Keep going?

[kenberg]

Pass 1D 4H Pass

Pass ?

 

You opened 1D, South, second position, v against nv at imps.

You have no explicit agreements but you trust your partner to make a sensible interpretation of your call.

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sthk5dkq7432cakq9]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

[BudH]

I would normally bid 4NT to show the primary diamonds and secondary (two cards less in length) clubs.

 

The problem is my Kx of hearts which I want to prevent attack on opening lead.

 

Therefore, I'm going to bid clubs myself to ensure Kx of hearts is not attacked.

 

Bud H

[whereagles]

V vs NV and with pard rating to have a weakish hand with spades, I think'll pass this one...

[kenberg]

I felt the hand worthy of discussion, but it's time to admit to a hidden purpose. What actually happened at the tabel was:

 

Pass 1D Pass Long, long thought then pass

Pass 5D All pass

 

At this point (before my final pass) I summoned the director who said "perhaps he has his bid". I agreed this could be so, not yet knowing the hands. After the hands became known, I brought this up again with the director who saw nothing wrong with the call. I believe online bridge, and really all bridge, should be played with a reasonably trusting spirit but I thought the 5D call needed addressing. Lacking the hesitation, there is serious difficulty in getting to exactly 5D. Dummy has five diamonds to the ace, a stiff heart, and a spade suit not including the ace. No one else passed with that hand. Some ended in 4S down, some in 5D, some in 6D down. Of course the opposing hand has a right to pass so I have no quarrel with not getting to defend 4S, but I do quarrel with the route to 5D. It turns out that 5H is a good sac aganst 5D but I think this is irrelevant. I, the partner of the premptor, would never have considered 5H no matter how 5D was reached. Too great a chance they will make either 10 or 12 tricks in diamonds.

 

We all do what we think is right and I am sure the director was doing as she thought best. But just as directors must from time to time call players to task, players need to also speak up if they feel the directors have it wrong. I felt this was a bad call.

 

Ken

[pbleighton]

The director was clearly wrong, because of the length of the pass (I assume you brought this to his attention). Opps should be rolled back to 150.

 

Peter

[kenberg]

Sure, and while I cannot say the exact length of time, it was considerable and I think the director can simply push a button (or something) and see how long it took.

 

I'm not on any great crusade here, but I did think this case extreme. I probably would have let it go if the call had been 4N or 5C (although not happily) but I thought 5D was just not possible on the auction and cards.

[david_c]

I don't think it is a clear ruling at all. A majority of people who have responded to the poll would not pass. So it seems to be a close decision as to whether pass is a LA. Note that if the player does not pass, it doesn't matter what they choose to do - they will always end up in 5♦. So even though you may think that 5♦ is unacceptable and 4NT or 5♣ would be OK, the director would not adjust the score for this reason since there is no damage. There is only damage if the director decides that pass is a LA.

[pclayton]

I don't think it is a clear ruling at all. A majority of people who have responded to the poll would not pass. So it seems to be a close decision as to whether pass is a LA. Note that if the player does not pass, it doesn't matter what they choose to do - they will always end up in 5♦. So even though you may think that 5♦ is unacceptable and 4NT or 5♣ would be OK, the director would not adjust the score for this reason since there is no damage. There is only damage if the director decides that pass is a LA.

Ah but 1/3 of them (including me) would pass, so I think Pass is certainly a LA.

 

Does Kaplan's 75% rule still get quoted?

[david_c]

Ah but 1/3 of them (including me) would pass, so I think Pass is certainly a LA.

Absolutely - that's why it's helpful to be able to take a poll. On the basis of this poll we'd decide that pass was a LA. But a BBO director might not have time to take a poll, and might see the hand differently and decide that pass was not a LA. I don't think that would be an unreasonable decision. It just seems close enough that it might go either way.

[paulg]

Sure, and while I cannot say the exact length of time, it was considerable and I think the director can simply push a button (or something) and see how long it took.

 

I'm not on any great crusade here, but I did think this case extreme. I probably would have let it go if the call had been 4N or 5C (although not happily) but I thought 5D was just not possible on the auction and cards.

You could argue that 5♦ is not demonstrably suggested by the long pass over other alternatives and is just a poor bid that has worked? And hence no reason to adjust?

 

Paul

[PhantomSac]

You could argue that 5♦ is not demonstrably suggested by the long pass over other alternatives and is just a poor bid that has worked? And hence no reason to adjust?

