Hesitation and bid (from partner)

[CamHenry]

[hv=d=w&v=e&s=sa8742hk5dat8ca62]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Auction (dealer W):

 

W N E S

P P 1♥ X

2NT* 3♠** P P

P

 

*: alerted, when asked, explained as "no agreement, but without the double and as an unpassed hand it's a good raise"

**: agreed hesitation

 

Questions:

- does S have an LA to pass at his second turn to call?

- is passing demonstrably suggested by the hesitation, gurning and muttering perpetrated by North before bidding 3♠?

[lamford]

4S looks completely automatic, gurning or not. And North gets a PP of 3 days at the Egremont Crab Fair.

[jeremy69]

I would bid 4S about 100% of the time.

The antics by North may suggest a marginal 3S bid and South may have been influenced by this.

[WellSpyder]

I agree with Lamford that 4♠ certainly looks like an LA to pass.

 

What is demonstrably suggested by the hesitation? Of course, we can't know what alternative to 3♠ N may have been thinking about. My first thought, though, was that surely pass was by far the most likely alternative in N's mind, in which case the time needed to decide between pass and 3♠ certainly suggests passing now rather than raising to 4♠. On second thoughts, though, I wonder whether S could have been thinking of doubling 2NT instead? Is there any evidence of how NS would treat a double here? If they can show that a double followed by bidding 3♠ over 3♥ would be stronger than a direct 3♠ over 2N then hesitating between doubling and bidding 3♠ would demonstrably suggest raising to 4♠ rather than passing. If this is how they play the double, therefore, I don't think the hesitation demonstrably suggests either LA since S doesn't know what N's alternative choice would have been.

[CamHenry]

On second thoughts, though, I wonder whether S could have been thinking of doubling 2NT instead?

Assuming you mean North here, I don't know how likely it is. NS have been playing together for years, and still haven't agreed whether 2♥ is forcing or not in 1♣-X-1♦-1♠-2♥.

[Pict]

Can't say I like the alert and explanation from East. 'Without the double and an unpassed hand' indeed: might as well tell us it would be 20/21 points if it was an opening bid. Why has West not just got 11 points and a good stop?

 

And in that case, of course, South would have to be an optimist in his 17 point spade game.

[bluejak]

I think that when an explanation is as convoluted as the actual one was that the main thing a hesitation suggests is that he is wondering what the effects of the explanation is. Of course, after the explanation North should call the TD. Not only would that give him a real chance to find out whether no agreement was correct, but it would also give him time. But we have to rule on what did happen, not what should have happened.

 

Why has West not just got 11 points and a good stop?

Good stop in what?

[WellSpyder]

On second thoughts, though, I wonder whether S could have been thinking of doubling 2NT instead?

Assuming you mean North here, I don't know how likely it is. NS have been playing together for years, and still haven't agreed whether 2♥ is forcing or not in 1♣-X-1♦-1♠-2♥.

Yes, sorry, I meant N not S.

 

I'm not sure how comparable your example is, but if it is reasonable to assume that S would not expect N to be thinking of doubling 2N then I think there is a good case to be made that the UI does demonstrably suggest passing over the LA of bidding 4♠.

[Pict]

I think that when an explanation is as convoluted as the actual one was that the main thing a hesitation suggests is that he is wondering what the effects of the explanation is. Of course, after the explanation North should call the TD. Not only would that give him a real chance to find out whether no agreement was correct, but it would also give him time. But we have to rule on what did happen, not what should have happened.

 

Why has West not just got 11 points and a good stop?

Good stop in what?

Thanks for rewording my thoughts.

 

I'd expect that if West was a balanced 11 count it would include a stop in spades after the double - would you not?

[lamford]

I'd expect that if West was a balanced 11 count it would include a stop in spades after the double - would you not?

I'd expect a West who had got past the beginner stage to redouble with a balanced 11 count and a stop in spades, so that would not be my thinking about the West hand.

 

I had a partner once who wanted to interchange the meanings of 3H and 2NT, because only the latter required alerting, and the opponents did not want to seem silly by asking. This was the only merit of the convention, and I refused to play it - or with him.

[Pict]

I'd expect that if West was a balanced 11 count it would include a stop in spades after the double - would you not?

I'd expect a West who had got past the beginner stage to redouble with a balanced 11 count and a stop in spades, so that would not be my thinking about the West hand.

 

I had a partner once who wanted to interchange the meanings of 3H and 2NT, because only the latter required alerting, and the opponents did not want to seem silly by asking. This was the only merit of the convention, and I refused to play it - or with him.

There are a lot of players (good bad and indifferent) who don't use a redouble in that way.

[lamford]

There are a lot of players (good bad and indifferent) who don't use a redouble in that way.

Indeed, some play transfers here, or have other meanings for redouble. However:

 

There are few players (good bad and indifferent) who use 2NT to show a balanced 11 count.

[Pict]

There are a lot of players (good bad and indifferent) who don't use a redouble in that way.

Indeed, some play transfers here, or have other meanings for redouble. However:

 

There are few players (good bad and indifferent) who use 2NT to show a balanced 11 count.

The few might include those who don't have a meaning for 2NT as East explains this pair don't. If you don't have a conventional meaning for a NT bid, what would a TD suppose it is?

[lamford]

The few might include those who don't have a meaning for 2NT as East explains this pair don't.  If you don't have a conventional meaning for a NT bid, what would a TD suppose it is?

