What is demonstrably suggested?

[RMB1]

Are we talking about the original auction, or the tangent about 1♠ - slow 3♠? Because I was talking about the latter.

 

If your question is: "in the UK are 1♠-P-3♠ and 1♠-P-4♠ preemptive?" then the answer is for a lot of average club players or better: "Yes". Before those in the North-West say that they have never heard such rubbish - I suppose I should confined my answer to the South of England.

[Jeremy69A]

Before those in the North-West say that they have never heard such rubbish - I suppose I should confined my answer to the South of England.

 

Even in NW London it is not a common treatment to play 1♠ No 3♠ as pre-emptive other than amongst experts.

[dburn]

Some years ago I wrote words to this effect: the slower a call, the less happy the player making it is with the notion that it should be the final call in the auction. Some years later I see no reason to disagree with myself.

 

Do you think this reaches the point where, whenever a player selects a middle course, it demonstrably suggests bidding more?

 

And how does this idea apply to other situations (eg Bergen) where the call in question is artificial and not likely to become the final contract?

 

Even more years ago, before I had written the words I alluded to above, I chaired an appeal that had to rule on this situation:

 

North-South had bid 1NT (12-14) - 2NT (natural, invitational and slow) - 3NT. The opener had a complete minimum, the raiser had a ten count, the lie of cards was favourable though not quite favourable enough, but the defence was ridiculous and the contract made. The Director cancelled the 3NT bid on the basis that it was demonstrably suggested by the slow 2NT.

 

I was of the view that the 3NT bid should be allowed not because it was "not demonstrably suggested", but because the guy would never have bid it in a million years if he had any actual information about his partner's hand. And if he didn't have any information about his partner's hand, how could he be penalised for acting on unauthorised information about his partner's hand?

 

I was a little unhappy that if this line of thought became standard ruling procedure, the clever division would raise slowly to 2NT only on hands that wanted partner to pass with other than a complete maximum. But although still more than a little wet behind the ears, I knew enough to know that you couldn't actually stop the clever division from bending the rules (slow penalty doubles were penalty because they would bar partner, fast ones were optional because they would not). All you could hope was that they would do it often enough for the pattern to become apparent.

 

But it seemed to me, and I argued the case strongly enough to convince my fellow AC members, that this line of thought would actually solve quite a few problems. Assuming that a partnership was not playing reverse hesitations, then if it got a good result via an auction that it would never have conducted had it been communicating illegally (by standard hesitations or in some other way), that result should stand because there was no legal basis for amending it. Recall that the matter of breaks in tempo is merely a subset of the matter of illegal communication between partners; if there could not have been any of that, then there could not be a reason to adjust a score.

 

I learned the error of my ways in very short order. The Director, one Franklin by name, informed me that (and here I paraphrase): "we didn't rule on that basis; we ruled on the basis that someone who went on over a slow 2NT with a minimum was trying to cheat; and even if it turned out that the slowness of the raise was based on doubt as to whether to pass, not whether to bid game, we adjusted the score if the game made". (Of course, he meant that the score was always adjusted for the putative offenders; if the non-offenders had contributed by ridiculous actions, they might keep some or all of their bad result.) The Laws and Ethics Committee on reviewing the case confirmed that this was indeed correct procedure.

 

When I became a member of the said Committee, I came up with the formulation above in order to enshrine this procedure (despite my personal reservations): slow actions were in effect deemed demonstrably to suggest that partner take some further part in the auction, whether the hand on which the slow action was based actually wanted this to happen or not. The reasons I disagreed with myself then, I have outlined in the foregoing; the reason I do not disagree with myself now is that the procedure leads (as mine of all those years ago would) to consistency in giving rulings provided that it is consistently followed, and as the philosopher remarked "Consistency is all I ask".

 

As to Bergen raises, a player might "raise" 1♠ to (say) 3♣ slowly (that is, after pulling out the Stop card and then thinking) for one of a number of reasons. As with a limit raise to 3♠, he may be wondering whether he has one of those or a raise to 2♠ or a raise to 4♠; but he may also have been intending to make a pure limit raise to 3♠ before remembering that he lives in some part of London south of Jeremy69A and therefore that 3♠ is a pre-empt; or he may have been trying to recall which of 3♣ and 3♦ is the four-trump raise and which the three-trump raise; or... At any rate, I don't see how the Burn Formulation of the Franklin Procedure could apply to a forcing bid, but the question is an interesting one.

