More UI

[Cascade]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj9842h43da5ck9&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1spp2h3s4hp(slow)p4sppp]133|200[/hv]

 

MPs - Weak field

 

South is one of the better players in the field. East is stronger. North and west around average - west being less experienced.

 

Written bidding - which means that bids are written on a pad in the centre of the table.

 

North leans forward and puts his pen on the bidding pad to write a bid (or pass or double) then has a second thought and looks back at his hand then leans forward againg and passes.

 

The break in tempo was only a few seconds but nevertheless an unmistakable break from a normal tempo.

[Hanoi5]

I voted no but now I'm not so sure. Even if partner is not helpful 800 seems out of the question so 4♠ looks normal. I think I allow it to stand, I wish I could take my vote back.

[aguahombre]

And how does North looking back at his hand to make sure of his choice suggest one action or the other to South? How do we know a second thought was involved? If he actually started to write something, and changed it --maybe we would have an issue. This is not a case where we just accept the OP statement about the second thought, unless the poster was North.

 

It seems with written bids and calls, this would happen a lot, since closing up the cards to write something down would be common; and opening them up to double-check would be common.

Edited May 25, 2011 by aguahombre

[jillybean]

And how does North looking back at his hand to make sure of his choice suggest one action or the other to South?

It communicates the fact that partner does not have an clear pass over 4♥, he has some values. This would suggest taking further action over passing.

[aguahombre]

If, and this is a big IF, I have UI --it is that partner is now sure he wants to pass. The break in tempo would suggest NOT bidding 4S. Of course North does not have "values". If contemplating anything at all, it is more likely he is thinking to double so that I will stop bidding those damn spades ---making 4S the LA least suggested.

 

But, note from the part you didn't quote; I don't agree that what happened creates usable UI at all.

[jillybean]

If, and this is a big IF, I have UI --it is that partner is now sure he wants to pass. The break in tempo would suggest NOT bidding 4S. Of course North does not have "values". If contemplating anything at all, it is more likely he is thinking to double so that I will stop bidding those damn spades ---making 4S the LA least suggested.

 

But, note from the part you didn't quote; I don't agree that what happened creates usable UI at all.

I think the UI (if it exists) suggests partner is not sure of his pass. Partner does not have hearts. Why are you sure he does not have values, doesn't the bit suggest that he does?

[hotShot]

I would allow 4♠, white against red this seems the only logical choice.

 

If partner intended to dbl 4♥, that would imply that there is a chance that 4♥ will go down.

This would make the 4♠ a mistake, as you will go down while opps won't make their game.

[aguahombre]

Partner does not have hearts. Why are you sure he does not have values, doesn't the bit suggest that he does?

 

Maybe his passes suggested not having values. And, for the third time: no, the B.I.T. as described doesn't suggest anything.

[nigel_k]

Definitely allow 4♠.

 

3♠ is already an overstatement of the hand's defensive strength so if partner cannot double 4♥ you have a very obvious sacrifice at matchpoints. Therefore pass is not a logical alternative. Also, the slow pass doesn't suggest bidding over passing.

[blackshoe]

I selected "yes" for the poll, even though that answer is incorrect.

 

What I would do is tell the players to play the hand, and then after the play is over I would tell them the result stands. The conclusion one who does not know the laws would draw from the poll's "no" answer is probably that in that case the TD should cancel 4♠, and direct South to pass, so that they play the hand in 4♥ by East, which is of course incorrect.

[AlexJonson]

I voted yes.

 

The worse partner is the more I want to bid 4S.

 

So 'hesitates shows values' doesn't make it easier for me to bid on.

[mgoetze]

And, for the third time: no, the B.I.T. as described doesn't suggest anything.

 

You can repeat it as often as you like, but that won't make it any more correct. Come on, the guy passed a 1♠ opening, do you really think he suddenly has a penalty double in his hand? No, the only thing he might have been thinking about is bidding 4♠.

 

I think 3♠ already showed all of South's values - perhaps even more as even 2♠ in that position tends to show some extras, thus pass is a LA, bridge being, after all, a partnership game.

[Cascade]

I voted yes.

 

The worse partner is the more I want to bid 4S.

 

So 'hesitates shows values' doesn't make it easier for me to bid on.

 

I don't think this reasoning is correct.

 

In a sacrifice situation hestitates and passes doesn't necessarily show values it just shows a desire to take some other action - maybe a sacrifice with no values.

[nige1]

... the guy passed a 1♠ opening, do you really think he suddenly has a penalty double in his hand? No, the only thing he might have been thinking about is bidding 4♠. I think 3♠ already showed all of South's values - perhaps even more as even 2♠ in that position tends to show some extras, thus pass is a LA, bridge being, after all, a partnership game.

Agree with Mgoetze. A hesitation by a very weak hand is more likely to suggest a sacrifice than a penalty.

[mrdct]

North's BIT means that he was thinking about doing something other than pass. This could only be double or 4♠.

 

We probably need to know a little bit more about North's bidding style. Would North routinely raise 1♠ with 3-card support and a 3 or 4 count?

