Year End C #12 - Swiss Pairs [MP>VP] - UI

[bluejak]

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=s7hkqj74dkjt97c73&w=sqt6532h9d85cqt62&e=saj8ha862da32ckj8&s=sk94ht53dq64ca954]399|300|Scoring: MP

 W    N   E    S

      1♥ 1NT  P

2♥   P   2♠   P

 P   3♦   P  3♥

3♠   P    P   P

 

Result:

3♠/E +1

NS -170[/hv]

Before passing over 3♦ East hesitated a little.

 

Would you adjust?

[blackshoe]

I doubt it.

[nige1]

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=s7hkqj74dkjt97c73&w=sqt6532h9d85cqt62&e=saj8ha862da32ckj8&s=sk94ht53dq64ca954]399|300|Scoring: MP

W    N   E    S

     1♥  1N  P

2♥   P   2♠   P

 P  3♦   P  3♥

3♠   P    P   P

Result: 3♠/E +1 NS -170

Before passing over 3♦ East hesitated a little.

Would you adjust?[/hv]

IMO, the director should poll West's peers on his hand; and also ask them what call, if any, is suggested by East's slight hesitation. FWIW, I think pass is an LA; East's hesitation is likely be about going on; so it would encourage West to bid 3♠; so 3♥+1 by N is a likely ruling.

[MFA]

No.

The hesitation is more likely to stem from east's thinking of his axe. Look at the bidding and west's 1-2 in the reds.

[jdonn]

I think the hesitation is much more likely to be thinking about raising than doubling, only because a raise is so much more common than a double on an auction like this. But I'm not insistent about it if most disagree with me.

[MFA]

I think the hesitation is much more likely to be thinking about raising than doubling, only because a raise is so much more common than a double on an auction like this. But I'm not insistent about it if most disagree with me.

I agree with you about the frequencies of the actual bids. But it's less clear when it comes to the frequencies of the respective huddles.

[jdonn]

I think the hesitation is much more likely to be thinking about raising than doubling, only because a raise is so much more common than a double on an auction like this. But I'm not insistent about it if most disagree with me.

I agree with you about the frequencies of the actual bids. But it's less clear when it comes to the frequencies of the respective huddles.

Then I'm confused about your view. If you agree that a raise is more common than a double there, why would you think a hesitation is more likely to be thinking about doubling than about raising? I'm not saying it's impossible, just wondering why you think it's the case.

[peachy]

The BIT obviously suggests opener was thinking of raising. Having a partner that could have a hand much weaker than this, I cannot imagine a NT opener could ever be thinking of doubling. It is just barely possible, but very rare. When the BIT is established as fact, then ruling should be 3H making whatever it makes.

[Finch]

I think the hesitation is much more likely to be thinking about raising than doubling, only because a raise is so much more common than a double on an auction like this. But I'm not insistent about it if most disagree with me.

I agree with you about the frequencies of the actual bids. But it's less clear when it comes to the frequencies of the respective huddles.

Then I'm confused about your view. If you agree that a raise is more common than a double there, why would you think a hesitation is more likely to be thinking about doubling than about raising? I'm not saying it's impossible, just wondering why you think it's the case.

I agree with MFA.

 

Although a raise is more frequent than a double, I don't think people think before raising very often, while they do think first before doubling (or not doubling).

 

I am dubious that the "short" hesitation demonstrably suggests bidding on.

It is also very likely that East would bid 3S in the passout seat anyway, so even if I did start by disallowing West's 3S bid, I would include a large percentage of East bidding 3S in any adjustment.

[Codo]

I let the result stand.

 

At first a slightly hesitation is not too surprisingly. North passed before and enters the 3. level now. Of course this is not impossible, but most players I konw are not prepared to such an auction.

 

Second: Thinking is more about double then about raising.

 

Third: With a 6124 hand 3 Spade opposite a NT bidder looks like the place I want to be- passing is no LA to me.

[jdonn]

I must confess I still don't get it. A raise is more common than a double, but raises are usually made quickly, and players who think before passing are usually thinking about the less common double? Where do these beliefs come from? I must live in another world, in mine when people think they are most likely to be considering their most likely action.

