What does this suggest?

[gordontd]

2♣-2♦

3♠-4NT

5♥-...6NT

 

2♣ showed a strong balanced hand, or 9 playing tricks, or a GF. The 3♠ identified it as the 9 playing trick type hand.

 

2♦ was a relay

 

4NT was RKCB

 

5♥ showed 2 key cards (no trump queen)

 

6NT was agreed to be slow. What do you think this suggests?

[blackshoe]

Uncertainty between 6♠ and 6NT. Possibly uncertainty between a 6 level and a 7 level contract. Not sure I can articulate why I think so, in either case.

[StevenG]

It depends on whether it's MPs or IMPs.

[gordontd]

It depends on whether its MPs or IMPs.

IMPs

[RMB1]

6NT was agreed to be slow. What do you think this suggests?

Not much really.

 

Either a hand that wants to make a grand slam try but doesn't know what 5NT ... 6♥ mean, or that they will be useful, or that they will be forcing(?).

 

Or a hand that is somewhat suitable for 6♠ or somewhat unsuitable for 6NT.

[StevenG]

If I was the 6NT bidder, it would mean I was searching for a more scientific sequence but couldn't find one.

[Cyberyeti]

If I was the 6NT bidder, it would mean I was searching for a more scientific sequence but couldn't find one.

This, but the implication is probably that "I might be wishing to investigate 7 but can't think of how", so partner had better have a 10th trick to bid 7.

 

The only question is could I be wanting to bid 5 and a half rather than 6 and a half, and I think the answer is no, I don't think I'd have gone straight to Blackwood.

 

5♥ was probably an unexpected response to Blackwood if it genuinely is 2 rather than 2 or 5, so I'm not surprised there was thought, I suspect the thought was more "What the hell has he got with 9 playing tricks and only 2 key cards".

[paulg]

I tend to agree with Robin. I think it is clear that there is doubt whether 6NT is the right contract, but it is pretty impossible to tell whether it is a 6♠/6NT decision or a small/grand slam decision.

 

For example, if I knew we were missing a key card then, as the 4NT bidder, I would expect my bid over 5♥ to end the auction. I would feel that it is worth taking the time to consider whether 6♠ or 6NT is the better spot, considerations like likely ruffs, lead up to my hand etc.

 

So hesitation would not suggest anything significant.

 

p

[lamford]

The question should be "what does this demonstrably suggest?", and, as we have seen from the answers, just alternative bids or routes, which are difficult to establish.

[gordontd]

Not much really.

 

Either a hand that wants to make a grand slam try but doesn't know what 5NT ... 6♥ mean, or that they will be useful, or that they will be forcing(?).

 

Or a hand that is somewhat suitable for 6♠ or somewhat unsuitable for 6NT.

Hi Robin,

 

I tried to get hold of you to discuss this last night, but couldn't get you on the phone. I ended up discussing it with Max, and we agreed that the slow 6NT didn't suggest bidding on - we thought the most likely reason for the hesitation was wondering whether to bid 6S or 6NT.

 

Now for the followup: while opener was waiting for responder to bid, he realised that he had misbid on the previous round, and he actually had three keycards, not two. So, he raised 6NT to 7NT, since his partner had been happy to play in 6NT believing there was a keycard missing. Any problem with this?

[blackshoe]

You decided the BIT did not suggest bidding on. So if the player bids on, he has not committed an infraction.

[LH2650]

It suggests bidding on. I would have decided what I would do over each of partner's likely responses before I bid 4NT. His actual response was clearly unexpected, so my hesitation suggests that he do a recount.

[dburn]

Hi Robin,

 

I tried to get hold of you to discuss this last night, but couldn't get you on the phone. I ended up discussing it with Max, and we agreed that the slow 6NT didn't suggest bidding on - we thought the most likely reason for the hesitation was wondering whether to bid 6S or 6NT.

 

Now for the followup: while opener was waiting for responder to bid, he realised that he had misbid on the previous round, and he actually had three keycards, not two. So, he raised 6NT to 7NT, since his partner had been happy to play in 6NT believing there was a keycard missing. Any problem with this?

The only problem would be if you thought the guy was bidding slowly in order to give partner time to recount his key cards (perhaps surprised to find so few opposite). Difficult to prove, though, even if you suspected it.

