WellSpyder Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Game all, imps[hv=pc=n&e=sj953hk963d4cj763&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=3dpp]133|200[/hv] Agreed hesitation from West over 3♦ (and before anyone asks that involved both the correct EBU use of the stop card left out for c10 seconds and an additional think from West). Would you double now as East?? To be honest, I'm not really sure what East was thinking of. He (the playing TD at a county night) immediately agreed there had been a hesitation, and didn't seem at all surprised when a substitute TD who was called in ruled that pass was an LA and that double was suggested by the UI, so I've no idea what he hoped to gain. Do you agree with the TD's ruling, and would you be prepared to impose a PP as well? (These are in practice never imposed at what is in effect an ordinary club night despite being organised by the county, but I did wonder whether this could be a rare exception, particularly since the player concerned was well aware of the rules.....) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Yes, I agree with the ruling. I might impose a PP, but I'd want to ask East what he was thinking first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Yes, I agree with the ruling. I might impose a PP, but I'd want to ask East what he was thinking first.Partner and I have the solid agreement that we always double with a singleton in absence of UI gleaned from the opps, they may have similar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 I am inclined to issue a penalty. I will need some pretty convincing evidence to not do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 there is a point where you have so few values that partner must be very strong, and you know he is passing your double (otherwise he´d act with 3NT or whatever). I haven´t seen that hand yet, bu I think it might exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellSpyder Posted January 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 there is a point where you have so few values that partner must be very strong, and you know he is passing your double (otherwise he´d act with 3NT or whatever). I haven´t seen that hand yet, bu I think it might exist.Yes, I did wonder about that a bit. It's not this hand, though - partner had Q642, A10752, AQ9, 10 and felt after a fair bit of thought that the heart suit was a bit too weak to bid directly over 3♦ while the lack of club support made a double unattractive. The hand also managed only to bid 3♥ after the protective double, for a fine score of +140! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 I do not see what the UI suggests. That partner has an opening bid? You know that. Several years back in the EBU Mens Pairs [now defunct] a player protected as South on a 2 count after [hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p2spp]133|100[/hv] I allowed the call because I did not believe partner's hesitation told him anything. I was overturned on appeal. In answer to the OP no, it is not a blatant use of UI, it is doubtful as to whether there is any use of UI whatever, and a PP is wildly inappropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellSpyder Posted January 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 I do not see what the UI suggests. That partner has an opening bid? You know that.In answer to the OP no, it is not a blatant use of UI, it is doubtful as to whether there is any use of UI whatever, and a PP is wildly inappropriate.Well, I guess the UI tells you partner probably doesn't have a flat 10 count, which would not otherwise be impossible if, for example, opener had a fairly heavy vulnerable pre-empt with a 10-count and responder passed with a non-fitting 15-count.There is a problem with getting things right when you have both AI and UI telling you what to do. Of course you may be in a situation where you can work out what to do from point-count, inferences, or whatever, but think how often people go wrong in such situations. Now they get UI and they do not go wrong. I am always sceptical about the "I could work it out" argument.Am I alone in seeing a certain tension between these two views? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 I do not see what the UI suggests. That partner has an opening bid? You know that.The UI suggests an off-shape takeout double. One that wanted to bid, but found nothing suitable. Most non-beginners are capable of passing in tempo with a weak NT, and passing in tempo with a penalty double. I agree with adjusting, providing 3D scored better than -140, but would not give a PP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 Knowing partner has an off-shape takeout double? How does this differ from knowing partner has opening values? Not at all. Thus the UI tells you nothing, or to put it legally, does not suggest a non-pass over a pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 Knowing partner has an off-shape takeout double? How does this differ from knowing partner has opening values? Not at all. Thus the UI tells you nothing, or to put it legally, does not suggest a non-pass over a pass.Because you are certain to find an eight-card fit, and