Just another LA (agreed hesitation) case

[gombo121]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakt4hk7dqj654ca2&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1n(15-17)3c(nat)p(agreed%20BIT%2C%20"%7E%2020%20sec")p3dppp]133|200|matchpoints[/hv] A small regional tournament in Russia. 8 tables, 3 sessions, very different levels of players, inexperienced director, no screens. Matchpoint scoring.

South is a pro and arguably the best player in the tournament, North is a client, intermidiate and not very experienced; they are among contenders for the top spot. EW are both good advanced players, they are contenders too (in fact, EW won the tournament and NS finished in the third place).

 

South choose to open off-shape 1NT in second hand. After jump overcall by West, North took a while before passing (stop cards are not used in Russia, but a bit of a pause after skip bit is considered normal; here it was agreed that North thought longer than normal, but not extremely long, "about 20 seconds"). In duly course, 3♦ was made +2 (dummy sported 5-card fit and 7 PC) and TD was summoned. He established BIT, but kept the result (unfortunately, I don't know his exact reasoning; at least polling peers was not a realistic option due to small field). EW appealed.

 

Predictably, EW argued that BIT makes bidding much more attractive then passing and that result should be reversed to 3♣, down two, +100. South claimed that because of his off-shape opening, 3♣ are probably non-standard contract and because of form of scoring pass is not an option; between bidding on and doubling hesitations suggest double, so he choose bidding on.

 

AC found that NS has no clear agreement about double from North in this position (whether it is for take-out or for penalties), so it seems that the argument that hesitations clearly suggest double is valid; anyway, since 3♣ doubled produces +300, the only relevant question is whether pass is a logical alternative for South.

 

Ethical considerations aside, what do you think about LA problem?

[aguahombre]

Would have a real problem with a double after the B.I.T. with that 1NT opener; it might be suggested by the B.I.T, and it isn't very logical (as in LA). Pass would be a LA, but 3D does not seem to be suggested by the B.I.T. So, 3D is fine for the purposes of any ruling. In fact, pass might be a LA suggested by pard's hesitation, making 3D all that is available.

[jallerton]

Pass would be a LA, but 3D does not seem to be suggested by the B.I.T. So, 3D is fine for the purposes of any ruling. In fact, pass might be a LA suggested by pard's hesitation, making 3D all that is available.

 

Really? If Responder had, say, ♠xxx ♥xxxxx ♦xx ♣xxx you would not expect a hesitation, would you? Then bidding 3♦ would convert -110/-130 into -200/-300.

 

Your reasoning would have more going for it if the vulnerability were reversed.

[aguahombre]

Really? If Responder had, say, ♠xxx ♥xxxxx ♦xx ♣xxx you would not expect a hesitation, would you? Then bidding 3♦ would convert -110/-130 into -200/-300.

 

Your reasoning would have more going for it if the vulnerability were reversed.

We are talking about two different things. Certainly, South could pass or could bid 3D, and pass is a L.A. But let us assume that this expert, who knows double would be a bad call because of his doubleton heart and admits even if it were a L.A. it might be one suggested by the hesitation, now has the choice of the other two calls.

 

Pass would also exact a penalty, maybe +150 if pard was thinking of doubling for penalty and didn't know if he could; so, it is a hedge based on the UI. If, 3D goes for a number, at least it shouldn't be getting a ruling also.

[mrdct]

North's BIT over the 3♣ bid conveys UI that he was contemplating some other action which could be double, could be three of his suit or could even be 3NT. The bottom line is that the BIT in all of those scenarios indicates that North is not completely void of values so it certainly make taking an action other than pass more attractive so I think we are over the first hurdle that the BIT suggests to South that bidding or doubling is a safer bet than if North had passed smoothly.

 

The second hurdle is whether or not pass is a logical alternative for South. We are told that South is a pro playing with his client so I'd be thinking that he probably wants to play the hands whenever possible and take partner out of the cardplay equation. He's also playing matchpoints where in all likelihood 3♣ making anything from 6 to 9 tricks is going to be a bad score, so I think it's reasonable to conclude that passing-out 3♣ is not a logical alternative.

