Ruling

[quantumed]

In a local MP event one hand caused some dispute.[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sak108hxdxxcak109xx&s=sqxxhk10xdkxxcjxxx]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

Bidding went 1C (can be short)- 1NT (6-10) / 2S - 3C/ 5C - AP

Problem was that there were two hesitations. First when N bid 2S, second when S bid 3C, both hesitations about 8-10 seconds. N thought they don't play lebenshol in this sequence and S thought they did. So 3C was forcing to S, NF but denied H stopper to N. N figured that he needed no more than SQ DK or spade doubleton and 4 clubs from partner to play a decent 5C so he bid 5C nevertheless. TD was called for hesitation. What's your opinion on this hand?

[Finch]

Result stands.

 

There is only an adjustment if the unauthorised information (the hesitations)

i) Suggests one particular action over another, and

ii) The partner of the hesitator chooses an action that is suggested

 

the hesitation before bidding 2S doesn't say anything other than North wasn't sure what to bid; it doesn't suggest any call over any other call that I can see.

 

it's not clear to me at all what the hesitation before bidding 3C suggests: it might suggest South was thinking of bidding 2NT, which (if that is natural) would, if anything, discourage North from bidding 5C; it might suggest South was thinking of raising spades or bidding a red suit which also, if anything would discourage North from bidding 5C. So if anything, the hesitation before bidding 3C suggests not bidding 5C. As it is, 3NT is clearly a far superior spot.

[DrTodd13]

No adjustment. The pause over 1N could be considering 2♣, 2♠, 3♣, 4♣. The pause doesn't really tell you anything or suggest a logical alternative. Same thing with 3♣. It could be considering 3♣ or 3♦ or 3♠. Neither of the pauses suggest anything so I wouldn't make an adjustment. I think this is so clear cut that if they appealed I'd be arguing for an appeal without merit.

[jtfanclub]

In a local MP event one hand caused some dispute.

Dealer: North Vul: None Scoring: MP

♠ AK108 ♥ x ♦ xx ♣ AK109xx ♠ Qxx ♥ K10x ♦ Kxx ♣ Jxxx

Bidding went 1C (can be short)- 1NT (6-10) / 2S - 3C/ 5C - AP

Problem was that there were two hesitations. First when N bid 2S, second when S bid 3C, both hesitations about 8-10 seconds. N thought they don't play lebenshol in this sequence and S thought they did. So 3C was forcing to S, NF but denied H stopper to N. N figured that he needed no more than SQ DK or spade doubleton and 4 clubs from partner to play a decent 5C so he bid 5C nevertheless. TD was called for hesitation. What's your opinion on this hand?

Tough for me to imagine passing the non-forcing 3♣ bid with North's hand. South is pegged for 3 clubs, which means at most 4 losers and 6-10 hcp to cover them. Furthermore, I don't see how a hesitation by S implies that bidding on is the correct bid. S could have been considering passing 2♠, bidding 3♠, or something else. I would not correct the bid.

 

If S did not announce the failure to alert the Lebensohl after the auction but before the opening lead in a ftf tournament, I would adjust the lead if North's explanation conviced East to lead a heart instead of the lethal diamond.

[SoTired]

Result stands.

 

There is only an adjustment if the unauthorised information (the hesitations)

i) Suggests one particular action over another, and

ii) The partner of the hesitator chooses an action that is suggested

3) The non-offending side was damaged

4) The damage was a direct result of the infraction

 

Hesitating to think carries no penalty. (God forbid). Since neither bid suggests one action over another, there was no infraction. In a non-competitive auction, it is hard to believe any hesitation can carry any UI. (Although someone will probably demonstrate that as soon as I post this B) )

 

However, a "lighten up, folks" announcement by the director seems appropriate

[Finch]

In a non-competitive auction, it is hard to believe any hesitation can carry any UI. (Although someone will probably demonstrate that as soon as I post this)

Yup.