 

It's kind of hard to think of too many hands that North could hold which would be thinking about penalising 4♥ but couldn't find a bid over 1♠. On that basis, I think the BIT likely suggests a really weak hand with 3-card or perhaps ♠10x which certainly makes 4♠ attractive by South. I think pass is a logical alternative for South at matchpoints as there are decent chances of beating 4♥ if partner just has one of the ♦K or ♣A.

 

I don't allow 4♠.

 

South perhaps dug his own grave by not bidding 4♠ the previosu round.

[axman]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj9842h43da5ck9&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1spp2h3s4hp(slow)p4sppp]133|200[/hv]

 

MPs - Weak field

 

South is one of the better players in the field. East is stronger. North and west around average - west being less experienced.

 

Written bidding - which means that bids are written on a pad in the centre of the table.

 

North leans forward and puts his pen on the bidding pad to write a bid (or pass or double) then has a second thought and looks back at his hand then leans forward againg and passes.

 

The break in tempo was only a few seconds but nevertheless an unmistakable break from a normal tempo.

 

I know if I were S I would hold another two tricks for 3S, if for no other reason that he could be quite broke indeed and it just would not do to encourage partner into a minus position that he would expect to be plus. Yet I do not know the systems upon which this bidding was based so I also am not in a position to judge the values the other three would [or might] have for their actions, including the mannerisms of N after 4H.

[dburn]

Because we must resolve it somehow, we resolve the "slow limit raise" case by saying that a slow action "demonstrably suggests" that partner should bid on with a hand that might pass an in-tempo limit raise (and therefore that when he does bid on, we will adjust the score if his efforts prove successful).

 

There is no particularly logical reason for this: of course, a hand that raises 1NT slowly to 2NT might "equiprobably" have a 1.5NT bid or a 2.5NT bid; so one could take the view that nothing is "demonstrably suggested" by the raiser's tempo, and the opener can do what he likes.

 

But we are cynics, or skeptics, or both, and in extended observation of the ways and works of Man from the Four-Mile Radius roughly to the Plains of Hindustan, we note that in the vast majority of cases when some fellow does something in a fashion that suggests he might have done something else, he is hoping that partner and not he will make the final decision for his side.

 

We extend this to the general principle that any slow action "demonstrably suggests" that partner should not pass. When, therefore, partner does not pass and this turns out to be the winner, we are (or should be) inclined to rule against that action unless the non-pass was obvious.

 

For what it's worth, I would not bid 4♠ for all the tea in China. When I used to do this, partner always had something like ♠xx ♥xx ♦Qxxxx ♣Q10xx. Their spades were invariably 2-2 and they could make 3♥ only with some effort; 4♥ had no chance whatsoever, while 4♠ was minus 300 in aces and kings.

 

But of course when partner passes 4♥ slowly, he doesn't have this hand. Therefore...

[Cyberyeti]

North's BIT means that he was thinking about doing something other than pass. This could only be double or 4♠.

 

We probably need to know a little bit more about North's bidding style. Would North routinely raise 1♠ with 3-card support and a 3 or 4 count?

 

It's kind of hard to think of too many hands that North could hold which would be thinking about penalising 4♥ but couldn't find a bid over 1♠. On that basis, I think the BIT likely suggests a really weak hand with 3-card or perhaps ♠10x which certainly makes 4♠ attractive by South. I think pass is a logical alternative for South at matchpoints as there are decent chances of beating 4♥ if partner just has one of the ♦K or ♣A.

 

I don't allow 4♠.

 

South perhaps dug his own grave by not bidding 4♠ the previosu round.

Completely disagree with this. Most of the time, I have 7 tricks in 4♠ so it's cheaper than 4♥ making at this vul. Is 4♥ making, you'd be unlucky if it wasn't, but that is possible and also depends how little is required by the partnership to dredge up a response. The reason for not bidding 4♠ last time is that if hearts are 2-2, there must be a decent chance of the bidding dying in 3♠-2 or 3♠x-1 vs -140, so at least have a go at finishing there. I think that since you protect on some pretty weak hands, the 4♥ bidder has an opening hand to bid this at red and the only reason for this auction is that he has too many spades to X, a 3352 14 count with 5 bad diamonds would not be atypical.

 

If I had a singleton heart, I think I could bid 4♠ with impunity as now partner can have say ♥QJ109 and be thinking about doubling. As it is, he only has 3 so this is difficult to envisage (although if I had a void in spades opposite I might think about doubling to prevent partner doing something stupid, although I might then realise that thinking then passing might dissuade an ethical partner from bidding 4♠ on hands that should, so I might feel forced to X).

 

With the hand DBurn gave opposite, I think I'd X 4♥. I've overstated my hand with the jump to 3♠ and if I had the 2 minor suit Qs opposite I'd certainly expect to beat 4♥ or be getting a horrible result anyway if I didn't. Partner is more likely to have 18 or 19 points than 13 the way I think.

[lamford]

With the hand DBurn gave opposite [♠xx ♥xx ♦Qxxxx ♣Q10xx], I think I'd X 4♥.

Really? I think that double would get 0 votes in any poll. And yes, I would disallow 4S, and impose a PP for the bid.