 

I uphold the TD's ruling and EW get their deposit back.

 

By the way - what does "nat" mean here? Is it his only way of showing a ♣ suit? Is it preemptive? Has West denied a two-suiter with ♣?

[gombo121]

By the way - what does "nat" mean here? Is it his only way of showing a ♣ suit? Is it preemptive? Has West denied a two-suiter with ♣?

EW play a kind of Multi-Landy (Woolsey) defence. It is the lowest bid to show one-suiter in ♣. It denies two-suiter, does not specifies any particular strength, just reasonable number of playing tricks to be on the safe side.

[mrdct]

EW play a kind of Multi-Landy (Woolsey) defence. It is the lowest bid to show one-suiter in ♣. It denies two-suiter, does not specifies any particular strength, just reasonable number of playing tricks to be on the safe side.

That reinforces my view that at matchpoints with a non-passed partner and a passed-hand in RHO, you just can't afford to defend 3♣ at these colours as +150, +100, +50 and -110 all rate to be very poor scores. Pass is not an LA for South.

[mycroft]

So, if they decide not to hog the hand, what auctions do we expect?

p-1♦-2♣-x;

3♣ by somebody...now what?

 

p-1♦-2♣-p;

p-2♠-p-?

 

p-1♦-2♣-p;

p-X-p/3♣- ?

 

p-1♦-3♣-...

 

even +50 is going to be a lot better than -100 (is the field going to matchpoint double 3♣ red-on-white to try to get +100? Really, as opposed to trying to get +110?) And if North passes 1♦-2♣, or turns out to have hearts, it's pretty likely that nobody can make anything.

 

Now, there are several advantages to opening 1NT with this hand - not least, I'll be playing it - but after 3♣, partner will pass with lots of hands that would have said something if I had bid 1♦, especially if the overcall would only have been 2♣. Now I'm in a bind. If partner has a misfit or a nothing, I'd better take what I can out of 3♣, and hope they can only make 8 tricks. Ah, but partner *does not* have nothing (might still have a misfit, but they'll never let me double here, so that's out).

 

I'd be willing to be convinced otherwise, as I realize I'm biased against these people who open off-shape NTs and then bid their 5-card minor at the 3 level, trying to get both bites at the cherry. Usually they get away with it, because partner has enough stuff for their pass (though the last time someone tried that at my table, we took them for -800, and I Just Smiled as Justice Was Served :-). Frequently they get away with it because responder hitches a little with their stuff, but not enough to be provable...

[jdeegan]

:P That's a serious 'job'. Even if the pro had decided to bid 3♦ before the hez, he absolutely can't do so after the hez. It's just a game. You have to play by the rules.

[gombo121]

So, if they decide not to hog the hand, what auctions do we expect?

p-1♦-2♣-x;

3♣ by somebody...now what?

 

p-1♦-2♣-p;

p-2♠-p-?

 

p-1♦-2♣-p;

p-X-p/3♣- ?

 

p-1♦-3♣-...

 

 

Actually, most of the field plays a Polish club system, so the bidding would probably go like

p-1♣*-2/3♣-p

p-2/3♦

(* 11-14 balanced or 16+ unbalanced or 18+ any shape)

showing 16+ with diamonds.

 

In a natural system I would expect South to rebid spades at the second level and double at the third level if his partner pass. In any case, the only plausible auction to 3♣ undoubled is

p-1♦-2♣-p;

p-2♠-p-p

3♣-p-p-p

which does not seems to be very likely.

 

:ph34r:

 

After thorough discussion our AC (to which I was a member) in a 2-to-1 decision ruled that pass is not an LA, result stands, deposit returned. The decision worried me a bit, therefore this thread.

It seems that in most cases AC would reach the opposite decision, but opinions are indeed divided, so our decision is not outrageous.

[blackshoe]

:P That's a serious 'job'. Even if the pro had decided to bid 3♦ before the hez, he absolutely can't do so after the hez. It's just a game. You have to play by the rules.