Some forms of very, very traditional UI cases in an uncontested auction:

 

The slow sign-off:

 

1C 1S

3S 4H

4S* 5D

6S

 

*slow

 

1C 3S (splinter)

3NT* 4C

 

The special form of the slow sign-off with its own name: hesitation blackwood

 

1S 3S

4NT 5H

5S* 6S

 

*slow

 

(these aren't automatic adjustments: one can find hands where the other hand has no logical alternatives to his action even with the hesititation)

[Echognome]

What about the non-alerted splinter? I remember a case in nationals:

 

North South

1♠ - 2♣

3♥* - 4NT

6♣! - Pass

 

*Intended as a splinter, but not alerted as was required by the SO if playing splinters.

 

South thought North's 3♥ bid showed a distributional 55 and North thought it was a splinter agreeing clubs. NS do not have an agreement as to what a 6♣ response would be to Blackwood.

[kenberg]

Certainly hesitations in uncontested auctions can create a UI problem Examples abound. Actually I think this one creates a small problem. Given that N thinks Lebensohl does not apply here it follows that S would make exactly the same call if his king of diamonds was the jack of diamonds, only he would bid it without thought. It's not that the hesitation shows the king of diamonds (although it does suggest he might have been thinking of NT and therefore holds some stuff in the red suits) but it does deny the weak hand.

 

OTOH, expecting N to pass 3C, even if it might (but might not) be very weak, is not right. 3C-4C-5C seems completely reasonable so no adjustment. I fault the jump to 5C, but I don't adjust.

[cherdano]

it's not clear to me at all what the hesitation before bidding 3C suggests: it might suggest South was thinking of bidding 2NT, which (if that is natural) would, if anything, discourage North from bidding 5C; it might suggest South was thinking of raising spades or bidding a red suit which also, if anything would discourage North from bidding 5C. So if anything, the hesitation before bidding 3C suggests not bidding 5C. As it is, 3NT is clearly a far superior spot.

I don't think it is clear without knowing the pair. However, I have certainly had partners where I would have guessed from the hesitation in a similar situation with about 90% certainty that partner was not sure whether Lebensohl applies. If I had taken advantage of that, I am sure no TD would have been able to punish me for it... It's a bit of a mess.

(In the case here, it would certainly suggest bidding over passing, so if pass is a logical alternative (which I think it is)...)

[Guest Jlall]

I disagree with the majority here. I think tanking before bidding a NF 3C means that south has extras and was contemplating bidding more almost all of the time. It follows the general rule that a tank signoff shows extras. Remember, north thought the 3C was non forcing, so in his mind his partner signed off slowly. I would make north pass 3C since in my mind, the hesitation demonstrably suggests bidding on and passing is a clear logical alternative.

[jtfanclub]

passing is a clear logical alternative.

Really? N has a borderline 2♣ opener, and might make 3♣ across a 0 count given the expected shape from the 1NT bid. If 3♣ means what N thinks it means, it's actually a positive response for him, since heart honors are far less valuable to him than diamond or spade honors.

 

How much better would N have to be before you'd say passing 3♣ is no longer a LA?

[glen]

I second the minority Justin opinion, if the 3♣ was marked by a break in tempo. I say "break in tempo" because 8 to 10 seconds for some folks faced with a slightly unusual situation would be their normal thinking time. So if 3♣ took noticeably longer than normal, then it makes 5♣ far more likely to succeed.

[cherdano]

passing is a clear logical alternative.

Really? N has a borderline 2♣ opener, and might make 3♣ across a 0 count given the expected shape from the 1NT bid. If 3♣ means what N thinks it means, it's actually a positive response for him, since heart honors are far less valuable to him than diamond or spade honors.

 

How much better would N have to be before you'd say passing 3♣ is no longer a LA?

Borderline 2♣ opener? You have 14 hcp and 5 losers, a 2-suiter with longer minor... give me another ace and I will consider 2♣...

 

I don't think this hand has much extras for the 2♠ bid - if any at all. A reverse into a suit responder has denied is a pretty strong bid for me.

[Codo]

I second Justins statement. Opposite a weak 3 Club bid (not playing Lebensohl) North has no reason to proceed with 5 Club.