[gnasher]

When the hesitation is by someone who is known to be missing a keycard, it definitely doesn't suggest bidding seven.

[iviehoff]

Suppose the player had passed rather than bid 6N. Would you as opponents complain that he should have bid on to a 7N (which goes off on a cruel break or something), having found the extra key card, but was warned off by the break in tempo? I think I might.

[hrothgar]

2♣-2♦

3♠-4NT

5♥-...6NT

 

2♣ showed a strong balanced hand, or 9 playing tricks, or a GF. The 3♠ identified it as the 9 playing trick type hand.

 

2♦ was a relay

 

4NT was RKCB

 

5♥ showed 2 key cards (no trump queen)

 

6NT was agreed to be slow. What do you think this suggests?

 

Silly hypothetical question

 

Assume for the moment that I ran the following experiment

 

I present 50 people with the following:

 

The 2♣ opener's hand

The auction up to 6NT (along with all the meanings but no information about the hesitation)

I then asked them to chose their bid...

 

Next, I surveyed a different group of 50 people

 

These people get the following information

 

The 2♣ opener's hand

The auction up to 6NT (along with all the meanings and information about the hesitation

I then asked them to chose their bid acting on the hesitation

 

I then check and see whether there is a statistically significant difference between the two sets of responses:

 

1. If there is no difference between the set of responses, no harm / no foul (nothing is demonstrably suggested by the bid)

2. If there is a statistically significant difference, we now have precise information about what is/is not suggested

 

Would folks consider this type of information at all helpful?

 

 

In this day and age, where everyone and their brother has access to web browser it would be pretty easy to design this type of survey mechanism.

 

Imaging the following:

 

I - and a thousand other people - get a instant message saying that there is an appeals committee involving an Acol auction. I fancy myself an Acol expert, so I agree to participate

 

I go to a web site that presents me with the 2C opener

 

I get asked for my bid (if I answer anything other than 2C, I get booted because I'm not part of the peer group. If I answer 2C, I advance to the next stage of the process. I'm now told that partner has responded 2♦. I am tested to see whether I would respond 2♠... In an ideal world, I might never even know which bid involved a hesitation...)

[aguahombre]

Suppose the player had passed rather than bid 6N. Would you as opponents complain that he should have bid on to a 7N (which goes off on a cruel break or something), having found the extra key card, but was warned off by the break in tempo? I think I might.

? Wouldn't the auction have been over at 5H? If so, maybe the the cruel break would be in trumps, breaking 6-3 in the defenders's hands.

[bluejak]

What does it suggest? Doubt.

 

Perhaps he was wondering whether to bid a slam or sign off in 5♠ - it is amazing the number of people who wait for the response to Blackwood without deciding this first.

 

Perhaps he was wondering whether to bid a slam in spades or no-trumps.

 

Perhaps he was wondering whether to try for a grand or not.

 

Perhaps he felt he had enough to try for grand but could not think of a way of finding out [it is less than 24 hours since I thought in a similar position for this reason].

 

Perhaps he was wondering whether the absence of the trump queen mattered for six.

 

Perhaps he was wondering whether the absence of the trump queen mattered for seven.

 

Perhaps he was wondering what to have for tea later on.

[ahydra]

Perhaps he was wondering what to have for tea later on.

 

Wasn't that excuse ridiculed in my thread on UI rules - the player should be focusing on the game? :) It may not have been you who ridiculed it though [in fact, I'm pretty sure it wasn't]

 

I agree that in this case there's no way of telling what was being thought about. As lamford pointed out, it's what's demonstrably suggested that counts, and nothing seems to be. I'm not sure I can find anything wrong with the raising 6NT to 7NT either for the same reason - unless, of course, there were some facial expressions involved...

 

ahydra

[RMB1]

Now for the followup: while opener was waiting for responder to bid, he realised that he had misbid on the previous round, and he actually had three keycards, not two. So, he raised 6NT to 7NT, since his partner had been happy to play in 6NT believing there was a keycard missing. Any problem with this?

 

Yes, some unease.

 

A systematic application of Law 16 suggests there is no infraction.

 

But cyberyeti and dburn make good points: perhaps the hesitation suggests the key card response was wrong, and/or the hesitation suggests partner thinks again.

