partner gives me UI

[Fluffy]

♠KJ52

♥KJ

♦AJ984

♣53

 

 

MPs, Our side is vulnerable, but opponent's ain't

 

 

1♠-(2♥)-3♥-(4♥)

X*-(pass)-??

 

 

Double from partner was slow. Do you think pass is LA?

[paulg]

Double from partner was slow. Do you think pass is LA?

Not in my world. We need to get +800 to make up for our game and this looks unlikely. On the other hand, it's hard to see that pass is suggested by the slow double.

[gordontd]

On the other hand, it's hard to see that pass is suggested by the slow double.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. It seems clear that bidding is suggested by the slow double.

[Cyberyeti]

No, in my world this is a forcing pass situation so double is penalties, but my trump holding indicates this is not likely to be a trump stack so at this vul you're unlikely to get enough. (and btw would have bid 4♦ instead of 3♥, now if partner Xs I do pass).

[gordontd]

We don't have to be making 4♠. I think Pass is an LA.

[ahydra]

4S every time for me. Wouldn't consider pass at this vul (but would do at equal/fav).

 

ahydra

[paulg]

On the other hand, it's hard to see that pass is suggested by the slow double.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. It seems clear that bidding is suggested by the slow double.

So far we have (presumably) shown a 3- or 4-card limit raise to three spades and now partner has doubled them in a non-forcing pass situation. But I have a full-blooded raise to game and I think my options are to bid four spades or to consider a slam try and, for me, passing is not in the equation at this vulnerability.

[gordontd]

It's matchpoints, so any time 4♠ is not making it would be right to pass 4♥x. That may not be a large amount of the time, but I would have thought it would be often enough to make it an LA (given that partner has doubled), and would render the question irrelevant of whether we can get +800 from defending.

[Cyberyeti]

So far we have (presumably) shown a 3- or 4-card limit raise to three spades and now partner has doubled them in a non-forcing pass situation. But I have a full-blooded raise to game and I think my options are to bid four spades or to consider a slam try and, for me, passing is not in the equation at this vulnerability.

OK, we need to know what 2N would have meant, and hence what 3♥ showed to know whether it's a FP situation.

[mcphee]

I think you should take twice as much time as he did and bid 4S. I do not see what UI has to do with this problem.

[aguahombre]

If 3H was invite+, we have the +. Invites don't create forcing passes for us. The Double was Pard's opinion if I had invite only; pass is an illogical alternative.

 

The B.I.T., for whatever reason, does not make pass logical; but, 4S is so obvious anyway that it doesn't matter what UI is deemed to have been conveyed.

[AlexJonson]

Making +500 against +620 most of the time can't be good pairs play. I would expect a near unanimous 4S.

[gordontd]

I think you should take twice as much time as he did and bid 4S. I do not see what UI has to do with this problem.

Even if you think there is no Logical Alternative to bidding 4♠ (as pretty much everyone except me seems to think), you ought to be able to see that the slow double provides UI expressing doubt that 4♥x should be the final contract.

[aguahombre]

Even if you think there is no Logical Alternative to bidding 4♠ (as pretty much everyone except me seems to think), you ought to be able to see that the slow double provides UI expressing doubt that 4♥x should be the final contract.

Yes, that would be a problem if we didn't have a game-force responding hand. If we had a mere invite, there would be no acceptable L.A. to passing the slow double.

[gordontd]

It seems no-one else thinks Pass is an LA, as far as I can see because we have a GF raise and have thus far only shown a Limit Raise or better.

 

Fair enough, but everyone seems to be bidding game because that's what they would have done anyway; no-one seems to be pausing and taking stock in the light of partner's double which ought, to my mind, to be making me more reluctant to bid on.

 

Yes I have a fourth trump and some extra values, but I don't have a shortage and I do have two high cards in their suit.

[MrAce]

It is definetely not a L.A for me to pass for various reasons.

 

-Its MP and the colours make it hard for pass to be profitable.

 

-Knowing that % 99 of the field will play this hand 4♠ if pd has an opener and taking a different action in this position rather than 4♠ is a huge risk. We will contrast ourselves definetely from the majority of the field.

 

-Most importantly, slow or not, what did pd say with his DBL ? Assuming 3♥ was invitation or better, he says " if you have an invitation hand i rather play 4♥ doubled than playing 4♠" But i have more than an invitation hand and the weakest side of my hand KJ doubleton seems more like a sure trick to me after overcall on my right.

 

-When i started 3♥ i was planning to bid 4♠ later, the reason i didnt do that at the first place was i didnt wanna rule out slam incase pd had a big hand, he says he doesnt, so i will play my game. Even the fastest DBL on earth, would not have changed my mind.

[gnasher]

Partner is probably just doubling to protect our +140, with something like Qxxxx xx Kxx AKJ, so I think 4♠ is normal.

[Statto]

4♠ looks normal at this vul.