likely to find a nine-card fit. If partner had passed in tempo, he could have Kxx Axx Kxxx Qxx when doubling will work very badly. But nobody thinks for any length of time with that sort of hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 My experience differs from yours as to what partner is likely to hold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 I agree with Lamford. The UI tells you that partner wants to bid, but can't. If partner doesn't want to bid, he will pass without breaking tempo. You can see that he is safe whatever he wants to bid. Therefore, you make sure that he will bid by doubling now. That is using UI. The other thing that I actively dislike is the fact that West, with a full opening hand opposite a partner who made a takeout double manages to find the winning bid of 3♥. Quite obviously he had already communicated his strength by the hesitation: If East had full values for his takeout double, he would have raised to 4♥ (or made a slam try :angry: ). Rik 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 When you have a very weak hand and partner passes over an opening bid, and RHO does, then the AI says that partner has a hand that has values but does not have a suitable bid. Sure, the UI says exactly the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peachy Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 When you have a very weak hand and partner passes over an opening bid, and RHO does, then the AI says that partner has a hand that has values but does not have a suitable bid. Sure, the UI says exactly the same. In receipt of UI, IMO East did not "carefully avoid taking advantage of it". TD should deal with the UI the way he normally deals with UI cases - applying the laws and going through the checkpoints like "was there UI"-Yes, "what could the UI suggest". "what are the LA's" etc. AI does not trump UI, I've heard before, even in this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 When you have a very weak hand and partner passes over an opening bid, and RHO does, then the AI says that partner has a hand that has values but does not have a suitable bid. Sure, the UI says exactly the same.I've seen players pass mis-fitting 17-counts opposite a three-opener. But if that had happened here, I imagine partner would have been able to pass in tempo. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 AI does not trump UI, I've heard before, even in this forum. "Even" in this forum? Are you implying that we here commonly do not hold to that principle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 In receipt of UI, IMO East did not "carefully avoid taking advantage of it". TD should deal with the UI the way he normally deals with UI cases - applying the laws and going through the checkpoints like "was there UI"-Yes, "what could the UI suggest". "what are the LA's" etc. AI does not trump UI, I've heard before, even in this forum.Absolutely true. But when the information from the AI is the same or includes the information from the UI then as here the UI does not suggest passing over bidding or doubling. Suppose your partner opens 1NT showing 12 to 14 points. Of course he should not do so, but suppose he mumbles "twelve to fourteen" as he does so. This does not stop you from treating his bid as twelve to fourteen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Suppose your partner opens 1NT showing 12 to 14 points. Of course he should not do so, but suppose he mumbles "twelve to fourteen" as he does so. This does not stop you from treating his bid as twelve to fourteen.This seems somewhat problematic to me David. I had a thread a little while back where someone said "400 or 500" before doubling. No doubt for their partner this was always a penalty double so what LA is there to passing? So, by your reasoning, what is stop me from always making such a statement before a penalty double? Or any other call where partner might not 100% be on the same wavelength. As long as partner says they would always take the call as "mumbled". In cases like this the AI tells you that either partner has values and could not find a call, or that preemptor's partner has values and is trapping, or that someone has misbid. The UI tells you that the first of these is true. I agree with Gordon - sometimes Responder has values and sometimes Preemptor has a stronger hand they they ought to. After the pause I would not double as East because it removes any element of doubt about where the missing points are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Either the UI gives you a choice that you must not take, or it does not. In the case I cite it does not: in the case you cite it does. So your case is not relevant. In my view the UI does not suggest an action in OP that you would not take anyway. Of course in many many other cases it does, but we are not considering many many other cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 In my view the UI does not suggest an action in OP that you would not take anyway. The UI confirms partner has values, and almost certainly is not 3-3-4-3. Before the UI, the partner of the pre-emptor could have had a big hand with short diamonds. I bet you would pass quickly if it was the partner of the pre-emptor who hesitated! