Is passing a LA?

[CSGibson]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sj752haq974dat84c]133|100|Scoring: MP

(2♣)* - X - (3♣) - P - P - ?

 

*2♣ = 11-15, 5+ clubs, no 4 card major[/hv]

 

Partner passes after a noticeable time (40 seconds, maybe) to think.

 

1) Would you double again without partner's pause?

 

2) Do you think you have to pass as a Logical Alternative now?

[Free]

1) yes

2) Imo no.

[benlessard]

1- no,

2- You will not find a director who will allow the 2nd X to stand. Passing 3C is automatic.

[Finch]

1. Yes given the form of scoring

2. Yes

[brianshark]

1. No

2. N/A

[whereagles]

1. Maybe.

2. After pard's hesitation, I think I have to pass.

[Codo]

1. depends on mood or table presence

2. yes any bid/call that gives you a better score would be surely rolled back.

This time the BIT surely makes any bid look better then pass.

[Cascade]

1. Yes

 

2. Yes

 

Its hard to imagine an argument that partner's pause does not suggest bidding or doubling over pass.

[Trinidad]

1) I would probably double, but would consider pass an LA.

2) After the hesitation by partner, I would definitely pass. If I double and it wins, the TD will adjust to a 3C contract. If I double and I loose, I have lost. Doubling here is a case of 'Heads: I loose. Tails: I don't win'.

 

Rik

[Free]

What's the problem with bidding here? I mean, if pass is a LA, then the score will be settled like if we would've passed. If pass is not a LA however, then we've done what we had to do. So if you were going to bid without a pause from partner, there's no real reason to pass now imo.

[Finch]

What's the problem with bidding here? I mean, if pass is a LA, then the score will be settled like if we would've passed. If pass is not a LA however, then we've done what we had to do. So if you were going to bid without a pause from partner, there's no real reason to pass now imo.

There are two problems with this.

 

1. If pass is an LA, it doesn't matter what you would have done without the pause, you are legally obliged to pass now (assuming the pause demonstrably suggests whatever you do).

 

2. Suppose the TD decides that pass is a LA, the pause suggests doubling, and you double. Now if you get a good board, it will be adjusted as if you had passed. If you get a bad board, you will keep it. It's a lose/lose situation.

 

Tell partner not to think for ages and then pass in such sensitive auctions.

[jtfanclub]

1) Maybe. MPs, none vul, sure. IMPs, or Vul, probably not.

 

2) Heck yes. If I were the TD, you could be a good bit stronger and I'd still roll it back. That's a really horrible place to hesitate for so long, especially if you play (as I do) that the 3♣ bidder could have up to a 10 count.

[cherdano]

I really think this is an obvious case. You should pass even if you would have doubled again with no hesitation. Doubling is just hoping that for the opponents not to call the TD.

[kfay]

What's the range on 3♣? If it's intent is basically preemptive, and LA is defined by half a panel or more passing without BIT, then I don't think that pass is LA.

 

Double

[cherdano]

What's the range on 3♣? If it's intent is basically preemptive, and LA is defined by half a panel or more passing without BIT, then I don't think that pass is LA.

 

Double

Kevin?

 

If 3♣ is "preemptive" this still means they may bid it with any hand that won't have game opposite the limited opener.

 

LA is NEVER defined as half a panel or more passing without the BIT, where do you get that idea from.

[kfay]

What's the range on 3♣?  If it's intent is basically preemptive, and LA is defined by half a panel or more passing without BIT, then I don't think that pass is LA.

 

Double

Kevin?

 

If 3♣ is "preemptive" this still means they may bid it with any hand that won't have game opposite the limited opener.

 

LA is NEVER defined as half a panel or more passing without the BIT, where do you get that idea from.

Well honestly I actually don't know what defines LA. But I would assume it has be be some percentage. 20%?

 

Maybe the hesitation forces me to pass but I'm a little more upset at partner than the rest of you, I think, because this is an auto-X for me without the BIT.

[jtfanclub]

What's the range on 3♣?  If it's intent is basically preemptive, and LA is defined by half a panel or more passing without BIT, then I don't think that pass is LA.

