You be the Judge

[jdonn]

Why can't that idea be implemented in real life? Give the problem over 3♥, and only if they pass to you continue the auction for another round, otherwise you thank them and go find someone else.

 

In fact isn't that what SHOULD happen?

[Echognome]

After all an AC made from MFA, Cascade, echognome, lamford and me etc. had restored the table score.

I don't think I implied this.

 

I merely implied what should constitute a logical alternative. I would have personally either bid 3♠ immediately or rested my peace. So as a bridge judgment side of things, I would only have had that to go upon.

[Guest Jlall]

Why can't that idea be implemented in real life? Give the problem over 3♥, and only if they pass to you continue the auction for another round, otherwise you thank them and go find someone else.

 

In fact isn't that what SHOULD happen?

You have a much smaller sample/ takes longer to get the sample etc in this case. But yes they're supposed to do a poll if possible.

[benlessard]

Pass is surely LA. The slow tempo suggest extra lenght in spades or shortness in H or solid 2nd suit or extra strenght. The extra strenght might suggest that 4H is going down but its also suggest that the sacrifice will be cheap. Therefore the hesitation is inviting a 4S bid. IMHO its not clear enough to give an AWM but at the same time if i have done the appeal i wouldnt be suprised to get it back AWM.

[Cascade]

Pass is surely LA. The slow tempo suggest extra lenght in spades or shortness in H or solid 2nd suit or extra strenght. The extra strenght might suggest that 4H is going down but its also suggest that the sacrifice will be cheap. Therefore the hesitation is inviting a 4S bid. IMHO its not clear enough to give an AWM but at the same time if i have done the appeal i wouldnt be suprised to get it back AWM.

A sacrifice is not cheap if the opponent's contract is going down unless of course we can make ours.

[benlessard]

A sacrifice is not cheap if the opponent's contract is going down unless of course we can make ours.

 

The extra strenght is suggesting the % of them going down to go up, but also that the sacrifice will be cheaper. IMHO we cannot say they completly cancel each other but they cancel each other do to a certain part. If you think of making 4S on that deal it mean you have clearly taken the hesitation of your partner into account. Had partner made a tempo pass you would bid 4S as a sac and nothing else. (plus its a bit inconsequent to expect to make 4S sometimes and not being able to bid 3S over 3H)

 

So the more important remaining cause for hesitation can only be for extra shape wich can only suggest bidding 4S. I consider the appeal would have less then 5% of success but it isnt an AWM.

 

Its going to take some serious new argument to change my view on this 1.

[Cascade]

A sacrifice is not cheap if the opponent's contract is going down unless of course we can make ours.

 

The extra strenght is suggesting the % of them going down to go up, but also that the sacrifice will be cheaper. IMHO we cannot say they completly cancel each other but they cancel each other do to a certain part. If you think of making 4S on that deal it mean you have clearly taken the hesitation of your partner into account. Had partner made a tempo pass you would bid 4S as a sac and nothing else. (plus its a bit inconsequent to expect to make 4S sometimes and not being able to bid 3S over 3H)

 

So the more important remaining cause for hesitation can only be for extra shape wich can only suggest bidding 4S. I consider the appeal would have less then 5% of success but it isnt an AWM.

 

Its going to take some serious new argument to change my view on this 1.

I haven't seen anything in this forum or in other forums to convince me that partner's slow pass "demonstrably suggests" pass over 4♠.

 

Sure the sacrifice is better if we are down one or down two instead of down two or down three but all of that is for nothing if they cannot make their 4♥.

 

I just had a thought to do an interesting pair of simulations since I am fond of simulations. On the condition that partner had a fairly normal 1♠ opening but not extra values and shortish hearts suitable for some action over 4♥ with the opponents having a heart pre-empt and either great heart support of significant values.

 

The second simulation was similar but you knew that partner had extra values (15+).

 

In the first simulation bidding 4♠ gained around 5 IMPs on average and in the second bidding 4♠ lost 3 IMPs on average.

 

This seems to clearly indicated that bidding 4♠ is right without additional information and that it is not indicated by the extra information that partner has extra values.

 

Here are the exact conditions I put in the simulation:

 

Partner has five or six spades (he is more likely to do something himself with more);

Partner has 12-19 hcp (11-18 if a six-card suit);

Partner either has three or more hearts or fewer than 16 hcp.

 

RHO has 7 hearts;

RHO has 6-9 hcp;

 

LHO has 3+ hearts or 13+ hcp;

 

We have the actual hand given.

 

In the second simulation everything was the same except that Partner had shown (by the hesitation) say 15+ hcp but not a hand short in hearts that might have made a takeout double.

 

I'd be happy to vary these parameters to see how they change the outcome.

 

However don't expect instant results as I will be away until Sunday evening.