 

Paul

Bidding ANYTHING is clearly suggested by the break in tempo. Pass is a logical alternative. Thus, it should be adjusted to 4H undoubled.

[Finch]

This case is not as clear as that.

 

I've just voted, which now makes the total vote for a pass about 28% of the total.

The EBU guideline is that something is a LA if 30%+ of the player's peers would bid it, so right now in the EBU the TD's ruling is correct.

 

Other jurisdictions have slightly different interpretations of what makes a LA.

 

I agree with david_c that a ruling either way is not obviously wrong.

[SoTired]

I felt the hand worthy of discussion, but it's time to admit to a hidden purpose. What actually happened at the tabel was:

 

Pass 1D Pass Long, long thought then pass

Pass 5D All pass

I call the director because 3 passes are supposed to end the auction. :)

 

However, assuming that the bidding was actually Pass 1D 4H long-pause-Pass Pass 5D, there is clearly UI.

 

Since bidding rather than passing is suggested by the long pause, Pass was a reasonable alternative to bidding, and the opponents were damaged; the director should have changed the final result to 4H undoubled awarding the normal number of tricks that contract would make.

[kenberg]

Oops, yes, one fewer passes.

 

I think that if this happened at, say, a regional tournament there would be no question. In theory, online bridge, club bridge, regional tourneys, etc are all the same. But "In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, they are not--- Yogi Berra"

 

I like the acbl tourneys online because they are competently directed (I have a specific objection here, but in general I think they do a fine job) and generally attract people who play at about my level and have about my attitude. Of course there is a range of talent, personalities, what have you but basically I feel comfortable.

 

In practice, this means that I am mostly willing to accept my opponnents' own estimate of whether or not they have their bid. Mostly, I agree with them. To reverse the spotlight for a moment, although I have forgotten the hand there was a time a few weeks back where my partner hesitated, I bid, we got a good result. An opponent complimented me on my bid. I'm not sure I should take that compliment at face value. I felt I had my call, but perhaps he didn't think so. I took it to heart and try to remind myself to be careful.

 

In the case at hand, when the auction rolls around to the D bidder, I can imagine a quandry. He thinks, as many here did, some action is called for. He also knows it is safer now than after an in tempo pass. If after thinking it over, he decides on 4N or 5C, I'll take his implied word for it that he believes he would have bid this w/o the hesitation. But 5D? We all can convince ourselves that we "would have done it anyway" but here, while I don't doubt he thinks he would have, I really have trouble thinking that anyone would bid 5D.

 

 

It's probably true that if he bids, say, 5C his partner will simply correct to 5D. It doesn't completely let them off the hook. Imagine yourself, in the other hand, holding the A fifth of diamonds and a stiff heart along with a decent spade suit headed by the KQ. For whatever reason, you pass in tempo over 4H. You wouldn't but imagine you did. Now partner bids 5C. Might you not at least consider 6D? Of course if you have already shown your values by tanking for 45 seconds or so, there is no need for such agressive action.

 

Online directors have a lot to do, I suspect it's more a labor of love than a career, and I don't want to push too hard. Still, 5D? No sale. Director had no objection, I do.

[jikl]

My vote just brought it up to about 39% for pass, clearly a LA.

 

Sean

[blackshoe]

In the case at hand, when the auction rolls around to the D bidder, I can imagine a quandry. He thinks, as many here did, some action is called for. He also knows it is safer now than after an in tempo pass. If after thinking it over, he decides on 4N or 5C, I'll take his implied word for it that he believes he would have bid this w/o the hesitation. But 5D? We all can convince ourselves that we "would have done it anyway" but here, while I don't doubt he thinks he would have, I really have trouble thinking that anyone would bid 5D.

"I would have made <whatever call> without the UI" is not justification for making that call with UI. When you have UI, there are only two possible justifications for making a particular call: (1) "I didn't have a logical alternative" or (2) "sure, <some other call> is a logical alternative, but the UI doesn't suggest <whatever call> would be better than the LA". Many players don't know this, but it's the law. Some players know it, but can't (or can't be bothered to) work out whether the call they want to make is legal. A worse problem, though, is that some TDs don't understand this law. About the only thing you can do there is try to educate them - but not at the table! :).