The meaning that it would have been without the double is the most likely. So here a good raise. I would assume this with a pick-up partner.

[Pict]

The few might include those who don't have a meaning for 2NT as East explains this pair don't.  If you don't have a conventional meaning for a NT bid, what would a TD suppose it is?

The meaning that it would have been without the double is the most likely. So here a good raise. I would assume this with a pick-up partner.

Bad luck.

 

OP says 'no double and unpassed hand'.

[Free]

How can you expect someone to bid in tempo if you explain it like this? For me the hesitation doesn't suggest anything, except that he's looking at all angles. But 4♠ is definitely a LA and would be my choice.

[campboy]

Pretty sure OP meant to write "without the double or as an unpassed hand".

[Free]

Pretty sure OP meant to write "without the double or as an unpassed hand".

That doesn't really influence my POV since I interpreted it that way. :)

[bluejak]

There are a lot of players (good bad and indifferent) who don't use a redouble in that way.

Indeed, some play transfers here, or have other meanings for redouble. However:

 

There are few players (good bad and indifferent) who use 2NT to show a balanced 11 count.

The few might include those who don't have a meaning for 2NT as East explains this pair don't. If you don't have a conventional meaning for a NT bid, what would a TD suppose it is?

I know quite a few club players who play 2NT as natural. Fair enough.

 

But they all play it as natural with or without the double and with or without being a passed hand. It is pretty incredible to find someone who plays it as a raise, but not as a passed hand with a double! :D

 

And the reason I was sceptical about "with a stop" is that players of that level do not have agreements about having a stop, nor would it occur to them that spades was critical on this sequence.

[Pict]

To tell the truth I don't much care about the EW bidding system.

 

I just wanted to make a point about East's explanation, that seemed to have been overlooked or ignored in the initial rush to pillory North (not on Bluejak's part).

 

No doubt East was trying to be ethical and provide full disclosure, but he made such a mess of it that he casts doubt on whether there has really been a BIT by North.

[aguahombre]

To tell the truth I don't much care about the EW bidding system.

 

I just wanted to make a point about East's explanation, that seemed to have been overlooked or ignored in the initial rush to pillory North (not on Bluejak's part).

 

No doubt East was trying to be ethical and provide full disclosure, but he made such a mess of it that he casts doubt on whether there has really been a BIT by North.

I seem to remember other threads where it was agreed, "no agreement" was woefully inadequate when the side being asked has firm agreements in related situations. I see nothing wrong with the attempt at as full disclosure as possible; and see nothing unusual about advancer taking his time to absorb the information and arrive at a choice of call.

 

But if doubler passed 3S with that hand (AXXXX KX AXX AXX), and it worked --he must have more knowledge about partner's slow bids than he should; or he decided 3S must be a weak advance because their side has agreements over a known Jordon 2NT (double and 3H available).

 

TD needs to investigate that.

[lamford]

... or he decided 3S must be a weak advance because their side has agreements over a known Jordon 2NT (double and 3H available).

Although it is a bit off-topic, it must make sense to play double as Lebensohl, and other bids as transfers. This releases 3S to be minor-suit Stayman. Perhaps North spent some time trying to remember whether he was playing Lebensohl or Rubensohl in this position?

[Pict]

To tell the truth I don't much care about the EW bidding system.

 

I just wanted to make a point about East's explanation, that seemed to have been overlooked or ignored in the initial rush to pillory North (not on Bluejak's part).

 

No doubt East was trying to be ethical and provide full disclosure, but he made such a mess of it that he casts doubt on whether there has really been a BIT by North.

I seem to remember other threads where it was agreed, "no agreement" was woefully inadequate when the side being asked has firm agreements in related situations. I see nothing wrong with the attempt at as full disclosure as possible; and see nothing unusual about advancer taking his time to absorb the information and arrive at a choice of call.

 

But if doubler passed 3S with that hand (AXXXX KX AXX AXX), and it worked --he must have more knowledge about partner's slow bids than he should; or he decided 3S must be a weak advance because their side has agreements over a known Jordon 2NT (double and 3H available).

 

TD needs to investigate that.

Agua

 

The slight problem (that people are too polite to mention) is that East's alert is already an infraction, because they have no alertable agreement.

 

In effect East is trying to mastermind the auction for everyone at the table.

 

That includes his partner who has (probably) forgotten he passed.

 

Looking at this post, I very much doubt that EW/NS are involved in any sophisticated bidding of the kind you suggest,

 

I imagine that's the reason for Lamford's last pointless post.

[campboy]

East is quite right to alert, as per OB 5B10. What confuses me is how this can be an accurate description of anyone's agreements. People normally discuss "responses to 1M openings", not "responses to 1st or 2nd seat 1M openings".

[Pict]

East is quite right to alert, as per OB 5B10. What confuses me is how this can be an accurate description of anyone's agreements. People normally discuss "responses to 1M openings", not "responses to 1st or 2nd seat 1M openings".

Let me help you Campboy - OB whatsit.

 

'A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player’s partner’s actions are also consistent with that agreement.'

 

There is no suggestion that East intended to treat his partner's call as if it showed a raise.

 

Of course even if he did intend to do that, how does he avoid a TD call.

 

Either I have no idea of the rules on alerting (quite possible) or I've being playing for years with one hand tied behind my back.