Quick pass or x

[Phil]

IMPs, nv/nv

 

KQ92 Qxx xxx xxx

 

1♥* - (2♠**) - pass - (4♠)

pass - (pass) - ?

 

* 1♥ is <16

 

** - Two suited - spades and clubs; clubs equal to or better than spades, 5-7 AKQ losers.

[nigel_k]

Double. I briefly considered pass but I wouldn't choose it.

[jdonn]

I think pass is pretty clear. This is exactly the type of double that could let him make a hand where he was destined to go down.

[peachy]

No quick or slow Pass, just a Pass.

[Phil]

Since this was in the rules section, you might have figured out that the 1♥ bidder tanked over 4♠. Whether or not this suggests extra offense or defense is unclear, but I think it might suggest doubling is more attractive.

 

The PIQ doubled and we (the non-offenders) got a roll-back.

[aguahombre]

With the additional information, and if I knew exactly what the hesitation was all about, I would still pass. And for the same reasons, except I would pretend I was one of the people polled about LA.

[iviehoff]

Whether or not this suggests extra offense or defense is unclear, but I think it might suggest doubling is more attractive.

The 1H bidder rarely doubles (assuming double is for penalties) in an auction like that. Partner was (much greater than 50%) thinking about bidding, probably for reason of making a save. Therefore I find it curious that it could be ruled that the hesitation "demonstrably suggests" doubling over other logical alternatives. In fact it most likely suggests that partner is weakish with long hearts or a two-suiter, making doubling less attractive than without the hesitation. Given that we have people who would seriously consider doubling, and I would say that the hesitation suggests passing over doubling, I think actually you would have a case to complain to the director if the hand passed, though I think few people would actually make that complaint.

[gwnn]

pass and double are both LA and the thinking makes double more likely to work.

[blackshoe]

The requirement of the law is that UI "could demonstrably suggest" that a particular action be taken. So it is not sufficient to say "the UI suggests such-and-such". There must be a chain of logic showing why it suggests it.

[gwnn]

Are you saying we can't pull out things out of our magic hats but have to support them logically? :) that sounds like an unreasonably strident requirement :)

 

In this case I think the probability of partner hesitating is higher in case he has 15 HCP rather than 10 HCP. Double will be more successful opposite 15 than 10.

 

Of course you could say that his expected heart length will be higher if he hesitates than if he doesn't, and opposite 5 hearts doubling 4♠ will me more successful than opposite, say, 7. However in my little opinion the former dependence is stronger than this one in most people's case.

 

Now it seems that I pulled at least three assertions out of my magic hat in this post, but is there really another way of talking about bridge players' tendencies? Have there been peer-reviewed psychological journal entries about bridge hesitation sources?

 

I could also plagiarise dburn's simple argument that a slow natural call invariably means that the player will be relatively unhappy about the prospect of the auction ending there (a slow 3S invitation would be happier to be in 2 or 4, a fast 3S invitation is OK playing there), but in this case I think we can go somewhat deeper and examine the respective causes concretely. Also, plagiarism is frowned upon.

[cherdanno]

The requirement of the law is that UI "could demonstrably suggest" that a particular action be taken. So it is not sufficient to say "the UI suggests such-and-such". There must be a chain of logic showing why it suggests it.

A hesitation shows values. This makes a penalty double more likely to work.

[tgoodwinsr]

The hesitation suggests that "doing something" might well be more profitable than "doing nothing." The only plausible alternative to "doing nothing" for a player who was prepared to defend two spades undoubled is to defend four spades doubled, so that is the alternative demonstrably suggested by the UI. QED

[jdonn]

The requirement of the law is that UI "could demonstrably suggest" that a particular action be taken. So it is not sufficient to say "the UI suggests such-and-such". There must be a chain of logic showing why it suggests it.

No, why it COULD suggest it, according to your 3 word quote.

[blackshoe]

No, why it COULD suggest it, according to your 3 word quote.

Reminder to self: dot every i, cross every t. Do not ever leave anything out.

 

A hesitation shows values. This makes a penalty double more likely to work.

 

Lotta holes in that.

 

The hesitation suggests that "doing something" might well be more profitable than "doing nothing." The only plausible alternative to "doing nothing" for a player who was prepared to defend two spades undoubled is to defend four spades doubled, so that is the alternative demonstrably suggested by the UI. QED

 

Why does the hesitation suggest that?