[rmnka447]

Partner could have passed in tempo and you would have bid 4 ♠ as you have an opener. 4 ♠ is the normal bid with this hand. Anything else you do including pass might be interpreted as LA.

[Vampyr]

Partner could have passed in tempo and you would have bid 4 ♠ as you have an opener. 4 ♠ is the normal bid with this hand.

 

"Doing what you would have done anyway is not the answer, though there is a popular misconception that it is.

 

 

Anything else you do including pass might be interpreted as LA.

 

Not sure what you mean by this, but the question is whether pass is an LA. Mainly this matters when you don't pass.

[aguahombre]

Doing what you would have done anyway is not the answer, when there is a logical alternative and what you would have done anyway is suggested by UI.

 

This is not such a situation.

 

---No alternative is logical.

---IMO, the UI from the hesitation must be to decide between the two non-acceptance calls (X and P). Double is the farthest from accepting an invite you can get, thus in no way suggests bidding 4S. A slow pass might suggest he was thinking of doubling or that he was thinking of accepting. However:

---We don't have a mere invite; we have "or better".

 

In fact, if passing works out well on this hand, partner might have known the B.I.T. would make me feel forced to pass; and we should get an adverse ruling or worse.

[rmnka447]

"Doing what you would have done anyway is not the answer, though there is a popular misconception that it is.

 

 

 

Not sure what you mean by this, but the question is whether pass is an LA. Mainly this matters when you don't pass.

4 ♠ is such a clear cut call that it is the one action that would not be deemed choosing from a logical alternative in this case. If the Director were asked to rule on the hesitation and asked a panel of "experts" about the hand, I think all of them would say they would bid 4 ♠.

 

But I don't disagree that "doing what you would have done any way" will necessarily keep you from getting an adjusted score. Make the hand, say, have ♦ Kxxxx instead of ♦ AJxxx. Even though you might normally still bid 4 ♠ with the revised hand, it might well be interpreted as choosing a logical alternative because it isn't a clear cut call to a majority of good players.

 

For the actual hand we are discussing, pass would be choosing a logical alternative. Say you did pass and, for whatever reason, 4 ♠ goes down while 4 ♥x also goes down. The score would be adjusted because 4 ♠ is such a clear cut call with the hand that failure to make that call constitutes choosing a logical alternative.

 

Again, I'll agree that the majority of hesitiation cases involve situations where partner takes a long time to pass and you don't pass. Then, making a call that might be suggested by the hesitation constitutes an LA while pass doesn't.

[mycroft]

Well, what was 1♠? Assuming it's limited by a AGF 2♣, I am agreeing with most of the people here; I bid 3♥ instead of 4♠ because I was worried about 6 (although ♥KJ is an interesting sidelight). I'm not getting this for 800, and I don't expect to go down.

 

However, am I playing with [player known to mastermind]? Pass is an LA here - in fact, i'm more concerned about -590 than +800. Partner's opened on 6-to-the-T and some other 10 points again. Of course, [player] would never take a long time to hit this one; I'd actually expect to be ruling on a "lightning double" ("partner, DON'T bid 4♠!") than a tank. Of course, [player] knows he plays a trick better than the field (he has to - he bids at least one trick more than the field), so if he wants to defend...

 

Is this a PDI situation? Do they play Maximal Overcall Doubles (and might they believe they apply here?) Is this defined as FP auction for this pair?

 

At IMPs, I basically can't see anyone passing - but it's not IMPs. At any other vulnerability, I can see passing - but it's R/W. If 1♠ was limited, I can see passing - but I don't understand 3♥ then. With 3-3 in the majors, or 4=3=4=2 or 4=2=4=3(dead), maybe.

 

Interesting question, but I can't imagine passing this one, under only the circumstances given and a "standard" system.

[Statto]

4 ♠ is such a clear cut call that it is the one action that would not be deemed choosing from a logical alternative in this case.

For the actual hand we are discussing, pass would be choosing a logical alternative. Say you did pass and, for whatever reason, 4 ♠ goes down while 4 ♥x also goes down. The score would be adjusted because 4 ♠ is such a clear cut call with the hand that failure to make that call constitutes choosing a logical alternative.

If 4♠ is a clear cut call (which it seems to be from what people have posted here) then pass isn't a logical alternative. The hesitation probably suggests bidding 4♠ rather than passing. So if you did pass and got lucky I wouldn't expect an adjustment because the hesitation didn't suggest passing.

 

...the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information [hesitation].

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

As it seems no-one would choose pass, it's not a logical alternative. If it had been, then an adjustment would be applied if 4♠ was the winning action and deemed to have been suggested by the hesitation.

[bluecalm]

It depends what 3H meant. If 3H was game forcing and you play standard agreement that double is penalty in forcing pass situations then pass is LA.

If 3H was invite (or invite+) or similar then pass shouldn't be forcing and dbl is just extras/nice hand in which case passing is not LA imo.

 

Btw I have my doubts if break in tempo clearly suggests bidding on here but that would probably be ruled because of "instant doubles are for penalty" mentality common among directors.