logical alternative?

[scrote]

[hv=s=sxxhaj109xxxdxcakx]133|100|1♣ (p) 1♥ (1♠)

2♥ (3♠) 4♣ (p)

4♥ (P) [/hv]

 

Your partner shows 12-15 balanced or clubs and 4 hearts. The 4 hearts bid was slow. Can you bid again?

[xcurt]

Partner could easily have the weak NT with all but one of the ♠KJ, ♥KQ, ♦K, ♣QJ (15 HCP total) and you are down at the 5 level. Pass is a no doubt LA.

 

Edit -- I guess I should add that "not pass" is suggested by the hesitation, since that's a requirement for adjusting the score when south continues here.

[whereagles]

Possibly, what happened is that pard is not sure whether a cue over 4♣ would show genuine slam interest or be mere a courtesy cue.

 

In light of this, I would actually say the hesitation suggests NOT bidding rather than bidding.

[jdonn]

If you weren't planning to pass 4♥ on this auction then why did you bid 4♣? I'm not saying there aren't any plausible reasons, just that that is an important question to ask yourself. You may even realize the slowness of partner's bid has influenced you if you can't come up with a good (and true) answer to that question.

[Cyberyeti]

What's your cue bidding style ?

 

If it's first round controls, you probably can't bid again.

 

If it's first/second, the knowledge that partner does not have the ♦AK improves your hand significantly as there's a much better chance his points are useful, and I'd suggest you can.

[gnasher]

Without the UI, I'm sure that a reasonable proportion of players would seriously consider passing 4♥, so the question is whether some would actually do it.

 

Assuming that partner would cue-bid ♦K if he had it, we'd go down in 5♥ only opposite some specific aceless hands without a spade control. However, bidding will also lose if we get to slam opposite something like Ax KQxx xxxx QJx (which we probably would).

 

Bidding gains if partner can provide ♠A, ♥K and ♣QJxx. That's also quite specific, so I think I'd pass even without the UI. If there are a few more people who think the same (not necessarily a certainty), bidding again is illegal.

[ONEferBRID]

If you are playing Support DBLs, then you have a combined 11 cards Hts.

The ♥ K may drop on the first trump lead.

Bid 5 ♥ -- asking for at least 2nd Rnd ♠ Ctrl.

[scrote]

If you weren't planning to pass 4♥ on this auction then why did you bid 4♣? I'm not saying there aren't any plausible reasons, just that that is an important question to ask yourself. You may even realize the slowness of partner's bid has influenced you if you can't come up with a good (and true) answer to that question.

The logic given was that if partner cannot make a diamond cuebid then he is almost certain to have a spade control and therefore you bid on with blackwood.

[kenrexford]

FWIW, I would be somewhat hesitant to describe a "slow" 4♥ as an out-of-tempo 4♥. If anything, a fast 4♥ would be the more troubling as out-of-tempo.

 

When you open 1♣, make a simple raise of partner's hearts, and then hear a 4♣ cue, you probably have due cause to think at this point, regardless of your holding. If you bid "in tempo," this should mean that you always make a slow 4♥ call. In fact, I actually think that any cuebidding sequence should be treated as parallel to the skip bid, but without the skip. I mean, what requires 10 seconds more frequently -- an unexpected cue in a somewhat unusual competitive situation, or a raise to 3NT after you open 1NT?

 

Here, partner has a decision, contextually obvious, as to whether he should bid beyond 4♥ despite lacking a diamond control. Anyone who plays bridge knows that this requires thought. You first need to ascertain what this auction "calls for." Then, you have to decide options. Finally, you have to decide whether your hand merits employing those options or instead accepting some action partner may already be prepared to make. So, you have to think.

 

In contrast, a quick signoff speaks volumes and seems the more out-of-tempo action.

 

So, I question the premise only for fear that the "Part II" may be based on an incorrect assessment of the Part I question -- was the "slow" 4♥ an in-tempo slow or an out-of-tempo slow?

[Poky]

Your partner shows 12-15 balanced or clubs and 4 hearts. The 4 hearts bid was slow. Can you bid again?

I thought a little about that. This situation isn't as it looks on the first sight.

 

If partner bids a 4♥ in tempo (= no diamond cue), bidding on (say, 5♥, asking for spade cue) is more than clear-cut.

 

If partner bids a slow 4♥ this can mean one of two things:

a. he has a diamond control, but a poor hand, say: xx-KQxx-KQxx-QJx

b. he hasn't diamond control, but has a nice hand (implying spade control), say: Ax-KQxx-?x-QJxxx.

 

a. suggests passing.

b. suggests bidding on.

 

4♥ out of tempo doesn't demonstrably suggest any action over other, so, bidding on is allowed.

 

Really incredible for Croatian standards, but either the Director and the AC got it right. :D

[jdonn]

If you weren't planning to pass 4♥ on this auction then why did you bid 4♣? I'm not saying there aren't any plausible reasons, just that that is an important question to ask yourself. You may even realize the slowness of partner's bid has influenced you if you can't come up with a good (and true) answer to that question.

The logic given was that if partner cannot make a diamond cuebid then he is almost certain to have a spade control and therefore you bid on with blackwood.

Are you sure partner's 4♥ denies a diamond control or might it just be a bad hand? Or might he be scared to cuebid without spade control? Or might he have QJ KQxx QJx QJxx anyway?