[jdonn]

No, why it COULD suggest it, according to your 3 word quote.

Reminder to self: dot every i, cross every t. Do not ever leave anything out.

If you are implying I'm being to picky then I strongly disagree. If it's the hesitation COULD suggest something that is very different than saying it DOES suggest something. You gave a quote that says it's one way, but continue to say it's the other way (for example, look 4 inches above this sentence).

 

As for your question of why the hesitation suggests doing something over doing nothing, it's because if partner was happiest with the current situation (us doing nothing) he would have nothing to hesitate about.

[cherdanno]

A hesitation shows values. This makes a penalty double more likely to work.

 

Lotta holes in that.

Oh come on, bidding is not logic, it's a matter of odds. Your holes are possible but unlikely.

 

Anyway, you don't come to the conclusion that it suggests doubling by making some weird logical deduction. You come to the conclusion by asking experts for their opinion about which action a hesitation could suggest.

[blackshoe]

Unless he was not sure how happy he was with it, so thought about it, and decided that yes, he was happy with it.

 

I was suggesting that I was sloppy in my writing. Yes, "could suggest" is the criterion, and "could suggest" is not the same as "does suggest", and I'm sorry if you inferred that I was suggesting the latter.

[jdonn]

Unless he was not sure how happy he was with it, so thought about it, and decided that yes, he was happy with it.

This is reeeeeeeally unconvincing. It seems quite obvious there is a strong correllation between how happy you are with the current contract and how long it takes you to decide to pass. Or does the following happen to you often?

 

"Hmmm what should I do here, I don't know if I'm happy with this contract or not, hmmmmm.... wait a second, I'm really happy with it, YES THIS IS WHERE I WANT TO BE WOOHOO PASS!"

[Pict]

I would double (why not?. I can play for +IMPs can't I.) but I would pass after the hesitation, because pass is a valid alternative for the reasons given by other posters.

[Phil]

A hesitation shows values. This makes a penalty double more likely to work.

 

Lotta holes in that.

Oh come on, bidding is not logic, it's a matter of odds. Your holes are possible but unlikely.

 

Anyway, you don't come to the conclusion that it suggests doubling by making some weird logical deduction. You come to the conclusion by asking experts for their opinion about which action a hesitation could suggest.

By the way, I had a secondary reason why I called the director for this in a club game.

 

The Director is starting to direct tournaments, where these types of instances are more common. Well, hesitation bridge occurs at all level, but its enforced more frequently at tournaments.

 

Anyway, he gets called over and instead of polling players he goes up to another director, who happens to be a good player as well, and gives her the auction AND the hesitation, and asks what she would do". She said, "of course he can't double" LOL.

 

I politely suggested to him later that the proper course is to simply poll some of the player's peers, without the tempo of the auction to establish LA's.

 

I don't think he was listening.

[bluejak]

A hesitation shows values. This makes a penalty double more likely to work.

Lotta holes in that.

I don't know. It seems a very sensible even if simplistic view.

 

The hesitation suggests that "doing something" might well be more profitable than "doing nothing." The only plausible alternative to "doing nothing" for a player who was prepared to defend two spades undoubled is to defend four spades doubled, so that is the alternative demonstrably suggested by the UI. QED

Why does the hesitation suggest that?

It just seems obvious to me, and presumably to tgoodwinsr who wrote it.

[peachy]

After OP informed there was a hesitation, Double is no longer a legal LA, IMO.

The hesitation suggests [not only COULD suggest, but actually suggests] action other than Pass; the only other "action" that is a LA is Double. Even if I had been originally thinking about whether to Pass or Double, after the hesitation my options are restricted by law. Pass.

[Phil]

If you're curious, the tanker held: J, AKJxxxx, Axx, xx.

[MFA]

Whacking it is reasonable, but after a tank you can't.

[blackshoe]

I am not disagreeing with the conclusion that pass is an LA and that X could demonstrably be suggested by the UI. I'm trying to understand the process by which all you experts (and I'm not trying to be nasty there — most of you are better players than I am, based on what I've read in your posts) are arriving at the conclusion. If it's just "I've been playing this game for 40 years, I've seen this a hundred times, trust me, it's suggested", fine and dandy, but that won't help a less experienced (as a player) TD figure out what "could demonstrably be suggested".

 

Yes, I understand that these cases require consultation, and I do that. Still, it would be nice to have a better handle on the thing.