[lamford]

When I became a member of the said Committee, I came up with the formulation above in order to enshrine this procedure (despite my personal reservations): slow actions were in effect deemed demonstrably to suggest that partner take some further part in the auction, whether the hand on which the slow action was based actually wanted this to happen or not. The reasons I disagreed with myself then, I have outlined in the foregoing; the reason I do not disagree with myself now is that the procedure leads (as mine of all those years ago would) to consistency in giving rulings provided that it is consistently followed, and as the philosopher remarked "Consistency is all I ask".

Perhaps this principle could be added to the new Laws, so that a BIT is assumed to demonstrably suggest that partner bid on, in any cases of doubt.

[dburn]

The White Book helpfully says

 

The L&EC considers that:

[a] A hesitation followed by a pass would normally be willing to hear partner bid on;

A hesitation followed by a minimum bid after RHO’s pass would normally have something in hand;

[c] A hesitation followed by a penalty double is normally willing to see it removed.

It then rather less helpfully says:

 

However, in cases such as 1♠ pass 3♠ (slow), the 3♠ bidder might be considering a number of actions, ie the pause could have suggested either a 2.5♠ or a 3.5♠ bid.

[gnasher]

I don't think that's at all unhelpful. It tells us that when a player takes the middle action of three, we should rule that nothing is demonstrably suggested, so it makes a whole class of rulings easier.

 

Surely the problem is that it may (if we believe in the Burn Hypothesis) tell us to give bad rulings?

[phil_20686]

Even in NW London it is not a common treatment to play 1♠ No 3♠ as pre-emptive other than amongst bridge players.

 

FYP

[Jeremy69A]

FYP

 

Good of you(posts fixed with a flourish and a sneer :) ) but I meant what I said. In my view the case for a pre-emptive raise along with as many of the toys as you wish to play is less if you do not play a 5 card major system and plenty of players use 3♠ as constructive but are still capable of following suit to good effect.

[Cyberyeti]

Good of you(posts fixed with a flourish and a sneer :) ) but I meant what I said. In my view the case for a pre-emptive raise along with as many of the toys as you wish to play is less if you do not play a 5 card major system and plenty of players use 3♠ as constructive but are still capable of following suit to good effect.

Will back Jeremy up here, a number of very reasonable older players particularly those with a rubber bridge background (of which there are a fair few) play 1♠-3♠ as the limit raise and no artificial raises in the context of playing 4 card majors in the UK.

[Cascade]

Perhaps this principle could be added to the new Laws, so that a BIT is assumed to demonstrably suggest that partner bid on, in any cases of doubt.

 

I think this is an absurd suggestion.

 

There are clearly some breaks in tempo that suggest passing.

[Cascade]

... slow actions were in effect deemed demonstrably to suggest ...

 

Demonstrably suggest seems to lose much of its importance and rigor when the demonstration is by decree.

[dburn]

There are clearly some breaks in tempo that suggest passing.

I should like to see an example (absent reverse hesitations). Not that I doubt you, but I have been giving the problem five minutes' consideration (which is 4'45" more than I give most bridge problems) and I cannot picture a "clear" case in my mind. Sure, the BIT may be accompanied by body language or vocal intonation that suggests passing, but that is not the same thing at all.

[ggwhiz]

I put the stop card out to jump from 1♣ to 2♠. Yikes! a stop followed by a non jump is big trouble. Oh well I guess I better jump then.

 

I don't think the point has anything much to do with this player who could have any reason for this action. It may well have to do with their partner should they do something suspect over 3♠ including pass with a clear raise.

 

All dependant on determining their system agreements and if they can't be determined they lose all the close ones.

[phil_20686]

Good of you(posts fixed with a flourish and a sneer :) ) but I meant what I said. In my view the case for a pre-emptive raise along with as many of the toys as you wish to play is less if you do not play a 5 card major system and plenty of players use 3♠ as constructive but are still capable of following suit to good effect.

 

I also play in London at the YC. Though I have not been there in a while, so I am aware of the accuracy of your posts. We have met in RL you know... :)

[Vampyr]

I should like to see an example (absent reverse hesitations). Not that I doubt you, but I have been giving the problem five minutes' consideration (which is 4'45" more than I give most bridge problems) and I cannot picture a "clear" case in my mind.

 

What about a double that is systemically takeout-oriented or even undiscussed?

[Jeremy69A]

We have met in RL you know...

 

Do you look like your profile picture? ;)

[Vampyr]

Do you look like your profile picture? ;)

I look like mine.

[Cascade]

I should like to see an example (absent reverse hesitations). Not that I doubt you, but I have been giving the problem five minutes' consideration (which is 4'45" more than I give most bridge problems) and I cannot picture a "clear" case in my mind. Sure, the BIT may be accompanied by body language or vocal intonation that suggests passing, but that is not the same thing at all.

