at all what the hesitation means.  He could be deciding between a heavy penalty of 5♦ or making a slam try, who knows?

When the meaning of a hesitation is absolutely unclear there is no UI.

 

Then since you can legally pull should you? With a void in diamonds I think it is a close call, with a 4th spade and less defensive heart values a pull would be automatic, now I think it's up to your judgement and table feeling.

 

Luis

:D I agree 110% with everything said above. The average ACBL tournament players are, IMO, being intimidated by an ethos intended for a few top experts in a handful of elite tournaments. When ordinary bridge players and tournament directors attempt to apply these rules in ordinary tournaments, they make a mess of it all too often. Cheaters just use 'upside down attitude' to steer an ethical, but confused and innocent partner toward the desired action.

 

Even if you disagree with the premise that the UI in this case is too ambiguous to base a ruling on, just where DO you draw the line? Can you EVER pull the double? Just as an exercise, ask yourself if you would bid the same way and then pull with:

 

K952

KQJ95

-

Q1094

 

how about

 

KQ52

KQ10842

-

Q103

 

As I understand it, the policy right now is that any action considered a 'reasonable alternative', in this case a pass, should be substituted for the bid suggested by the UI. This works fine at the elite level since any committee convened is likely to have a dozen world championships between them. They would be able to appreciate (one hopes) the degree of ambiguity in the UI conveyed by the hesitation. At lower levels of the game the elite manpower needed to implement such a system doesn't exist.

 

The old system of identifying and censuring unethical pairs worked fine except at the elite championship level. I, for one, would welcome its return for ordinary tournaments. Let bridge be fun again.

[david_c]

This is precisely why I consider the whole issue of ui rulings a steaming pile of parrot droppings. I can easily see a future thread devoted to a similar hand on which the poster passed in this situation and was accused of using ui to decide not to pull. It's rediculous.

No that's not right. The hesitation suggests pulling over passing - if partner was unsure whether double was right, then that makes passing the double less attractive. So, unless pass is not a logical alternative, you are obliged to pass. But the opposite situation can't happen: if you had chosen to pass, then there's no way that the TD will rule against you, because passing is not the action suggested by the hesitation.

 

Now, Luis suggests that partner may have hesitated deliberately to make sure that you pass. Even if you think this might have happened, it is STILL your responsibility to pass here. The point is, if partner did hesitate deliberately, then that is the infraction, not your fielding it. From your point of view, you have to assume that partner's hesitation is genuine, and in that case it clearly suggests pulling the double, so you must not do that unless you think pass is illogical.

 

To me, it's just a shame people can't just grow up and play bridge. If I feel someone is deliberately trying to influence his/her partner's bidding by behaviour at the table, I will point this out to the director. Most people in this situation will try to bid what they would have in the absence of the hesitation. I think that's all that should be neccessary.

 

Sorry, but that's not right either. If someone is deliberately trying to influence their partner, then that is cheating. Certainly, that should be dealt with very severely. But normal UI cases are not about cheating. Most hesitations are not deliberate attempts to influence partner, but they're still hesitations, and if partner was allowed to take advantage of them then that would be totally unfair on the opponents. By all means, go ahead and make the bid that you would have done without the hesitation, but if that bid happens to be suggested by the hesitation then you must expect the TD to rule against you.

[luis]

Now, Luis suggests that partner may have hesitated deliberately to make sure that you pass. Even if you think this might have happened, it is STILL your responsibility to pass here. The point is, if partner did hesitate deliberately, then that is the infraction, not your fielding it. From your point of view, you have to assume that partner's hesitation is genuine, and in that case it clearly suggests pulling the double, so you must not do that unless you think pass is illogical.

 

What you say doesn't make sense, you are basically saying that this player can't think,

if pulling is right you will say it was suggested by the break in tempo, if passing is right you can say it was suggested by the break in tempo. It can't be that way.

As far as I know any player has the right to think. If the break in tempo gives his pd information he can't use it. In this case I don't think the break in tempo gives any sort of information since as I said he could be thinking about a lot of things.

[MickyB]

What you say doesn't make sense, you are basically saying that this player can't think

A player can't hesitate to limit the options of his ethical partner. Of course thinking is ok.

 

if pulling is right you will say it was suggested by the break in tempo, if passing is right you can say it was suggested by the break in tempo. It can't be that way.

 

That isn't what was said. I agree, only one of these two actions can be suggested by the UI - In this case, it is pulling. Passing in this situation when you would have pulled had partner not hesitated is not an infraction.

 

If the break in tempo gives his pd information he can't use it.

 

More than that - he should not make a call that is suggested by the UI over other logical alternatives.

 

It is clear to me here that the break in tempo suggests pulling. If pass would have been forcing, then partner was probably considering a forcing pass which you would then pull. If pass would have been non-forcing, pard was probably considering either a pass or a 5♠ bid, either of which suggests competing to 5♠.

 

The responses to this thread indicate that pass is certainly a logical alternative, so it is an infraction to pull the double.

 

If partner has hesitated with a clearcut double, he has committed an infraction. Committing another one yourself doesn't help.

[SchTsch]

What you say doesn't make sense, you are basically saying that this player can't think,

if pulling is right you will say it was suggested by the break in tempo, if passing is right you can say it was suggested by the break in tempo. It can't be that way.

As far as I know any player has the right to think. If the break in tempo gives his pd information he can't use it. In this case I don't think the break in tempo gives any sort of information since as I said he could be thinking about a lot of things.

I think this is the whole problem.

If partner has only two choices it's easy, he should either bid in tempo and leave the decision to you, or take a break in tempo to decide what to do and then his decision should be final (except if it is obviously totally absurd).

But if partner has three or more choices I think it's normal for him to break a tempo, and there is no UI as there is not one specific bid suggested but at least two.

 

In this case I think that partner could be thinking about lot of things, maybe he wants to investigate a slam? After all you were preempted.

[david_c]

But if partner has three or more choices I think it's normal for him to break a tempo, and there is no UI as there is not one specific bid suggested but at least two.

First of all, if you mean "it's normal for him to think for a few seconds" then I would agree. However, that then is not a break in tempo, by definition. On the other hand, if partner really did take an exceptional amount of time to double, then it doesn't matter how difficult his problem is, it's still a break in tempo and you have UI.

 

Secondly, there may be cases where a hesitation doesn't suggest anything in particular, but this ain't one of them. Partner's hesitation means that he was considering not doubling. That makes it more likely that pulling the double is right. We don't need to know exactly what partner was considering in order to work this out. In fact it's irrelevant what partner was thinking about - he might be thinking about something completely unrelated to bridge for all we know, but it doesn't make any difference. All that matters is what the hesitation suggests. Here it clearly suggests that pulling is more likely to be right than if there was no hesitation, so you're not allowed to pull if pass is a logical alternative.

[Fluffy]

Now, Luis suggests that partner may have hesitated deliberately to make sure that you pass. Even if you think this might have happened, it is STILL your responsibility to pass here. The point is, if partner did hesitate deliberately, then that is the infraction, not your fielding it. From your point of view, you have to assume that partner's hesitation is genuine, and in that case it clearly suggests pulling the double, so you must not do that unless you think pass is illogical.

 

What you say doesn't make sense, you are basically saying that this player can't think,

if pulling is right you will say it was suggested by the break in tempo, if passing is right you can say it was suggested by the break in tempo. It can't be that way.

As far as I know any player has the right to think. If the break in tempo gives his pd information he can't use it. In this case I don't think the break in tempo gives any sort of information since as I said he could be thinking about a lot of things.

Also you are forgeting it may be RHO who has been tinking in purpose after partner made a very quick double.