Simple hesitation case

[hirowla]

I thought it would be nice if a few people gave an opinion as to the way they would rule, or more specifically answered the question in the OP "Do you adjust?". So far we have had 24 posts and no answers to that question, though one answer may be inferred from one post. So, do me a favour please, do you adjust?

 

You mean like: "The hesitation suggested action rather than inaction,a poll of people suggested pass was a logical alternative to doubling, so therefore the contract is adjusted to being undoubled"?

[RMB1]

You mean like: "The hesitation suggested action rather than inaction,a poll of people suggested pass was a logical alternative to doubling, so therefore the contract is adjusted to being undoubled"?

+1

 

My only concern is that I do not know if the people who passed in this poll are peers of South. There is a group of people that I might have polled if I knew who South was, who all double even if they think Pass is a logical alternative. It is possible (for some values of South), Pass is not a logical alternative.

[gordontd]

I thought it would be nice if a few people gave an opinion as to the way they would rule, or more specifically answered the question in the OP "Do you adjust?". So far we have had 24 posts and no answers to that question, though one answer may be inferred from one post. So, do me a favour please, do you adjust?

Yes, I'd adjust because it seems that pass is an LA, and acting rather than passing is suggested by the hesitation.

[aguahombre]

I would not adjust. But, I understand hirowia's position if he adjusted against me. Problems:

 

I think this poll was tainted. I know at least one vote was the opposite of what the voter intented, because I was lame in voting for a PASS by mistake when I feel strongly that the double is correct.

 

We don't know whether the voters are peers in style, experience, or prowess.

 

We don't know how many voters were answering the pure question and how many were assuming a B.I.T.

 

Aside from that, I don't know what "hestitating noticeably" means as far as time and body language are concerned. On an auction like this one, I cannot imagine a competent partner who would NOT take a bit of time to absorb the situation; and a noticeable B.I.T does not tell me she was close to doubling, or close to bidding on, or anything in particular.

[paulg]

Interestingly most of the passers seem to be passing due to the UI even though they'd double without the hesitation. It is almost as if everyone would double, but because they think some will pass they are passing.

 

I am sure I would pass at the table, because partner should be trying not to hesitate, I don't get the opportunity to poll my peers and double seems suggested. However, given time to consider, I would not adjust if a peer did double. As others have said, class of player would influence the poll.

[WellSpyder]

Interestingly most of the passers seem to be passing due to the UI even though they'd double without the hesitation. It is almost as if everyone would double, but because they think some will pass they are passing.

Not me, I voted for pass on the auction given, without the UI. (Like Bluejak, I felt it was clear that that was the only meaningful way to answer a poll about the bidding, rather than one about the ruling)

 

I am sure I would pass at the table, because partner should be trying not to hesitate, I don't get the opportunity to poll my peers and double seems suggested. However, given time to consider, I would not adjust if a peer did double. As others have said, class of player would influence the poll.

Oh dear, it sounds like my pass puts me in a lower class of player - well I suppose I have never claimed to be in the same class as yourself (even if we have been teammates in the English Premier League....)

[paulg]

Oh dear, it sounds like my pass puts me in a lower class of player

Or higher?

[barmar]

In this case, I did not know there was a hesitation when I answered the poll. I did not consider answering on the assumption there was a BIT (or any other irregularity).

Am I imagining it, or isn't the hesitation mentioned in the second line of the original post?

[blackshoe]

It is, but I did not read that. I just looked at the hand diagram.

[hirowla]

I would not adjust. But, I understand hirowia's position if he adjusted against me. Problems:

 

I think this poll was tainted. I know at least one vote was the opposite of what the voter intented, because I was lame in voting for a PASS by mistake when I feel strongly that the double is correct.

 

We don't know whether the voters are peers in style, experience, or prowess.

 

We don't know how many voters were answering the pure question and how many were assuming a B.I.T.

 

Aside from that, I don't know what "hestitating noticeably" means as far as time and body language are concerned. On an auction like this one, I cannot imagine a competent partner who would NOT take a bit of time to absorb the situation; and a noticeable B.I.T does not tell me she was close to doubling, or close to bidding on, or anything in particular.

 

I was taking the poll at face value, especially since I have no idea who was answering it or who was at the original table. I'd personally agree with the poll but I'm not the greatest player around and, as you suggested, it's more about the peers. Based on my 0 second analysis of those polled, I go with the poll results as above :lol: ...

[shevek]

Amazed at the passers.

Once in 10 years 5♠x will make.

Double is clear, remembering I had high hopes in 5♦.

[WellSpyder]

Once in 10 years 5♠x will make.

Hmmm, now if you had said once in 10 years 6♠ will make then I might have agreed...

[CSGibson]

Sure, but where? The moment I poll this sequence on this site everyone knows that there was a hesitation and where it was. So I treated everyone as grown-up, gave the poll, then the story, so we could get results for the poll, and views on the ruling. Are you seriously suggesting that is not what you thought this was?

 

It is possible to post in a section other than laws, you tend to get bridge opinions to polls without as much consideration for possible, but unmentioned, hesitations.

 

This heading clearly biased the poll results - just look at the answers given mentioning the hesitation.

 

Now, it could be that you don't care about that, per se, but instead want procedural stuff. That's an entirely different kettle of fish, and more in line with my impression as to how to best use the laws section. Personally, I have no comment on the matter other than I would take an unbiased (or as unbiased as possible) poll of the player's peers, and then rule accordingly. I am unable to say what I would have done at the table, because I am sure I have already been biased by the hesitation/comments of others.