 

Not sure what you mean by reverse hestitations.

 

I didn't say hesitations i quoted "BIT" which may be slow or fast.

 

Fast actions (BIT) can show a lack of desire to bid on. For example a fast pass.

 

Pairs playing "optional doubles" in similar situations may double quicker with a penalty stack and slower with a more takeout oriented hand.

 

But even slow bids I am unconvinced that a slow middle road bid is more likely to be heavy than weak. I am sure that many times in my partnership I have seen slow invites that were stretches rather than nearly bidding game.

 

Fast correction to a different suit than partner bid. I had one last year where there had been a mistaken bid and a very quick correction.

[barmar]

as the philosopher remarked "Consistency is all I ask".

But as another learned man said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

[pran]

I should like to see an example (absent reverse hesitations). Not that I doubt you, but I have been giving the problem five minutes' consideration (which is 4'45" more than I give most bridge problems) and I cannot picture a "clear" case in my mind. Sure, the BIT may be accompanied by body language or vocal intonation that suggests passing, but that is not the same thing at all.

I no longer remember the details but I once adjusted a five-level contract making five to a small slam one down because of a BIT (hesitation) that suggested pass rather than go for slam.

[Cascade]

Another situation that occurred tonight in a competitive auction like:

 

1♣ (1♠) 2♣ (2♠)

3♣*

 

if this 3♣ bid is slow I would think that it more often suggests minimum competitive values rather than nearly invitational values and if there is a subsequent 3♠ bid then it does not suggest competing to 4♣.

[phil_20686]

I should like to see an example (absent reverse hesitations). Not that I doubt you, but I have been giving the problem five minutes' consideration (which is 4'45" more than I give most bridge problems) and I cannot picture a "clear" case in my mind. Sure, the BIT may be accompanied by body language or vocal intonation that suggests passing, but that is not the same thing at all.

 

I had this one, at MP, you are NV vs Vul, the auction goes

 

(1c) x p 1d

(2c) P* p ?

 

The pass over 2c was slow, and you hold JTxx T9xx JTxxx -, so I thought its obvious to a blind many that partner holds a strong hand with plenty of clubs. I think the slow pass suggested that passing would pick up 200 or 300, a huge score on a nothing board at MP, so I bid 2d. Partner jumped to 3N that had no play, but was absurdly let through after they managed to establish partners clubs. They were unhappy, and called the director, who ruled it back to 2c -4 for the same 400. On the traveller 200 was already a big score, and 300 would have been a top. The 2c bid was pretty bad.

 

It seemed to me in the pass out seat that this was a clear case where pass was suggested and would lead to the best possible result. If youdont like this one, its easy to think of similar ones in a MP setting, where partner's hesitiation likely bars you from bidding, but he will know that defending is the right thing to do.

[gnasher]

I should like to see an example (absent reverse hesitations). Not that I doubt you, but I have been giving the problem five minutes' consideration (which is 4'45" more than I give most bridge problems) and I cannot picture a "clear" case in my mind. Sure, the BIT may be accompanied by body language or vocal intonation that suggests passing, but that is not the same thing at all.

1♣-1♠

2♠-2NT (asking)

4♠ (slow, shows a better hand than 3♠)

 

or, less clearly

1♠-2♠

3♦-4♠ (slow)

In this second case, responder was probably choosing between 3♠ and 4♠, rather than between 4♠ and a cue-bid.

 

or

1NT-2♥

3♠ (slow, shows a maximum with four trumps)

 

In fact, any sequence where the hesitator is limited and makes the stronger of two calls.

Edited February 7, 2012 by gnasher

[bluejak]

A ruling several years ago from Brighton, actual hands long forgotten:

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&b=7&a=3hp4hppp]133|100[/hv]

Despite the Stop card being used correctly, the pass over 3♥ was done very fast by a player looking bored. East failed to bid over 4♥ with an eight playing trick hand with good spades, thus avoiding the 800s and 1100s that much of the field suffered.

 

The ruling was to a weighted score of 800 and 1100 whcih got a continous and very long grumble from the player who did not bid 4♠. When it was pointed out his partner had not paused over the Stop Bid he said something like "Why should he pause? He had nothing to think about."

[mycroft]

The one that came up last weekend was:

 

[hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1sdp2d2h3d(obviously%20slow)]133|100[/hv]

 

It turned out that she did have a full double-and-raise, and my quacky 6 with ♦Txxxx still made only 9 tricks. Yes, I did pass, even though I thought it was demonstrably suggested. I mentioned this to the opponents as well, in case they thought there were other alternatives.