Rebid after break in tempo

[suprgrover]

I'm looking for logical alternatives for North here after South's slow 2S call.[hv=pc=n&s=st854hk872dk9cqj3&w=sj6ht6dqj32ca9876&n=sakq93haj3dt854c2&e=s72hq954da76ckt54&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp2sp]399|300|2S came after an agreed break in tempo (hesitation)[/hv]

 

North-South play 2/1 Game Forcing (5 card majors, 1NT forcing one round, natural game tries). 3S would be a 4-card limit raise. 2S would be a single raise, but South could bid 1NT and then bid 2S with a dreadful hand in support of spades. What are North's logical alternatives here?

[trevahound]

Have to poll with no BIT (or UI) to truly get what the LA's are. For me, with the UI present, I see no LA to pass. Not even close with what I see, and I'm known as pretty overly aggressive.

[barmar]

LAs are based on what the player's peer would consider WITHOUT the UI. You then determine which of them are suggested by the UI; if he chose one of these, you adjust to something else.

 

North's only potential LAs are Pass and whatever kind of game try they play. But I think few players would consider that hand worth a game try -- it needs help in both red suits.

 

If a game try is also considered an LA, and you think the BIT suggests that South was thinking of making a limit raise instead of a simple raise, then the game try should be disallowed.

[pwg7]

If a game try is also considered an LA, and you think the BIT suggests that South was thinking of making a limit raise instead of a simple raise, then the game try should be disallowed.

 

OTOH if the BIT suggests South was thinking of passing or 1NT?

 

LAs probably PASS or a game try.

[suprgrover]

One other question: what is "demonstrably suggested" by the break in tempo?

[pran]

Frankly, if the 2♠ bid (as I believe) shows an ordinary simple raise with 6 - 9 HCP and no special values I cannot understand that North has any LA at all but to PASS?

[wank]

funny, i would never think of passing 2s.

 

anyway, i wouldn't say a slow 2S demonstrably suggested much at all.

[helene_t]

The bit doesn't suggest anything in particular so North can do what he wants. A game try is quite aggressive though.

[Sjoerds]

I would call 3♠

[Cyberyeti]

Frankly, if the 2♠ bid (as I believe) shows an ordinary simple raise with 6 - 9 HCP and no special values I cannot understand that North has any LA at all but to PASS?

Why ? Absent the hesitation:

 

xxxx, KQxx, x, xxxx is laydown possibly with an overtrick, even Jxx, KQxx, x, xxxxx will still make game, I'd be inclined to make a try with 3♥ long suit or 3♣ short suit whichever I play.

 

With the hesitation: Pass is clearly a LA, even if I would always bid, I don't expect to convince an AC of that, making a try is also a LA

 

If I believe the hesitation is likely to be 2♠ or something more constructive then pass is forced.

 

If I believe pass/2♠ was the decision then I'm constrained to make the try.

 

If I believe 2S/1N was the decision then I can do what I like.

 

If all of these are valid options then the hesitation tells me nothing overall and I can do what I like.

[Trinidad]

The bit doesn't suggest anything in particular so North can do what he wants. A game try is quite aggressive though.

Agree 100% with the first sentence, which should be the end of the problems for the TD.

 

On the second sentence, I agree that a game try is somewhat aggressive, but I would certainly make it and would not seriously consider pass.

 

Rik

[ArtK78]

I agree that the BIT does not suggest anything in particular.

 

I am surprised at those who believe that this hand is not worth a game try. I would never consider passing over 2♠.

[ggwhiz]

Tough one.

 

If I make the game try I always would have or pass, if I land on my feet either way the opps could feel jobbed and appeal.

 

I think I'll tank at the table and flip a coin for all to see or be able to point to recent examples of aggression (or not) to justify either decision.

[jallerton]

One other question: what is "demonstrably suggested" by the break in tempo?

 

Strictly speaking, you should be asking what actions "could demonstrably be suggested" by the break in tempo.

[Codo]

I would make a game try, but who cares, as I do not see what the pass had demonstrably suggested?

[cherdano]

The bit doesn't suggest anything in particular so North can do what he wants.

 

I am always uneasy with this type of argument, in such a simple auction. We all know players whose facial expression when picking up their hands can tell everyone at the table "OH DEAR WHEN WILL I FINALLY GET A HAND WITH SOME HCP" or "Nice, finally I picked up a hand with some useful cards". These tend to be the same players who can take long to decide whether to raise to 2S or to invite, etc.