 

 

Not according to one of the players at the club yesterday, who asserted in effect that she gets to decide which rules she will follow and which not. :blink:

[AlexJonson]

That reinforces my view that at matchpoints with a non-passed partner and a passed-hand in RHO, you just can't afford to defend 3♣ at these colours as +150, +100, +50 and -110 all rate to be very poor scores. Pass is not an LA for South.

 

I'd say give it a couple of years or obscure the origin and put on the real Bridge forums. Then the answer will be exactly what MRDCT explains here.

[mycroft]

3♣X into nothing sure looks like it could be turning -50 or +110 into -100 or +530. Am I really stronger than "diamonds and spades and reversing values"? But, of course, partner doesn't have nothing, and I've just masterminded partner out of being able to tell me about soft values...

 

And he's right, double is pretty much an auto-rollback. His argument is that he's going to get a bad score because nobody's going to play 3♣ in a normal system. But he chose to not play for the field score when he decided that was a 15-17 balanced hand. Which means he probably thought his table feel or right-siding the contract ("remember, if I'm playing it, it's right-sided") would keep him ahead of the field. And he's probably right.

 

But when one's excellent table feel can be aided by partner's WeaSeL passes - it's just Golden.

 

I still ask - hey, what if nobody can make anything on the 3 level? I've just turned a win-the-board through forcing the opponents to guess at the 3-level into a lose-the-board. What if the pro did everything right?

 

But of course, passing can't be right, because the opponents don't have 21-23 high and a 9-card club fit. This smacks way too much of "I know that passing can't be right, let me look for a call that won't get rolled back to pass if it works", rather than "Everybody would bid, and probably 3♦; people might think of passing, but nobody's actually going to *do* it."

 

I will grant AlexJ's point - except for the LA part. I think it would be a minority decision - but clearly in LA territory.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[bluejak]

That reinforces my view that at matchpoints with a non-passed partner and a passed-hand in RHO, you just can't afford to defend 3♣ at these colours as +150, +100, +50 and -110 all rate to be very poor scores. Pass is not an LA for South.

No doubt these are pretty poor scores, but -100 will not be very good especially if you were about to go positive. As for when partner has a singleton diamond and you are the only pair getting -200!

 

Of people who would open 1NT would some consider pass now? I believe so. Would some of them actually pass? I believe so. Does the hesitation suggest not passing? Certainly, now we can be confident partner has some values.

[lamford]

Pass is not an LA for South.

At the time you posted this, you had evidence from the poll that over half those voting thought it was. You should therefore have changed your opinion based on that evidence.

[ggwhiz]

I do believe that pass was not a LA for this player and the all eggs in 1 basket bid of 3♦ is an ethical approach.

 

However, pass is a LA on these colours for the field (albeit a minority view?) and I would roll it back to 3♣ -100.

 

When you can't poll "peers" in a small field it's a tough call and I wouldn't object if this ruling went against me either way.

[AlexJonson]

I understand that an LA has an objective definition in the Laws of the game.

 

So, it is not what I think, or MRDCT thinks or GG thinks or Bluejak thinks, or Lamford says an arbitrary majority thinks (if I am right).

 

I believe it involves polling or other attempts at measurement - preferably of real players and (possibly more frequently in mid-range competitions of other TDs).

[sfi]

I understand that an LA has an objective definition in the Laws of the game.

 

So, it is not what I think, or MRDCT thinks or GG thinks or Bluejak thinks, or Lamford says an arbitrary majority thinks (if I am right).

 

I believe it involves polling or other attempts at measurement - preferably of real players and (possibly more frequently in mid-range competitions of other TDs).

 

Sure, but what Lamford refers to as the majority is our best effort at asking that question on this forum. The count as I write is 15-4 that pass is a LA. The poll does not guarantee to be asking peers of the players, but it's still pretty reasonable evidence.

[Finch]

This poll (almost certainly) isn't much evidence. The only people qualified to vote in a poll to determine the LAs are those who play the methods and style of the pair in question i.e. (i) would open 1NT on the hand in question, and (ii) don't know what double from partner would have meant.

