Does East have his bid?

[jules101]

Match Points

 

[hv=pc=n&e=sqt6532hj753da76c&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp(*%20hesitation)1h(5+%20card%20suit)2s(WJO)]133|200[/hv]

 

 

NS are playing 15-17 1N with 5-card majrs.

 

EW play weak jump overcalls (but when pard is passed hand and vulnerable then the agreement is the weak jumps should be sound, so likely to be upper end of weak/possibly more).

 

West hesitated before passing, so evidently had something to think about.

 

2♠ is passed out with NS reserving their rights after West's hesitation.

 

 

TWO QUESTIONS

 

Q1) Is East constrained from bidding 2♠ after East's hesitation?

 

Q2 How do you do rule?

 

 

PS You aren't asked to comment on whether East's bid is sensible/kamikaze! You are merely asked to determine whether East may bid here after his partner's hesitation

 

 

[This post edited to include MP as form of scoring. No other changes.]

[Vampyr]

PS You aren't asked to comment on whether East's bid is sensible/kamikaze!

 

This is a pretty important consideration, since you have to determine what East's peers would do, and if his bid is "kamikaze" then it is likely that they wouldn't make the bid.

 

You are merely asked to determine whether East may bid here after his partner's hesitation

 

Lacking the opportunity to poll East's peers I would want to know about E/W's agreements a bit more specifically, but would be inclined to rule result stands. Assuming this is matchpoints.

[jules101]

EW methods are:

 

* 12-14 1N

* 4-card majors

* multi 2♦ - usually weak 2 in a major (I think we can rule out that East has the other option which is 24-25 balanced!)

* 2♥/2♠ - are weak and 2 suited - 5 of the major with 4+ minor - usually 7-10ish.

 

And WJO - generally 6-9ish, but as stated abve if pard has already passed, and they are vuln then (as with 3rd seat openers) then interpretation of weak is "more relaxed". Would normally expect such jumps to be "sound" vulnable opposite passed pard - so upper end of "weak" or could be a bit stronger. Everyone is on a guess.

 

Yes - match points. Original post edited to insert this info.

[blackshoe]

As Stef says, whether 2♠ is under constraint depends on information we don't have. That said, I agree that "result stands" is a likely ruling.

[Vampyr]

 

And WJO - generally 6-9ish, but as stated abve if pard has already passed, and they are vuln then (as with 3rd seat openers) then interpretation of weak is "more relaxed". Would normally expect such jumps to be "sound" vulnable opposite passed pard - so upper end of "weak" or could be a bit stronger.

 

Well, while I wouldn't call this a "sound" WJO, the void is an offensive asset and not only partner but also LHO is a passed hand. These factors argue in favour of allowing the bid, IMO, but I would rather do a poll on a judgment ruling.

[sfi]

Is having a borderline hand (we don't know what border the hesitation suggests, but let's assume some sort of 11 count) an incentive to bid here? I don't see it being "demonstrably suggested", which would also mean East is free to bid 2♠.

[Vampyr]

Is having a borderline hand (we don't know what border the hesitation suggests, but let's assume some sort of 11 count) an incentive to bid here? I don't see it being "demonstrably suggested",

 

Honestly? You would be just as comfortable making the bid if somehow you knew partner was practically broke?

 

which would also mean East is free to bid 2♠.

[sfi]

Honestly? You would be just as comfortable making the bid if somehow you knew partner was practically broke?

 

Sure - possibly more so. If partner has 3 spades and a 2 count, then this bid would be a clear winner. IMO, the likelihood of success of this bid opposite a passed hand does not have a high correlation (either positive or negative) with the number of points partner holds. The likelihood of going plus does, but that's only incidental to the MP result.

[Vampyr]

Sure - possibly more so. If partner has 3 spades and a 2 count, then this bid would be a clear winner.

 

It would certainly be nice if partner had 3 spades; though then we would probably get a raise and the 3(4?)-level may well be too high. It's interesting what you say, though. Partner's near-opening bid slightly lowers the odds of their having a game on, so if you do go for a number it might be against nothing. Also, since partner is apparently expecting you to have a constructive hand, he may double a making game their way. So it could be argued that the UI demonstrably suggests not bidding.

 

Everyone in this forum should remember that the criterion is not "was demonstrably suggested" but "could demonstrably have been suggested". Not sure, really, if this is a big help, though, because anything could demonstrably have been suggested.

[gnasher]

We don't have any clubs. The most likely explanation for partner's pause is that he was thinking of bidding clubs, either at the one-level or at the three-level. If we knew partner had a 1♣ or 3♣ opening, we wouldn't want to bid 2♠. Hence I think that 2♠, if a LA in the partnership's methods, is also required by law.

[helene_t]

I am with Gnasher and sfi. If anything, you might wonder if East is allowed to pass, since pass is suggested by the BIT.

 

Not that I am seriously suggesting this. Ease can bid what he wants, a slow pass in the opening seat isn't very specific.

[Vampyr]

We don't have any clubs. The most likely explanation for partner's pause is that he was thinking of bidding clubs, either at the one-level or at the three-level.