[gnasher]

Strictly speaking, you should be asking what actions "could demonstrably be suggested" by the break in tempo.

Supposing that we knew what that actually meant.

[PhilKing]

My experience is that a slow 2♠ is generally strong or just means partner's mind wandered - but you can usually tell which.

[CamHenry]

As for the LA's: my guess is pass, a game try, and (at MPs) a blocking raise to 3♠ are all in the frame. I think the last of these is definitely suggested over pass by the UI: if partner's got dross, a confident 3♠ bid may go -100 against their making partscore; while if partner's got the heavy hand there's good chances of making 3 or getting to game after the slow start.

[iviehoff]

Do the people who chose to pass use the Losing Trick Count? To me this is a 6-loser hand, which, is invitational. You can make game opposite a yarborough, if it's the right yarborough. But clearly it all depends on the fit, and making game on these cards is about the fit not the high cards. So you'd better have machinery for locating the fit. People who use the LTC and use fit-locating machinery won't pass this hand, in my view. But quite a lot of people here have said they would pass without a whisper. What are this player's playing methods? Who are this player's peers?

 

What does the hesitation demonstrably suggest? What it demonstrably suggests is doubt. It is often said that that hesitators in the common raising situation are rather more found with something to spare than being a notch short of the requirements. But I rather suspect Directors obtain that impression because they are less often called to the table when it is the latter case.

[billw55]

With the hesitation: Pass is clearly a LA, even if I would always bid, I don't expect to convince an AC of that, making a try is also a LA

Agree.

 

My experience is that a slow 2♠ is generally strong or just means partner's mind wandered - but you can usually tell which.

Also agree. I know in theory the hesitation can mean responder was also considering pass. But in practice, I think that he is considering bidding more, not less, a substantial majority of the time.

[mycroft]

I can't imagine partner passing instead of 2♠; but he's almost certainly on the "non-constructive/constructive/limit" spectrum.

 

The problem is that although yes, partner could have been thinking of 1NT vs 2♠ (especially with, say, a 6-ish with 4), or that partner could have one of those "too good/flat for 4, but 5 trump and how do I get to game without being in 6?" hands, it's most likely that partner has one of those bad limit raises ("we play 2♠ 8-10, and I have an aceless crappy 11, or I have a decent 10 with 4-card support")

 

The British have case law, I believe, that suggests that hesitations in these cases are deemed to show extras. Without that, the issue is that it can't *demonstrably* suggest extra values, especially if someone would argue that if it turned out that opener passed with a Q more or so and partner did have the "good bad single raise" that the hesitation suggested that partner didn't have enough and would enforce a game try.

 

One of *my* rules, which seems to be obvious given the switch to "demonstrably" suggested, is that there has to be a safe call. If we'll enforce a game try opposite a borderline minimum, we can't deny a game try opposite a borderline maximum, or we're back to "if it hesitates, shoot it".

 

Without the UI, I'm aggressive, I make the 3♣ call. Yes, it has downsides, especially when I get to play 3♠ as opposed to 1♠-2♠-p balanced into 3♠ (am I really going to get to play 2-of-a-fit with this hand?) But when partner has nothing wasted in clubs, he'll have help for me in the reds (I hope; but I'm also derided as too pessimistic, so I'm going to hope this time).

 

However, IMPs or MPs? How good am I/the field? Almost certainly that would make a difference.

[Cyberyeti]

 

The British have case law, I believe, that suggests that hesitations in these cases are deemed to show extras. Without that, the issue is that it can't *demonstrably* suggest extra values, especially if someone would argue that if it turned out that opener passed with a Q more or so and partner did have the "good bad single raise" that the hesitation suggested that partner didn't have enough and would enforce a game try.

 

 

Which is a real problem, because if a partnership decides they're always going to take the more aggressive action if they hesitate, they get away with murder as partner doesn't even consider making an even slightly borderline invite.

[WellSpyder]

One of *my* rules, which seems to be obvious given the switch to "demonstrably" suggested, is that there has to be a safe call. If we'll enforce a game try opposite a borderline minimum, we can't deny a game try opposite a borderline maximum, or we're back to "if it hesitates, shoot it".

Seems sensible. A pity the poor old person hesitating doesn't know which way the TD will jump as to which is the "safe" call....