[billw55]

Some partnerships may have a meta-agreement that stupid bids should be doubled. If so then pass is not a LA.

[bluejak]

It is not the first time somone has put a poll in. When I answer a poll I do not include any UI in the OP because the poll seems completely useless if I do. I am surprised to find this is not a unanimous view. And I am not going to get involved in forums I never read to poll, so if I am going to poll it has to be in one of the five Laws-related forums.

 

The poll results are 25 for double and 15 for pass. I have no idea whether some of these are tainted as someone put it, but I shall assume not. This makes pass a clear LA, so ruling back to 5♠ undoubled is pretty automatic.

 

I was the doubler, and could not imagine anyone would ever not double. I was flabbergasted to be ruled against. The TD told me he had polled some good players [he did not say how many] and three considered pass, of whom two passed. So I could not fault his methodology. Since we finished second in a qualifying, and winning an appeal would still put us second, we did not consider an appeal. We actually gained 9 imps after the ruling, both pairs making +200. I put this here to see if everyone agreed with the TD. It appears the general feeling is Yes.

 

As to the bridge judgement, I think anyone who does not double is a wimp and a wuss. My views fall in line with:

 

I would always double, with or without UI. I don't see why I'm just supposed to let someone guess to bid 4 then guess again to bid 5 all on his own and not punish him when my defense is this good. If he was that sure of making 11 tricks he would not have bid 4♠ and risked missing slam to begin with.

 

 

I would double. Pass may be an LA - for wusses. I would double even in the face of partner's break in tempo.

 

 

Amazed at the passers.

Once in 10 years 5♠x will make.

Double is clear, remembering I had high hopes in 5♦.

[lalldonn]

The poll results are 25 for double and 15 for pass. I have no idea whether some of these are tainted as someone put it, but I shall assume not.

Probably an incorrect assumption, although necessary if you are to use the results.

 

How many passers out of the 40 respondents would you think is the minimum that makes pass a logical alternative?

[mjj29]

Probably an incorrect assumption, although necessary if you are to use the results.

 

How many passers out of the 40 respondents would you think is the minimum that makes pass a logical alternative?

In the EBU I believe it's something like 8 would consider it of whom 2 would actually select it. So even if you discount a lot of the 'would pass', or change them to merely 'consider', it's still going to be an LA.

 

You could also argue about whether they are peers, of course (-:

[barmar]

You could also argue about whether they are peers, of course (-:

Which could result in circular reasoning: anyone who takes action different from what the player actually did isn't a peer, so there's only one LA and UI is irrelevant.

[campboy]

Which could result in circular reasoning: anyone who takes action different from what the player actually did isn't a peer, so there's only one LA and UI is irrelevant.

Only by begging the question of whether the player's call was influenced by UI. If it might have been then there is no reason why peers without UI should be expected to produce the same call.

[iviehoff]

I was flabbergasted to be ruled against. ... I put this here to see if everyone agreed with the TD. It appears the general feeling is Yes.

It just goes to show how very difficult it is to comply with the law on UI, the best you can do is enter into the spirit of it, and be ruled against if your guess of the LA situation turns out to be wrong.

 

It also reminds us that LAs can be irrational, simply because there is an element of irrationality in a game that involves making decisions in conditions of risk and uncertainty. I chose to pass because I'm a wuss: because I have too many unpleasant memories of 5-level doubled contracts like this making, sometimes because I chose (guessed) the wrong lead. But of course that is irrational: in reality it is only a small percentage of them, which are prominent in memory only because of their unpleasantness. It is a human trait well known to psychologists to make decisions which avoid the risk of unpleasant outcomes.

[barmar]

Only by begging the question of whether the player's call was influenced by UI. If it might have been then there is no reason why peers without UI should be expected to produce the same call.

But isn't that putting the cart before the horse? The law says you determine the LAs first, then decide if the choice among them was influenced by the UI.

 

You come to the table, and the player says "I'm an aggressive bidder, and would never even consider passing. Anyone who does is a total wuss, and should not be considered my peer." If you consider this to be true, can a poll be useful?

 

I think we've had variations of this discussion before: how similar do players have to be to be considered "peers"? For polls to be useful, they probably have to be very broad categories. The narrower they become, the more biased the results are likely to be. When we say that criminal cases should be decided by a jury of the one's peers, we obviously don't mean that it's full of accused criminals (and as this site points out, even broader categories like gender or race are too narrow -- the main point is to ensure that peers are not excluded).

[campboy]

But isn't that putting the cart before the horse? The law says you determine the LAs first, then decide if the choice among them was influenced by the UI.

The hypothetical argument you mentioned is what puts the cart before the horse: it starts from the assumption that the player would always have made the same call and deduces (unsurprisingly) that there are no LAs.

[Jeremy69A]

I think it is clear to double. However the poll suggests pass is a LA so I would double(because I think it is right) and not sulk(much) if it were taken away.

[mamos]

I think it is clear to double. However the poll suggests pass is a LA so I would double(because I think it is right) and not sulk(much) if it were taken away.

 

I'd sulk

[Fluffy]

The winning action can be double or bid on, pass can never be the winner, this doesn't mean that pass cannot be best on average in some circumstances, but this really doesn't look like one of them, opponents are never making overtricks to 5♠ this is enough for me to double.

 

IMO UI suggests biddig 5NT, double is the only LA not suggested by UI.