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Why not 3343? Does that not give him a problem, like whether to bid 3NT? Of course it does. Yes, if RHO hesitates, it alters the likelihood. However, that is quite irrelevant for the actual problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 When you have a very weak hand and partner passes over an opening bid, and RHO does, then the AI says that partner has a hand that has values but does not have a suitable bid. Sure, the UI says exactly the same. But when the information from the AI is the same or includes the information from the UI then as here the UI does not suggest passing over bidding or doubling. Yes, if RHO hesitates, it alters the likelihood. However, that is quite irrelevant for the actual problem. In my view these first two comments are contradictory with the third. If the information from a pass from partner is the same whether or not partner gives UI then it should be irrelevant that RHO passes slowly. Some RHOs will with the same hand as someone passes slowly not pass slowly. If RHO has one of these hands that might or might not have generated a slow pass then partner's slow pass does convey additional information to the AI from the auction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 I agree with Lamford. The UI tells you that partner wants to bid, but can't. If partner doesn't want to bid, he will pass without breaking tempo. You can see that he is safe whatever he wants to bid. Therefore, you make sure that he will bid by doubling now. That is using UI. The other thing that I actively dislike is the fact that West, with a full opening hand opposite a partner who made a takeout double manages to find the winning bid of 3♥. Quite obviously he had already communicated his strength by the hesitation: If East had full values for his takeout double, he would have raised to 4♥ (or made a slam try :angry: ). I've seen players pass mis-fitting 17-counts opposite a three-opener. But if that had happened here, I imagine partner would have been able to pass in tempo. Paradigmatic case of the use of UI: Pass is an LA and partner's tank makes protection safer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiaolongnu Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 bluejak, on 2012-January-05, 10:59, said: I do not see what the UI suggests. That partner has an opening bid? You know that.In answer to the OP no, it is not a blatant use of UI, it is doubtful as to whether there is any use of UI whatever, and a PP is wildly inappropriate. Well, I guess the UI tells you partner probably doesn't have a flat 10 count, which would not otherwise be impossible if, for example, opener had a fairly heavy vulnerable pre-empt with a 10-count and responder passed with a non-fitting 15-count. bluejak, on 2012-January-05, 10:52, said: There is a problem with getting things right when you have both AI and UI telling you what to do. Of course you may be in a situation where you can work out what to do from point-count, inferences, or whatever, but think how often people go wrong in such situations. Now they get UI and they do not go wrong. I am always sceptical about the "I could work it out" argument. Am I alone in seeing a certain tension between these two views? ###End of quote### Sorry but first of all could someone please advise me on how to quote things properly? (: I believe I understand what WellSpyder is trying to say about tension. In the sense that the first post by bluejak seems to imply that bidding on in the presence of UI is reasonable and the second contradicts it. However, I think there is no contradiction. The first post by bluejak talks about whether or not the UI implies or in layman terms "inspires" any (profitable) action. The second post talks about whether or not there are LA's. Both must be present for the UI case to stand, that is, for the score to be adjusted by 16 and 12. If the UI does not imply any action over another, then there is no sense in investigating whether or not the OS could have gotten it wrong out of a multitude of LA's, they are just as likely to get it right or wrong as before. I mean, in the strict sense of the word, all of partner's actions and non actions are UI to you. Every word that partner says, even if it is to make small talk with the opponents (flirting socializing and discussing business in real life included here, don't tell me you have never seen it happen before) all this is UI. Partner going to the pantry and offering to make you or opponents a drink to get biscuits is also UI. In the strictest sense, even the fact that partner is sitting right in front of you is also UI, the fact that partner is not giving you any UI is also UI to you. But do any of these UI suggest anything? Whether or not you noticed this, you are still just as likely to get your judgment whether or not to raise on a singleton blank just as right or just as wrong. But with suggesting UI that is a different story. This is a logical problem, some elements here are redundant. This is how I read it anyway. Happy to be advised if you think I am wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.