Ruling will be 3 Club +2?

 

I agree that north has a borderline 2 Club opener. But just if you play prescission :)

[quantumed]

Thank you for all the kind responses. After reading them, I realize that the real question here is down to how good you feel the north hand is. Some take positive views and think passing 3C is impossible, some are more negative about it and think even the 2♠ bid is too much of a stretch. Indeed how good is that 14 count opposite a minimum responder?

 

Well, I was the north player as you might have guessed. Several bids came to me after seeing the 1NT response, 2♣, 2♠, 3♣, 3NT. 2♣ is an underbid. My partner is marked with 3 or 4 clubs, which means I can easily gather 8 tricks so 3NT is very nice. The next question is, should I take the chances and blast into 3NT and hope partner give me ♥A/♥K, or should I bid it slowly? Opponents have 9+ hearts, so I'd expect a heart lead anyway, so 3NT is out. Between 2♠ and 3♣ I found 3C not clear-cut, also not a strong enough invitation. Therefore I bid 2♠, hoping partner will find a natural response of 2NT. As you can see 3NT is a much superior contract.

 

Of course there came the misunderstanding later in that 3C bid. But from my point of view, my parnter has denied a heart stop, which makes 5C feasible even he held a dead minimum, say SQ + DK/DA. Denying the heart stopper made those points the very possibility. Moreover, he could bid 3♣ on an 8P aceless hand, say SQ DKJ HJ CJ. Of course you can argue that he could have DQJ instead of a K and CQ instead of SQ, but I took the more positive view and were happy to give it a try. By the way my partner has a reputation of slow player and I barely noticed his hesitation. When faced with a slightly abnormal bid, 8-10s thinking was "in-tempo" of him. :)

[kenberg]

I said above that 5C is out, but 4C raised to 5C sounds right. I have had second thoughts about this, prompted I suppose by other's comments. The dummy is strong, some cards working (although others not), still the hand has a fair chance of losing three tricks off the top. Add to that the not remote, though not likely, chance of Qxx of clubs offside (around 12%). My thinking was that surely anyone would bid 4C with the N hand, but maybe that's not such a great bid since the 5C contract is hardly a laydown even with this rather decent dummy. It's not clear N wants partner to raise to 5 with this, and surely he will. At any rate, passing 3C does seem like a live option. I prefer not to yell director every time an opponent sneezes, but I think the roll-it-backers are right here.

 

Let me say that I appreciate you and others for putting questions like this up in a dispassionate way for public discussion. We all face these problems. We cannot just say that partner thought so I must pass, but it does constrain us and we want to get it right.

[han]

So 2S took 8-10 seconds, and then 3C took also 8-10 seconds. Is this clearly a hesitation? Sounds more like slow bidders to me.

 

If yes then I agree with Justin.

[Guest Jlall]

passing is a clear logical alternative.

Really? N has a borderline 2♣ opener, and might make 3♣ across a 0 count given the expected shape from the 1NT bid. If 3♣ means what N thinks it means, it's actually a positive response for him, since heart honors are far less valuable to him than diamond or spade honors.

 

How much better would N have to be before you'd say passing 3♣ is no longer a LA?

There are many hands which partner can have where 5C does not make opposite a 3C signoff, so in my mind that makes pass a logical alternative.

[jtfanclub]

passing is a clear logical alternative.

Really? N has a borderline 2♣ opener, and might make 3♣ across a 0 count given the expected shape from the 1NT bid. If 3♣ means what N thinks it means, it's actually a positive response for him, since heart honors are far less valuable to him than diamond or spade honors.

 

How much better would N have to be before you'd say passing 3♣ is no longer a LA?

There are many hands which partner can have where 5C does not make opposite a 3C signoff, so in my mind that makes pass a logical alternative.

That does not, to me, make 3♣ a LA. It makes 4♣ a LA.

 

This is a 4 loser hand, since if AKxx is only one loser surely AKTxxx is no losers. That partner has promised at least three clubs (which does not look valuable to him as yet) further promises no losers in clubs.