 

We have seen before where a hesitation in the play leads to the right defence by partner. Often the hesitation does not demonstrably suggest the right play and perhaps there is no logical alternative to the right play. Nevertheless, we know that without the hesitation, the defender might have defended carelessly and misdefended; with the hesitation, the defender gives the defence sufficient thought (at the right time) and does not miss the right play. It is not clear that there has been an infraction of Law 16.

 

In this case, is it a logical alternative to not look at your hand again and simply pass 6NT, knowing that partner is captain of the auction? Does the hesitation suggest you look at your hand again and re-count your key cards? Certainly the hesitation gives you time to do so, and therefore makes it more likely that you will do so(?)

 

There is a case that the hesitation has prompted opener to re-count his key cards, and in doing so opener has taken advantage of the hesitation. So perhaps there has been an infraction of Law 73C, if not of Law 16. Of course there is no prescribed penalty for an infraction of Law 73C: a procedureal penalty but score stands does not seem right.

[peachy]

... it's what's demonstrably suggested that counts,...

ahydra

 

Not so fast. The law says "... could demonstrably

have been suggested over another

by the extraneous information." Bolding is from me.

[gordontd]

So perhaps there has been an infraction of Law 73C, if not of Law 16. Of course there is no prescribed penalty for an infraction of Law 73C: a procedureal penalty but score stands does not seem right.

L12A1?

[bluejak]

Surely a breach of Law 73C can lead to an adjustment under Law 12A1?

[Hanoi5]

Yes, some unease.

 

A systematic application of Law 16 suggests there is no infraction.

 

But cyberyeti and dburn make good points: perhaps the hesitation suggests the key card response was wrong, and/or the hesitation suggests partner thinks again.

 

We have seen before where a hesitation in the play leads to the right defence by partner. Often the hesitation does not demonstrably suggest the right play and perhaps there is no logical alternative to the right play. Nevertheless, we know that without the hesitation, the defender might have defended carelessly and misdefended; with the hesitation, the defender gives the defence sufficient thought (at the right time) and does not miss the right play. It is not clear that there has been an infraction of Law 16.

 

In this case, is it a logical alternative to not look at your hand again and simply pass 6NT, knowing that partner is captain of the auction? Does the hesitation suggest you look at your hand again and re-count your key cards? Certainly the hesitation gives you time to do so, and therefore makes it more likely that you will do so(?)

 

There is a case that the hesitation has prompted opener to re-count his key cards, and in doing so opener has taken advantage of the hesitation. So perhaps there has been an infraction of Law 73C, if not of Law 16. Of course there is no prescribed penalty for an infraction of Law 73C: a procedureal penalty but score stands does not seem right.

 

When I went through the facts I believed there was no foul in the hand, as someone made a mistake and then tried to correct their mistake which could have gone very wrong(?). However, what if the hesitation was made 'cause responder couldn't think of a hand with 9 winners and only 2 KC? Then it sort of alerted opener to look at his/her hand again and reconsider, which is what happened when he realized he had another ace. I'm not sure this is covered in the laws and would end up being a judgement call from the Director and committee but there's room for a lot of discussion and argument.

[lamford]

<snip>I then check and see whether there is a statistically significant difference between the two sets of responses:

 

1. If there is no difference between the set of responses, no harm / no foul (nothing is demonstrably suggested by the bid)

2. If there is a statistically significant difference, we now have precise information about what is/is not suggested

 

Would folks consider this type of information at all helpful?

Yes and No. Let us say that 20 people of the second set bid 7, and only 5 people of the first set did so; this could be caused by a number of factors.

a) Perhaps only 5 of the first set knew how to play bridge

b) Perhaps only 5 of the fist set realised they had miscounted their key cards or knew what a key card was.

c) Most importantly, perhaps 20 of the second set were triggered by the question you ask to look for some hidden point.

 

So there are quite a few pitfalls in this approach. The other issue is that the hesitation did not convey to the advancer (assuming he did advance) that he had miscounted his keycards. It is what the hesitation conveys, not what the extra time that he had to think conveyed, that is relevant. Unless we believe that the hesitator did so for the purpose of getting his partner to recount - and this does seem a bit far-fetched.