 

Double

I play it as "no game interest, usually 3+ clubs". In MPs, I'll do it with up to a balanced 10 count. Sometimes I miss a game nobody was in anyways, more often I either steal a contract or we get to crack somebody who reopens with a double with a hand like this one.

 

This isn't any different from 2♥ X 3♥ in nature...sure, it's "pre-emptive", but if you haven't taken a baseball bat to somebody who thought it was safe to bid over it, then you really haven't lived.

[Guest Jlall]

I wouldn't have thought passing is an LA, I'm still not convinced. I think almost all of my peers if polled would X. I would leave it to a poll to decide though.

[Gerben42]

I'm with Justin. If you would poll this hand, I think just about all good players would Double, so if Pass is "logical" is not so clear. Just because a bid could be the right decision doesn't make it a LA yet, people still have to consider bidding it.

[awm]

I'd actually pass without the UI (and of course also pass with the UI).

 

This is one of these hands where I like the "don't double with a void" advice. The first double is fine (what else can you do?) but the second double normally shows extra values. Partner will often leave such a second double in with four mediocre clubs and 3334 or even (32)44 shape figuring that we have extras and no particularly good fit (unlike the first double which would never be left in without a serious club stack). And even if partner doesn't leave the double in with these hands, he might try 3NT on some 8-count (again figuring us for extras) which is hardly likely to be a good spot (and opponents can easily find a penalty double).

 

Partner heard the first double and didn't bid over 3♣; we have pretty minimum values, probably sub-minimum defense, and are only one card off from the 4441 shape partner will probably expect (besides being the prototypical double shape, partner probably knows we have club shortage based on his own hand). And partner is more or less marked with club length and a moderate hand -- how much are we willing to bet that partner doesn't have wasted values in clubs? If partner is holding three or four small clubs he should push a little more over 3♣ too (four small opposite expected shortage is excellent).

 

Yes, MPs encourage competing for a partial, but MPs also encourage leaving borderline doubles in for penalties!

[whereagles]

I remember a similar case once. It went like

 

1♥ . dbl 2♥ pass*

pass dbl

 

*~15 sec hesitation

 

I was the one hesitating. Opps called the director after the 2nd double. My pard, who had 14 hcp and a 4144, argued he knew I had some hcps regardless of hesitation because opps didn't make a move over 2♥. Them passing 2♥ marked me with about 6-7 hcp (I had 6) and his perfect shape was safe for competing, hence the 2nd dbl.

 

The Director agreed and allowed the dbl, after which I played some 3♣ making. Opps didn't appeal.

 

I think this situation is similar. Above I said I would pass, but now I'm convinced pass may not be a logical alternative.

[jtfanclub]

I remember a similar case once. It went like

 

1♥ . dbl 2♥ pass*

pass dbl

 

*~15 sec hesitation

Which is all well and good for an unlimited 1♥ opener.

 

 

[hv=d=s&n=skjxxhqxdqtxxcjxx&s=sqtxhakxxxdxckqxx]133|200|[/hv]

 

It's very difficult to imagine the auction going

 

1♥ X 2♥ P

P

 

in Standard American.

 

It's normal in Precision. North could bid 1NT, but why? There's no real chance of game, and it'll probably play better in the 5-2.

 

Meanwhile, your partner with 5 hearts and a 3 count gets to choose between them playing 2♥ doubled and you playing in 3♦ doubled. Best of luck.

 

Balancing is far more dangerous when opener is limited.

[jdonn]

There is no doubt to me that by any definition I've heard of for a LA, passing is one.

[blackshoe]

2. yes any bid/call that gives you a better score would be surely rolled back.

This time the BIT surely makes any bid look better then pass.

Um. The question is not whether a successful action would lead to a score adjustment. It's whether taking action here would be "taking advantage of UI". If you had significant extra values, you might (depending on your hand) make the case that pass is not a logical alternative, and then a second double would be allowed (assumed the TD agrees).

 

IOW, it is not the case that successful action after a BIT (or any other UI from partner, for that matter) will (or should) always result in a score adjustment.

 

This time, you clearly have to pass.

[gwnn]

yes

 

yes it is definitely a LA