 

It's difficult to manufacture a hand for responder that fits the bidding and fails to make 4♣ over 50% of the time. For example...

 

xx

xxx

xxxx

xxxx

 

makes 4 without a single high card point. If my partner passed 3♣ with a monster like this that should make 9 tricks across a balanced nothing, I would be extremely shocked.

 

I think the logical bids are 4♣ and 5♣. The hesitation implies slam is more likely to be successful. 4♣ enables you to find the the slam, if partner has, say 5 clubs and the AK of diamonds. 5♣ will not. Therefore, 4♣ should be the barred bid.

[starfruit]

Hi quantumed!

Seems like we've shared bottom board for this together :lol:

(3NT usually makes 10/11 tricks, but 5♣ goes down if defense does not slip)

 

That does not, to me, make 3♣ a LA. It makes 4♣ a LA.

 

This is a 4 loser hand, since if AKxx is only one loser surely AKTxxx is no losers. That partner has promised at least three clubs (which does not look valuable to him as yet) further promises no losers in clubs.

 

It's difficult to manufacture a hand for responder that fits the bidding and fails to make 4♣ over 50% of the time. For example...

 

xx

xxx

xxxx

xxxx

 

makes 4 without a single high card point. If my partner passed 3♣ with a monster like this that should make 9 tricks across a balanced nothing, I would be extremely shocked.

 

I think the logical bids are 4♣ and 5♣. The hesitation implies slam is more likely to be successful. 4♣ enables you to find the the slam, if partner has, say 5 clubs and the AK of diamonds. 5♣ will not. Therefore, 4♣ should be the barred bid.

 

Here are my thoughts :

1st : I don't think a 2 carded ♠ holding is all that likely after responder bids 1NT directly.

 

If you trust your partner to bid 3NT with :

♠xxx

♥KJx

♦Kxx

♣xxxx

 

5♣ with :

♠Qxx

♥Axx

♦xxxx

♣Qxx

 

3♣ with :

♠xxx

♥Qxx

♦QJx

♣Qxx or some other similar minimum

 

I can't see why N can't pass 3♣. With hand 3, 4♣would usually go down.

 

In other words, I expect partner to make a forward move himself if he holds any nice minimum.

[blackshoe]

This is a 4 loser hand, since if AKxx is only one loser surely AKTxxx is no losers. That partner has promised at least three clubs (which does not look valuable to him as yet) further promises no losers in clubs.

AKTxxx is, at best, half a loser, and that's a stretch (it would be 1/2 loser if the T were the J). If you had a known ten card fit, you could deduct a loser - but you don't, you have a known nine card fit.

 

If you have nine clubs, there are four out. Who says they don't break 4-0, offside? Now you have two losers in the suit.

 

Nope, this six card suit has one loser.

[jtfanclub]

Who's to say they won't break 4-0 onside, partner will have the jack, and....

 

Sorry for going off subject.

 

When going with losing trick count, AKxx is considered one loser. In fact, AQTx is considered one loser using basic counting. But who's to say that you don't have KJ97 to your left? That's 3 losers.

 

You can calculate the odds, or I can, but AKTxxx across an unknown 3 cards is about 2/3 likely to have no losers. That's good enough to call no losers to me, particularly compared to AQTx.

 

3♣ with :

♠xxx

♥Qxx

♦QJx

♣Qxx or some other similar minimum

 

I can't see why N can't pass 3♣. With hand 3, 4♣would usually go down.

 

You're working hard to make every point in partner's hand useless. Even so, with as little as the 9 of spades, you've got a decent shot at 4♣.

 

If I had,

 

♠ AKxx

♥ x

♦ Jxxx

♣ AKQx or AKJT

 

I would open 1♣, rebid 2♠, and pass 3♣. I don't like my odds in

 

3NT with

♠xxx

♥KJx

♦Kxx

♣♣xxxx

 

or

 

5♣ with

♠Qxx

♥Axx

♦xxxx

♣Qxx

 

Oh well, I've beaten this horse to death. If you guys think think that 2♠ fully described the strength of this hand, so be it.