What to assume after opp hesitation auction?

[ulven]

Say the auction starts (white/red):

 

(1H) - pass - (2H) - 3C

(3H) - 4C - (hesitation pass) - pass

(4H) - ?

 

Say you have a choice of sacrifing in 5C or not. You didn't bid 5C immediately because there was a chance you'd be able to buy 4C and partners 3C in 4th seat is kind of wide-range, perhaps a pre-balance, perhaps a good hand.

 

What are you supposed to base further action on?

 

Should we always assume that our RHO (4H-bidder) did not have a correct 4H given the facts that he didn't invite and our LHO tanked? This is clearly the most likely scenario but taking a view on the assumption that an infraction has taken place without hard evidence is debatable IMO. Does the quality of your opponents matter? What if your RHO opponent is Brogeland? Did he 'walk the hand' with a clear 4H-bid, just trying to stop a sacrifice? If I now assume in infraction has taken place and don't sac, and RHO walked the hand, opp's gain from the hesitation.

 

I think it's proper that in all situations like this, I must base my further actions on the assumption that no infraction has taken place, that the 4H-bid (in the example above) is legit, no matter how unlikely that is. Further action by our side should not be deemed "wild and gambling" if it is a logical alternative under that assumption.

 

Of course I'm gonna call the TD if RHO's hand doesn't hold up. Yes, this gives us a "double-shot" but one that the opponents has given us with UI on their part, and that seems legal.

 

Comments?

[mink]

I think it's proper that in all situations like this, I must base my further actions on the assumption that no infraction has taken place, that the 4H-bid (in the example above) is legit, no matter how unlikely that is. Further action by our side should not be deemed "wild and gambling" if it is a logical alternative under that assumption.

I think this is an interesting question you raise, and I fully agree with the answer you gave.

 

However, I cannot see what in your example the possible "wild and gambling" action might be - pass and 5 C are both not wild and gambling if the hand is like you described it.

 

Karl

[bluejak]

While the double shot, common in other sports and mindsports, is disliked in bridge, though I never see why, myself, it is certainly not illegal per se. The Laws are such as to minimise or eradicate the double shot in certain situations. It is not up to a player to second-guess the Lawmakers' intentions, just to follow the Laws.

 

So assuming there is no infraction seems normal, and asking for a ruling if there turns out to be an infraction seems normal. If it turns out the opponent has a demonstrable bridge reason but it was not the one you assumed, that is unfortunate.

[ulven]

snip/...just to follow the Laws.

 

So assuming there is no infraction seems normal, and asking for a ruling if there turns out to be an infraction seems normal./snip

Just to be clear, you're saying one should always base further action on the assumption that no infraction has occured, even if it's likely (perhaps very likely) it has?

[which is the only sensible way to go, but not stated in the laws today]

 

I just want to make this very clear, so excuse me for repeating myself (a simple yes/no will suffice).

[bluejak]

Without a specific example to comment on, I am not going to say "always". No doubt there are exceptions.

 

The most well-known one is when you know that a failure to alert is likely to be wrong. Since you can just ask anyway, you will often get ruled against - especially if you are a good player - if you rely completely on the failure to alert.

 

5 H Misinformation and Penalties

 

5 H 1 A player’s claim to have been damaged because the opponents failed to alert or announce a call will fail if it is judged that the player was aware of its likely meaning and if he had the opportunity to ask without putting his side’s interests at risk.

I understand the ACBL have a regulating with a similar effect.

[ulven]

Ok. Fair enough.

 

Let's isolate the question to "hesitation" auctions with no conventional calls, possible wrongful explanations or failures to alert. Comparable to the one in the initial post.

[Trinidad]

I am 100% with Ulf and I will work on his 5♣ over 4♥ example.

 

The problem often occurs when the TD or AC afterwards needs to come up with a ruling. They see all four hands and see that there was an infraction. Fine, so far.

 

Then they keep looking at all four hands and see that 5♣ must lead to a horrible result. They also know the horrible table result. They will keep seeing all 52 cards and wonder why on earth somebody could bid 5♣ on that hand. And they rule that the 5♣ bid was gambling.

 

What they should do is rearrange the remaining cards in such a way that the 4♥ bidder has a clear cut 4♥ bid (as the Laws require him to have). If the 5♣ bid still is expected to lead to a horrible result, then it's gambling. But quite often it is not, even if the table result was ridiculous.

 

I am not saying that every TD/AC gets this wrong all the time. I am saying that a lot of them get it wrong frequently.

 

Rik

[pran]

Say the auction starts (white/red):

 

(1H) - pass - (2H) - 3C

(3H) - 4C - (hesitation pass) - pass

(4H) - ?

 

Say you have a choice of sacrifing in 5C or not. You didn't bid 5C immediately because there was a chance you'd be able to buy 4C and partners 3C in 4th seat is kind of wide-range, perhaps a pre-balance, perhaps a good hand.

 

What are you supposed to base further action on?

 

Should we always assume that our RHO (4H-bidder) did not have a correct 4H given the facts that he didn't invite and our LHO tanked? This is clearly the most likely scenario but taking a view on the assumption that an infraction has taken place without hard evidence is debatable IMO. Does the quality of your opponents matter? What if your RHO opponent is Brogeland? Did he 'walk the hand' with a clear 4H-bid, just trying to stop a sacrifice? If I now assume in infraction has taken place and don't sac, and RHO walked the hand, opp's gain from the hesitation.

 

I think it's proper that in all situations like this, I must base my further actions on the assumption that no infraction has taken place, that the 4H-bid (in the example above) is legit, no matter how unlikely that is. Further action by our side should not be deemed "wild and gambling" if it is a logical alternative under that assumption.

 

Of course I'm gonna call the TD if RHO's hand doesn't hold up. Yes, this gives us a "double-shot" but one that the opponents has given us with UI on their part, and that seems legal.

 

Comments?

In Norway (and I wouldn't be surprised if most other jurisdictions have the same regulation) the use of STOP with every single call starting with 3♥ is compulsory in this kind of auctions.

 

So there would be no consideration of UI from the hesitation after the 4♣ bid unless that hesitation was excessive (i.e.substantially longer than 10 seconds).

[jvage]

In Norway (and I wouldn't be surprised if most other jurisdictions have the same regulation) the use of STOP with every single call starting with 3♥ is compulsory in this kind of auctions.

As far as I know Norway is the only country with this regulation :P

 

As a sidenote, in Norway STOP should actually be used already from 3♣ and onwards.

 

John