Agreed hesitations

[malcp]

This was a ruling in a local competition in the UK with the pair in question playing Acol (Butler imps scoring).

 

North South are vulnerable, East West not vulnerable, North opened 1 Diamond, East overcalled 1 Spade and South bid 1NT holding

A1086

KJ5

1094

Q54

 

West bid 2 Spades, North bid 3 Diamonds after an agreed hesitation, East passed and South bid 3 No Trumps, which makes (and was made).

 

Both the director and the Appeals panel ruled that the result should stand.

 

Under the previous laws one test to be applied was whether the action after a hesitation was a 70% action. Clearly pass here is a logical alternative, and suggestions have been made that the tests now are more stingent under the new laws, perhaps nearer to needing to be an 80% action.

 

Is that the case? And if it is do we believe 3NT is an 80% action here? Does the form of scoring affect our view?

[gordontd]

Clearly pass here is a logical alternative, and suggestions have been made that the tests now are more stingent under the new laws, perhaps nearer to needing to be an 80% action.

 

Is that the case? And if it is do we believe 3NT is an 80% action here?

You seem to be both asserting that pass is a logical alternative and asking whether it is a logical alternative.

 

Personally I couldn't imagine passing in this auction, but the other question to be considered is what you think is demonstrably suggested by the slow 3♦ bid. Is it clear that it's a hand with extras, or might it be a hand that has stretched to bid 3♦? If nothing is demonstrably suggested by the break in tempo, then the player is free to make their own choice.

[WellSpyder]

I think Gordon's points are very pertinent. Thinking about it another way, suppose the South hand had passed 3♦ and this turned out to be the winning action with North having stretched to bid over 2♠. Wouldn't it be tempting now to suggest that South had a near maximum for 1N with favourable intermediates and might have been tempted to pass because of the hesitation?

 

I think 3N is the normal bid here, and I would allow the result to stand, though clearly a poll is in order asking about both the bid over 3♦ (without a hesitation) and then about what a BIT before 3♦ suggests.

[bluejak]

The question was asked what constitutes an LA, and whether it is now a 20+% action, ie whether it needs to be 80% to be evident. Let us assume for argument's sake that the hesitation suggests bidding 3NT rather than passing so we can answer this question. Let me make up an imaginary poll of 20 of your peers:

 

How many of you would consider passing? 8 consider passing.

How many of you would actually pass? 2 actually pass.

 

Now pass is an LA, and bidding 3NT is illegal, even though 90% bid 3NT.

 

Why do I say pass is an LA? The question is whether a significant proportion of South's peers consider passing. In England we generally consider this means at least one in five - and here two in five considered it. If so, would at least one or two of them actually pass? Yes, according to our poll.

[barmar]

That example is why hesitations are a real bitch, and players often feel that the rulings are unfair. It shows why the "I was always going to" argument is often irrelevant. It doesn't matter so much what YOU would have done without the hesitation, it matters what your peers would consider and do. And if the action without the hesitation is the one that the hesitation suggests, you may be prohibited from taking it.

[Cyberyeti]

That example is why hesitations are a real bitch, and players often feel that the rulings are unfair. It shows why the "I was always going to" argument is often irrelevant. It doesn't matter so much what YOU would have done without the hesitation, it matters what your peers would consider and do. And if the action without the hesitation is the one that the hesitation suggests, you may be prohibited from taking it.

True, but getting "peers" demands people of the same general style too (this was established in some earlier threads), I'm well known to (over)bid like a loony, there are only usually about 2 or 3 suitable peers in the room and I'm usually playing with one of them. There is no point in polling people of similar standard but more conservative outlook. This is something that's often overlooked when doing polls.

 

In this case, it's arguable whether the hesitation suggests bidding 3N (has partner got a 2.5 or a 3.5 ?). Partner has made a free bid at the 3 level, I have a supermaximum 1N (I think it's too good in an acol context, but what else do you do), I'm bidding game here.

[mycroft]

Good information above, all the way through.