[jh51]

I am not sure what is meant by "allowing" 4♠.

 

I would think that the rules of bridge require that the hand be played at 4♠ and then an adjustement be made if appropriate. It seems to me that if partner has a random pointless holding with as few as 2 ♠, the most you figure to lose is 6 tricks for -500 if doubled. Whatever the slow pass means. If you are getting that result, 4♥ is certainly on for EW. I will not dispute that there is UI, but is pass really a LA?

[mrdct]

Completely disagree with this. Most of the time, I have 7 tricks in 4♠ so it's cheaper than 4♥ making at this vul. Is 4♥ making, you'd be unlucky if it wasn't, but that is possible and also depends how little is required by the partnership to dredge up a response. The reason for not bidding 4♠ last time is that if hearts are 2-2, there must be a decent chance of the bidding dying in 3♠-2 or 3♠x-1 vs -140, so at least have a go at finishing there. I think that since you protect on some pretty weak hands, the 4♥ bidder has an opening hand to bid this at red and the only reason for this auction is that he has too many spades to X, a 3352 14 count with 5 bad diamonds would not be atypical.

 

If I had a singleton heart, I think I could bid 4♠ with impunity as now partner can have say ♥QJ109 and be thinking about doubling. As it is, he only has 3 so this is difficult to envisage (although if I had a void in spades opposite I might think about doubling to prevent partner doing something stupid, although I might then realise that thinking then passing might dissuade an ethical partner from bidding 4♠ on hands that should, so I might feel forced to X).

 

With the hand DBurn gave opposite, I think I'd X 4♥. I've overstated my hand with the jump to 3♠ and if I had the 2 minor suit Qs opposite I'd certainly expect to beat 4♥ or be getting a horrible result anyway if I didn't. Partner is more likely to have 18 or 19 points than 13 the way I think.

If we ran some simulations, I'm quite sure that 4♠ would come out on top as the winning option in the majority of cases where my vulnerable opponents have 22-27 hcp, a major fit, bid a game with apparent intent to make and I'm looking at a pretty certain minimum of 7 tricks for a -500 save. However, that isn't the test here. The question is does North's BIT suggest that 4♠ would be better than other logical alternative (e.g. pass)? Pass is going to win whenever 4♠x is going for 800 or when we can beat 4♥ and there will surely be a reasonably portion of hands where that is case; but this BIT by North undoubtedly tips the scales towards 4♠ being the superior choice.

[nigel_k]

If we ran some simulations, I'm quite sure that 4♠ would come out on top as the winning option in the majority of cases where my vulnerable opponents have 22-27 hcp, a major fit, bid a game with apparent intent to make and I'm looking at a pretty certain minimum of 7 tricks for a -500 save. However, that isn't the test here. The question is does North's BIT suggest that 4♠ would be better than other logical alternative (e.g. pass)? Pass is going to win whenever 4♠x is going for 800 or when we can beat 4♥ and there will surely be a reasonably portion of hands where that is case; but this BIT by North undoubtedly tips the scales towards 4♠ being the superior choice.

I would suggest that your proposed test is not the right test here. Even if there are a reasonable portion (whatever that means) of hands where pass will work best, this does not mean that pass is a logical alternative.

 

Suppose I deal and hold an ordinary balanced hand with 13 HCP. Passing will work better than opening on a reasonable portion of hands, but pass is not a logical alternative because hardly anybody would regard it as the best action. In my view, this hand is similar. Choosing an action with known negative expectation is almost the exact definition of illogical. What matters is not the magnitude of the negative expectation, but the proportion of the player's peers who agree that a negative expectation exists.

[Hanoi5]

When South bids 3♠ s/he's trying to show a good hand with some defense, s/he already knows that 4♠ would be a good sacrifice but opponents haven't bid it yet and he could also bid 4♠ with a hand with less defense (KQJ9xxxx x x AKxx, here you could find black singletons in the opponents' hands). However, when they reached game and partner didn't react by doubling (with some defense and no spade fit, for example) or bidding 4♠ South could take the action s/he knows is better scoring-wise.

 

Of course one may argue that South defense is not that good in front of a passed partner and that a passed partner will never have good enough defense for a double but this could have been solved by having the Director ask South (away from the table) what were his reasons for bidding like this.

[AlexJonson]

Another learning experience.

 

We already have the dubious fact that passing gets you out of most ethical problems, because it's too hard for the TD to work anything else out.

 

Now we have the new fact that we have to bid 4S immediately on this hand in case partner should imagine he is not playing snap, and we then can't bid on.

 

I'm happy enough with this new bit of guidance, I'll just bid 4S first time round, much better than trying to play a difficult card game.

 

Who are these judgements for? My experience against strong players, and forays into watching matches online (eg the recent excellent trials) suggest that strong players think when they choose, with more or less total impunity. So who are the players who are not allowed to think without compromising partner?

[gordontd]

My experience against strong players, and forays into watching matches online (eg the recent excellent trials) suggest that strong players think when they choose, with more or less total impunity.

I think it's probably just that their partners avoid taking advantage of it without making a big song & dance. You probably haven't noticed that they've accepted the limitations placed on their decisions by their partner's tempo break.