 

Another point: some folks think that if you have AI that suggests a certain call, the AI "cancels" any UI that makes the same suggestion over some LA. Not so. Only if the AI eliminates the LA can you make the suggested call. IOW, the AI must put you in the "I didn't have a logical alternative" situation mentioned above.

 

In the case in point, if pass is an LA to 4N and 5C, then neither call is allowed, whether or not the player would have made it without the UI.

[mr1303]

If this happened online, then it becomes even harder to rule, since the BIT could be attributed to any number of reasons, such as the player going to the loo, making a drink, yelling at his/her husband/wife etc etc, or just a temporary lag with the internet connection.

[kenberg]

If this happened online, then it becomes even harder to rule, since the BIT could be attributed to any number of reasons, such as the player going to the loo, making a drink, yelling at his/her husband/wife etc etc, or just a temporary lag with the internet connection.

My partner, a congenial sort, suggested this as well. My reply was "It could be, but it wasn't". Of course I cannot be certain and if the penalty were incarceration or death I would have to allow for reasonable doubt. I suppose it could be argued that having to pass the hand out is a more horrible fate than incarceration, more or less equivalent to death.

 

Again an example: The other day lho opened a club, rho bid a heart, and I held something like KQTxx of spades and very modest values in the side suits. Maybe I should have bid a spde but I didn't. LHO raised to 2H and now pard thought for a while and passed. Sure, maybe he was feeding the dog or whatever, but when it came to me I passed it out. Pard had five spades to the 9.

 

Online bridge is still, imo, searching for its identity. It's not the Reisinger, or even a flight A Regional event, but it is supposed to be bridge. I seriously doubt the 5D bidder was making his call assuming his partner's long pause was due to a fight with his wife. Could be, of course.

[pbleighton]

"Online bridge is still, imo, searching for its identity."

 

I disagree.

 

It has found its identity.

 

It is casual bridge.

 

Peter

[bid_em_up]

I felt the hand worthy of discussion, but it's time to admit to a hidden purpose. What actually happened at the tabel was:

 

Pass    1D    Pass    Long, long thought then pass

Pass    5D    All pass

I assume you mean 1♦-(4♥)-tank, then pass-(p)-5D all pass.

 

In this case, it should be fairly clear that opener has UI. But is pass really a logical alternative? I dont think so. How many would actually pass on this hand, if partner passed in tempo?

 

Had opener bid anything but 5D, I would be willing to agree with it. But come on, 5D? Holding AKQx ♣ and a crappy diamond suit??!!

 

Double I could accept; 4N I could accept; 5C I could accept. Any of these bids are logical (although double is a bad one) alternatives. While pass is certainly an alternative, how logical it is, is an entirely different question. Since any of the other bids should result in partner (now known as "Tank" throughout the world) bidding 5D, I would reluctantly have to agree that no damage has occured.

 

You also must take into account that a preemptive bid by its very nature will usually cause an opponent to take additional time to consider your bid and his next bid. Had partners pass been made in a flash.....so that you know he has absolutely no problem whatsoever, is the call that I would be concerned about.

[kenberg]

Your view on the bids is pretty much mine, bid em. I thnk the issue of damage is a bit subtle though. After the 4H peempt, pairs did get to 6D off one. Tank, then correct 5C to 5D, is a good way to say: Pard, let's go 5 but that's the limit.

 

I am not suggesting that was the intent, only the effect.

 

I'm over it now, but this 5D bid ticked me off. Usually I stay cool.

[EricK]

In this case, it should be fairly clear that opener has UI. But is pass really a logical alternative? I dont think so. How many would actually pass on this hand, if partner passed in tempo?

 

Had opener bid anything but 5D, I would be willing to agree with it. But come on, 5D? Holding AKQx ♣ and a crappy diamond suit??!!

 

Double I could accept; 4N I could accept; 5C I could accept. Any of these bids are logical (although double is a bad one) alternatives. While pass is certainly an alternative, how logical it is, is an entirely different question. Since any of the other bids should result in partner (now known as "Tank" throughout the world) bidding 5D, I would reluctantly have to agree that no damage has occured.

Why is double bad?

 

If you were going to bid eg 5♣ then doubling and correcting 4♠ to 5♣ is just as effective but allows for the possibility of playing in 4♥X.

[bid_em_up]

Because 4H x'd is quite likely making and partner may not pull every time he needs to, and our values are too concentrated in our two suits. :o