 

If I can be convinced the 4♥ is simply any hand without a diamond control then I would tend to rule there is no LA to bidding on. But they really have to convince me that is the agreement or style in use.

[Fluffy]

4♣ is not a cuebid, it shows clubs so partner can be smarter on the likelly 4♠ that is coming over our 4♥.

 

Maybe it is not, but partner's hesitation might be that he is not sure.

 

 

Slam just needs the right 9 HCP ♠A♥K♣Q5th. And has recoveries with fineses/breaks and stuff.

 

Moving is a LA, but after the hesitation I don't think moving is ethical.

[jdonn]

Moving is a LA, but after the hesitation I don't think moving is ethical.

It doesn't matter whether moving is an LA, it matters whether passing is.

[whereagles]

josh, there are two ways to interpret the hesitation. One suggests passing, the other suggests bidding.

 

It is similar to the case

 

1M 2M

3M* (invite)

 

*hesitation

 

Responder cannot tell whether opener was thinking of passing 2M or bidding 4, so inference drawn from the hesitation can go the wrong way. In these cases it is recommended to rule "score stands", which is what I'd do.

 

But agrre the problem is not simple. I would advise to put it in the Laws foruns. They are experienced in this sort of stuff.

[Fluffy]

I don't understand your logic, how can a slow 4♥ be weaker than a fast one?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

if you have doubts, the answer is No.

And if you assume, that partner did understand 4C as a slam try with a

club control, the answer is No as well.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Finch]

Possibly, what happened is that pard is not sure whether a cue over 4♣ would show genuine slam interest or be mere a courtesy cue.

 

In light of this, I would actually say the hesitation suggests NOT bidding rather than bidding.

This is way too obscure for me.

 

I think partner's slow 4H bid clearly suggests bidding on. Whatever partner was thinking of doing other than bidding 4H would have been a stronger action than the one he took.

 

The two hand types he can have to make him thinks are

(i) The ace of diamonds but a horrible sub-minimum

(ii) A good hand without a diamond control

 

Both of these suggest bidding on.

 

Without the hesitation, partner could easily have some pile of rubbish such as

 

Qxx

KQxx

Kxx

QJx

 

We know from the slow 4H bid that he doesn't have that.

I would rule that pass is a LA, and not passing is suggested by the hesitation.

[Cyberyeti]

Your partner shows 12-15 balanced or clubs and 4 hearts. The 4 hearts bid was slow. Can you bid again?

 

Where are the brackets on this sentence ?

 

Is this (12-15 balanced or clubs) and 4 hearts

 

OR

 

12-15 balanced or (clubs and 4 hearts).

 

We're guessing it means the former and support doubles are being played.

 

If it's the latter, the think could well be with only 3 hearts and wondering what suit to play in, is 4♣ natural or a cue etc.

 

Another interpretation is that partner is wondering whether to cue the K♦ which would actually be against bidding on.

 

I'd be very interested to see somebody simulate hands without the A♦ and see how often you want to be in 6 versus how often you go off in 5. Partner can be as bad as Ax, Kxxx, xx, QJxxx and 6 is laydown. If you play first/second round cues so AK♦ are excluded, then I think 6 is even more attractive.

 

I have to say I'd bid on 100% automatically on that hand without any thought without the hesitation, but I know partner would cue 1st/2nd round controls regardless of strength.

 

I would also say on hands of the type of the revolting example Frances gave, I tend to bid as if I hold 3 hearts rather than 4 so don't have this problem.

[scrote]

Thanks for your responses. Apologies for the lack of brackets (?!).

 

I appealed the ruling which was that 6 hearts making would stand and subsequently lost.

I thought this was pretty sick and I think these replies have confirmed it.

The hand which hesitated had the Ace of diamonds and the king of spades but didn't fancy cuebidding! This is pretty damning for their case because clearly their bidding style does not make cuebids compulsory if they don't deem their hand to be suitable.

 

I think KenRexford has a good point that there should be stop bids in slam bidding auctions. But, there aren't, so hesitating before declining to cue really should be avoided or punished.

 

Poky - I don't understand your part (a) - surely that's an automatic sign off and not worth a hesitation sign off!

 

(())

[Poky]

Poky - I don't understand your part (a) - surely that's an automatic sign off and not worth a hesitation sign off!

Well, maybe to you. But not to the player in case. He had a mega-bomb (15 balanced with ♠K and ♦A, almost the best possible hand) and didn't cue - clearly showing he doesn't understand much about bidding and that his hesitations are mostly not very revealing (a player who hesitates with a clear bid, probably can find a reason to hesitate with anything, at least that's my opinion).

 

Besides that, I have to admit, when I'm not playing Serious 3NT or some kind of similar convention, I'm always in doubt if it is appropriate do skip a cue with a bad hand or I should cue always. Without a prior agreement this question probably doesn't have a clear answer, so, you always back to judgments which sometimes aren't so automatic, even if my example maybe wasn't the luckiest one.

 

But probably you would be right if you would say that the hesitating hands with spade control are most frequent that the ones that are baddish with diamond cue. I would say about 60% to 40%. This can maybe make the ruling a little more complex.

[dake50]

4 losers opposite an opening bid! Can't bid on because of a 'slow' 4H??!!

Surely blasting 6H was likely winning.

Yet trying a 4C force first gets a 'slow' 4H forbidding 6H??!!

Bizarre!