 

I was thinking this too, including the fact that my partner's 3♣ bid may well have a stiff spade. And our four hearts may be an indication that this is a badly misfitting hand all round.

If we knew partner had a 1♣ or 3♣ opening, we wouldn't want to bid 2♠. Hence I think that 2♠, if a LA in the partnership's methods, is also required by law.

 

It is not entirely clear that the 2♠ bid fits the definition of this partnership's "sound" overcalls opposite a passed hand. In this case it doesn't really matter, because the OP indicates that the bid was actually made.

 

Your argument above is valid, of course. There is a problem, though, in that if our East had passed, no one would really have noticed, and there would have been no ruling. It is very rare that players will look at a hand and ask for a ruling after a failure to take an early action. Thus the rulings that are given out are asymmetrical in nature.

[Vampyr]

Incidentally, it seems mysterious that no one found a bid over 2♠. Was there misinformation involved -- eg the 2♠ bid was described as opening or near-opening values?

[Zelandakh]

If I did not overcall 2♠ on this hand I would be guilty of fielding partner's BIT. This seems to come under the heading of "if it hesitates, shoot it". There is no way that the BIT suggests bidding 2♠ imho.

[barmar]

I wonder in general about making any inferences from a hesitation at the beginning of the auction like this. Although they say you should put previous results behind you right away, sometimes I'm still mulling over the last hand while I'm getting ready to bid this one.

[Codo]

But in this case, you should tell that to the table...

[aguahombre]

We don't have any clubs. The most likely explanation for partner's pause is that he was thinking of bidding clubs, either at the one-level or at the three-level. If we knew partner had a 1♣ or 3♣ opening, we wouldn't want to bid 2♠. Hence I think that 2♠, if a LA in the partnership's methods, is also required by law.

There is no way that the BIT suggests bidding 2♠ imho.

I would bid 2♠ at the table, regardless. However there could be another view of Gnasher's post. If the most likely explanation for partner's pause is that he was thinking of bidding clubs, then it is also quite likely partner is STILL thinking of bidding clubs ---perhaps at the 3-level.

 

Someone might argue that it makes 2♠ more attractive after the B.I.T as an attempt to prevent partner's club intervention and is thusly suggested by the break in tempo. My hand suggests 2♠ with or without the pause, partly to prevent either side from conveniently introducing clubs. But, I wouldn't be surprised if we were ruled against.

[ahydra]

OK, we have a club void - but does that really mean a BIT "demonstrably suggests" partner was thinking of bidding some number of clubs? IMHO it does not.

 

I would poll if possible, otherwise rule "result stands".

 

ahydra

[aguahombre]

I would poll if possible, otherwise rule "result stands".

Poll what? We already know that Pass and 2S are L.A.'s --subject to style and aggressiveness, not methods and peer issues. Would the poll be asking a bunch of people whether one or the other is demonstrably suggested? If that is the case, I didn't know we called that polling, rather than consultation.

[mycroft]

Pass, 2♠ and 1♠, one would think. This is really light for a "sound if vulnerable, sound if opposite a PH" WJO, but passing seems like it's a pusillanimous action. I'd prefer 2♠ myself, but could see 1♠ (if that is not set in system *sounder than a WJO*, not just not acceptable for WJO).

 

But yes, it depends on the pair, and the environment.

[bluejak]

TWO QUESTIONS

 

Q1) Is East constrained from bidding 2♠ after East's hesitation?

 

Q2 How do you do rule?

Q1. Of course East is constrained because he has UI and Law 73C requires him to take no advantage.

 

Q2. No adjustment, of course.

 

The interesting question is not whether I adjust for 2♠, but whether I adjust if he passes. 2♠ is a pre-empt, and the UI that partner has near opening bid values suggests not pre-empting.

 

I poll, of course, and if enough people bid 2♠ then I adjust if he passes to whatever would happen if he bid 2♠.

 

An interesting example of "If it hesitates, shoot it." It is so easy to forget to ask what the UI shows.

[bluejak]

Honestly? You would be just as comfortable making the bid if somehow you knew partner was practically broke?

Considerably more so, of course. Pre-empts tend to fail when partner has points, tend to work when he hasn't.

 

If I did not overcall 2♠ on this hand I would be guilty of fielding partner's BIT. This seems to come under the heading of "if it hesitates, shoot it". There is no way that the BIT suggests bidding 2♠ imho.

Wahey! :)

 

Poll what? We already know that Pass and 2S are L.A.'s --subject to style and aggressiveness, not methods and peer issues. Would the poll be asking a bunch of people whether one or the other is demonstrably suggested? If that is the case, I didn't know we called that polling, rather than consultation.

That's one h*** of a presumption. You may know what "sound" WJOs are, but I don't, and for me to assume that I know is against the whole principle of polling.

 

I ask people what they would call if they were playing "sound" WJOs. It is a useful poll.

[Vampyr]

Considerably more so, of course. Pre-empts tend to fail when partner has points, tend to work when he hasn't.

 

Yes, of course that is true. My thinking was a bit muddled because it seemed that the OP wanted to disallow the 2♠ bid.