 

The poll in this thread is a meta-poll - it asks the opinion of those voting, if they were to carry out such a poll, what the result would be.

[mrdct]

At the time you posted this, you had evidence from the poll that over half those voting thought it was. You should therefore have changed your opinion based on that evidence.

I actually posted before seeing the poll results. In coming to my opinion that pass is not a logical alternative for this particular player, I put myself in the shoes of a hand-hogging pro who knows a thing or two about playing matchpoints. The test for whether a bid is a logical alternative is by reference to bids which would be in the serious consideration of players of the same class as South. A poll here is only relevant if it is limited to South's peers; and if there aren't enough of them floating around to conduct a sensible poll, all you can do if put yourself in his shoes.

 

In a fairly weak field where I expect that few if any would open 1NT on this hand, I'm already behind the eight-ball with the opponents preempting me (note "me" not "us") at favourable vul before I've had a chance to show either of my suits. As I opined before, any result between 6 and 9 tricks in 3♣ is more than likely to be well below average so it would be lunacy to sell-out to 3♣ and condemn myself to a score between 0% and 25% (let's say an expected score of 12.5%) when I can risk so little in rolling the dice for an above-average score.

 

I take comfort that two of the people on the AC (a real one I assume) who obviously know South a lot better than I do came to a similar conclusion.

 

What did the traveller look like?

[lamford]

A poll here is only relevant if it is limited to South's peers; and if there aren't enough of them floating around to conduct a sensible poll, all you can do if put yourself in his shoes.

It is not that difficult to imagine opening 1NT on the South hand, and I can certainly put myself in the position of someone who does not know what a double of 3C would mean. Those polled can pretend to be peers of the accused with the same knowledge.

 

And when push comes to shove, we have a duty to carefully avoid taking any advantage from the UI, and I think that Double and 3♦ both fail to do that, which just leaves Pass. So we can go the L73C route or the L16B route. I think it closer to a PP than allowing 3♦.

[aguahombre]

 

 

And when push comes to shove, we have a duty to carefully avoid taking any advantage from the UI, and I think that Double and 3♦Pass both fail to do that, which just leaves Pass3D. So we can go the L73C route or the L16B route. I think it closer to a PP if he doubled.

 

Not really a "FYP". Just the easiest way I had to disagree.

[bluejak]

You cannot really ever poll the peers of players, especially those who do strange things. Polling should not replace judgement anyway: it is an aid to judgement. One of the reasons why polls are usually taken of better players is that their experience and depth of knowledge makes it easier for them to imagine themselves in another player's shoes.

[AlexJonson]

'South is a pro' is stated in the OP, so we are comparing him with some good players, then let's imagine he is an EBU Senior International, for the sake of argument.

 

I understand the practicality of Bluejak's latest post on this thread (though slightly previously he was less equivocal about polling).

 

But however convinced we are about our ability to judge, we shouldn't penalise real experts without corroboration - if we are not sure we objectively match up as players.

 

So this hand is simple, poll some experts and if they more or less all bid on (without knowing about the UI!) we are done. This is slightly unfair to the expert because I haven't included a lack of agreement on the meaning of double over 3C - rough justice.

 

As for Lamford. You want to imagine a group for a poll, tell them there was UI and what it was, and invite them to exert their superhuman judgement and vote on pass as an LA.

 

You should reconsider your position.

[lamford]

As for Lamford. You want to imagine a group for a poll, tell them there was UI and what it was, and invite them to exert their superhuman judgement and vote on pass as an LA.

No, I would not give them the UI. I would not try to find people who would open 1NT on this hand either, as it would take too long. I would say "You decide to open 1NT (15-17) on this hand. LHO bids 3C which is natural, and the strength is not discussed, nor is what double by your partner would mean. It is passed round to you. What do you bid, and what other bids do you seriously consider."

 

To try and find people who

a) would open 1NT, and

b) have not discussed double over 3C,

 

is not practical.

 

And, despite my respecting the view of FrancesHinden, I think the poll is quite good evidence - the best we can get. I agree we want to poll players of the same strength, but we can tell them the style and method.