 

A reminder, however, that *all* the items have to match to adjust the score:

1. There has to be UI (admitted hesitation, check)
   
2. There has to be information demonstrably suggested by that UI (which is Gordon's comment - here, is it "3D doesn't really show my strength" or "I've got lots of diamonds, but is partner going to take me for more with the free bid", or something else?)
   
3. There has to be an action taken that would be suggested by the UI, and
   
4. There has to be an action,
   • *not* suggested by the UI,
   • that would be considered "logical" by the Law's definition and the local ZO's regulations,
   • that would be less successful.

 

So, 3NT made, and 3D would score less well. But we don't know if 3D is a LA by the EBU's regulations, and we don't know whether the UI clearly pointed to "extras". Either of those being decided against would lead to "score stands", and it looks clear from the discussion that both could very easily be decided against ("we don't know if the hesitation showed extras or not enough, but anyway, nobody's passing 3D with this hand, having bid 1NT the last time - what more could we have?")

[Finch]

I also don't see why a slow 3D demonstrably suggests bidding 3NT rather than passing. I hope the OP hasn't forgotten that part of the Laws before worrying about whether pass is a LA or not.

[AlexJonson]

I personally think the slow 3D demonstrably suggests bidding 3NT with a maximum.

 

I would not have bid 3NT in this situation.

 

Now it seems I should have bid 3NT and left it to the TD, not for the first time. I will learn eventually.

[WellSpyder]

I personally think the slow 3D demonstrably suggests bidding 3NT with a maximum.

Personally, I think a fast 3D would have suggested bidding 3N with a maximum, and so would an in-tempo 3D.

[AlexJonson]

Personally, I think a fast 3D would have suggested bidding 3N with a maximum, and so would an in-tempo 3D.

 

You know, I'd be delighted to ditch almost all the concern about tempo, so I'm defintitely with you.

 

I just didn't realise the current Laws plus local regulations looked like that.

[mrdct]

A reminder, however, that *all* the items have to match to adjust the score:

1. There has to be UI (admitted hesitation, check)
   
2. There has to be information demonstrably suggested by that UI (which is Gordon's comment - here, is it "3D doesn't really show my strength" or "I've got lots of diamonds, but is partner going to take me for more with the free bid", or something else?)
   
3. There has to be an action taken that would be suggested by the UI, and
   
4. There has to be an action,
   • *not* suggested by the UI,
   • that would be considered "logical" by the Law's definition and the local ZO's regulations,
   • that would be less successful.

Fails at point 2 as the hesitation doesn't suggest any particular action by South. All the hesitation suggests is that the 3♦ bidder was considering other actions such as pass, 2NT, 3♠ or 3NT - but who knows which. I believe South is completely free to bid whatever he likes and 3NT looks pretty obvious to me and even if it were relevant no other potential bids, particualrly pass, spring to mind.

[Vampyr]

The use of Stop cards in competitive auctions would sort some of these cases out.

[Rossoneri]

The use of Stop cards in competitive auctions would sort some of these cases out.

 

Some pairs would end up taking 5 minutes to bid a board in that case :P

 

Not saying that the idea is completely without merit though.

[gordontd]

You know, I'd be delighted to ditch almost all the concern about tempo, so I'm defintitely with you.

I don't think he's suggesting ditching all concerns about tempo.

 

I just didn't realise the current Laws plus local regulations looked like that.

Well, they do say in part that if there is no logical alternative to a call (as most of us think is the case here) you could make it even if it's suggested by the UI (which most of us don't seem to think is the case here).

[Jeremy69A]

Let me make up an imaginary poll of 20 of your peers:

 

How many of you would consider passing? 8 consider passing.

How many of you would actually pass? 2 actually pass.

 

 

what did the other 10 do?

[blackshoe]

Presumably they bid something. :ph34r:

[gnasher]

what did the other 10 do?

I think there are 12 of them, unless the two passers used the "lucky dip" method to select their calls.

[shevek]

Clear to go for 3NT Vul Butler, the most attractive conditions to push.

So clear in fact that I would have bid 2NT as South first time.

Wouls at least consider passing at MPs.