[hotShot]

Usually the (combined) shape and (combined) strength are well defined conditions for a raise. You fulfill the requirements or not, nothing more to think about.

 

To double esp. if it's penalty requires much more considerations.

[jdonn]

Usually the (combined) shape and (combined) strength are well defined conditions for a raise. You fulfill the requirements or not, nothing more to think about.

What are they? Any hand with a fit? Any hand with 4 card support no matter how otherwise bad? 3 card support and any shape but (4333)? I don't know about you but when I have 3 card support I often want to compete if partner has 6 but not if he has 5, how do I know? Also did anyone notice the player actually was thinking of raising at the table? I think there needs to be something much better than a hunch that his thinking transmitted UI that he had a totally different problem than his actual one.

[bluejak]

Unfortunately, I do not know how the TD ruled on this one. He decided that the hesitation showed a fit - I agree with him that it does not show a double - who doubles on this sequence? - but it was less clear whether 3♠ was automatic anyway, ie Pass was not an LA. So I advised him to discuss it with more people and I never heard what he ruled.

[vigfus]

Talble score stands.

If I ask 10 icelandic players what to bid, at least 8 of them would bid 3♠

Pass is not an LA for west.

[propolis]

Was the bidding as described? Would south have doubled the 3S bid (after the slight hesitation by East) and then appealed? = a two way bet.

[bluejak]

Talble score stands.

If I ask 10 icelandic players what to bid,  at least 8 of them would bid 3♠

Pass is not an LA for west.

The trouble is that 8 out of 10 does not mean that pass is not an LA, which it did before the 2007 Laws.

 

Was the bidding as described?

Yes the bidding was as described. Why not?

 

Would south have doubled the 3S bid (after the slight hesitation by East) and then appealed? = a two way bet.

First there was no double. Second there was no appeal. Third what is wrong with a two way bet?

[kruba]

3S was doubled, and the result was 3S*+1 for -930.

South did double for a double shot.

Slight hesitation; she said she was thinking of bidding 3S.

Director ruled that the 3S bid was allowed. Result stands.

[bluejak]

Well, I gave an auction with no double. If propolis says there was a double how does he know? If because he was involved in the hand in some way it would be helpful to say in what way rather than refer to a double nowhere mentioned in the thread.

 

As for kruba, this sounds rather like someone involved. Ok, you say [my italics]

South did double for a double shot.

How do you know what South intended?

[kruba]

I don't know what South intended when he doubled,

so I withdraw the "double shot" remark.

 

South did double, the slight hesitation agreed, and 10

tricks were made for -930. The 3S bid was allowed.

I was the 3S bidder......

[bluejak]

Ok, well, as I told the TD, I would have bid 3♠. Perhaps he did tell me about the double but I have no note of it.

 

Let us consider the double. Let us assume, for argument's sake, we decide to adjust because we decide to disallow the 3♠ bid.

 

First of all, do we need to worry about whether the double was intended as a double shot? No, because it is not illegal per se to try for a double shot, since some such attempts are legal, some are not, and the player's intent is irrelevant. In fact, there seems to be a growing complaint amongst players who have committed an infraction that their opponents have committed a double shot. But this does not [and should not] affect whether they get ruled against.

 

However, there is some feeling amongst the lawmakers against the double shot. But the effect is that there is a law covering the situation, namely 12C1B. It does not affect the offenders' score which is as it should be. So what we do is to consider whether the standards in 12C1B have been met so as to deny all or part of the redress for the non-offender's only.

 

Now, still assuming for argument's sake we are disallowing the 3♠ bid, what do we think of the double. Is it wild? Is it gambling? Is it a serious error unrelated to the infraction? Time for another poll!

 

South has nine points including two fairly likely tricks, his partner has opened and bid again freely, but in the wrong suits. It is MP Pairs. I would not double, but I do not double enough in the Pairs game, and I wonder ......

 

Well, as I say, iIould poll, but I think double is optimistic, but not wild, gambling or a serious error unrelated to the infraction. So if I adjust at all, I adjust thesame for both sides.