Brighton 15 (EBU)

[VixTD]

Another ruling from the Mixed Pairs:

[hv=pc=n&s=s94hqj4da96cqj654&w=saq852hk72dq5ct82&n=skt3h8dkj743ca973&e=sj76hat9653dt82ck&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp2n(both%20minors%2C%20%3C12%20pts)p3cp(slow)p3hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Result: 3♥(E)-1, NS +100 (49/124 MPs)

 

NS were not happy with the 3♥ bid after the hesitation. How do you rule?

[gnasher]

I think pass is obviously a logical alternative for East, so I'd rule that 3♥ is illegal. I'd usually adjust to 100% of 3♣+1, but with a strong player sitting South I might add a small percentage of 3♣+2, because South might find out enough about the high-card distribution to know that East had ♣K.

[ahydra]

East has an awful lot of losers, and vulnerable too - even though his partner is marked with values, I don't think we can allow 3H here.

 

ahydra

[paulg]

If East has any experience then this is PP for me.

Was this a Senior Mixed Pair? Just checking for serial offenders :)

[ggwhiz]

If East has any experience then this is PP for me.

 

Ditto and a lecture to a rookie.

 

Double catering to whatever the hesitation was about would be much worse but I make pass a strong favorite in any poll.

[aguahombre]

Piling on to what has already been said:

 

The AI East possesses is that West did not open the bidding, nor act on the second round. It should seem more likely to East that N/S have made a mistake, belonging in Spades or a Club game, than that he should be trying to thread a 100 vs 110 needle.

 

3H could ONLY be based on UI, IMO. N/S not doubling for +200 is nowhere close to consideration as part of the ruling.

[billw55]

3H could ONLY be based on UI, IMO.

Really? East cannot consider balancing with a six card suit to an ace, where opponents are basically two passed hands, have a fit, and one has shown both minors (hence shortish majors)?

 

Certainly, pass is an LA, and so the score must be adjusted. But if this were somehow the other way round, I would think 3♥ is an LA also.

 

edit: although I admit I am tempted to argue that the UI contains nothing that the AI does not: south and west's passes, and north's conventional bid, have collectively defined everyone's high card strength very closely. West must have 9-11, hesitation or not.

[aguahombre]

Really? East cannot consider balancing with a six card suit to an ace, where opponents are basically two passed hands, have a fit, and one has shown both minors (hence shortish majors)?

And how do we know they have a fit, or even the right fit? They might well be in the 4-3 instead of the 5-3; or in the wrong 5-2 fit. What we do know is that we have a working 5-count opposite a passed hand, and that our stiff King of clubs is a subtractor. I like balancing more than most do, but even running into the hand partner held (suggested by the UI), we still could have been minus 200 if they got froggy and doubled. Add that to all the hands possible without the UI, and balancing 3H becomes terrible ---but slightly better than terrible if we are allowed to use the UI.

[Finch]

I'm surprised at all these postings. I would bid 3H at matchpoints, even at game all, and think it's obvious.

 

Must be a good hand for a poll.

[blackshoe]

Really? East cannot consider balancing with a six card suit to an ace, where opponents are basically two passed hands, have a fit, and one has shown both minors (hence shortish majors)?

 

Certainly, pass is an LA, and so the score must be adjusted. But if this were somehow the other way round, I would think 3♥ is an LA also.

 

edit: although I admit I am tempted to argue that the UI contains nothing that the AI does not: south and west's passes, and north's conventional bid, have collectively defined everyone's high card strength very closely. West must have 9-11, hesitation or not.

A player with UI cannot choose from amongst LAs one which demonstrably could have been suggested by that UI, whether he has AI saying the same thing or not. The only way he's allowed to make such a choice is if there are no other LAs.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=s94hqj4da96cqj654&w=saq852hk72dq5ct82&n=skt3h8dkj743ca973&e=sj76hat9653dt82ck&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp2n(both%20minors%2C%2%3C12%20pts)p3cp(slow)p3hppp]399|300|

Another ruling from the Mixed Pairs:

 

Result: 3♥(E)-1, NS +100 (49/124 MPs)

 

NS were not happy with the 3♥ bid after the hesitation. How do you rule?

[/hv]

Logical alternatives are tricky.

 

At game-all, North, advertised a minor 2-suiter, forcing to the 3-level. With 8 cards and 8 HCP in the minors, how can 3♣ be a logical alternative for South? But that's what he bid!

 

I might pass with the East hand but FrancesHinden would always bid 3♥, so pass, 3♥ and perhaps double are likely to be LAs. When an inexperienced player hesitates, it almost always advertises offensive values and suggests action, so perhaps the director should consider reverting the auction to 3♣. But West is a senior, hence likely to be experienced, so his hesitation is more likely to show defensive values, making the director's task harder. Either way, however, the hesitation probably shows high cards, making it safer for East to bid the good 6-card suit.

 

Notice how the pernicious SEWOG rule makes it hard for North to make a tight matchpoint double of 3♥, for a top.

[gnasher]

Notice how the pernicious SEWOG rule makes it hard for North to make a tight matchpoint double of 3♥, for a top.

 

I don't notice anything of the sort. A double by North isn't close to being a serious error, wild or gambling.

[mycroft]

<12 says a lot. Is that 8-12? 0+? Is this shape unexpectedly bad (5=5 expected) or is it valid, or would it require 10? I can't imagine <12, minors is the complete agreement, but if it is, I can see South's worry about going for 200 into nothing in a 9-card club fit. I also think that if "<12, minors" is the complete agreement, hitting 3♥ is almost the antithesis of Serious Error. "Partner, I have actual stuff. DSI" But I don't think "<12, minors" is the complete agreement, because that's effectively unplayable.

[lamford]

I think 3H is close to automatic at MP, with the one thing mitigating against it the singleton K♣ which is likely to score a trick in defence but not offence. If that were a king of another suit, I would only consider 3H. We know partner has values from the AI (none of the players at the table has an opening bid, we are told), and his BIT adds no UI to that. For 3H to be disallowed, it has to be demonstrably suggested by the UI. I would agree from the poll on here that it is an LA, but that is not enough to disallow it.

[PhilKing]

Partner was either:

 

a) Thinking of bidding

 

or

 

b) Thinking of bidding

 

So the UI suggests, er, bidding.

[lamford]

a) The AI says partner has values

b) The UI says partner has values

[gnasher]

The AI tells us that partner has values. The UI adds the information that his values are offensive. That UI demonstrably (trivially, in fact) suggests bidding over passing.

[PhilKing]

a) The AI says partner has values

b) The UI says partner has values

 

Unless you think pard has a penalty double of 3♣ and was trying to remember if those had gone out of fashion at any time in the last 40 years, he was thinking of bidding.

[billw55]

A player with UI cannot choose from amongst LAs one which demonstrably could have been suggested by that UI, whether he has AI saying the same thing or not. The only way he's allowed to make such a choice is if there are no other LAs.

True, which is why I said "and so the score must be adjusted".

 

The AI tells us that partner has values. The UI adds the information that his values are offensive. That UI demonstrably (trivially, in fact) suggests bidding over passing.

Aha. An important distinction that I did not think of. This is reasoning I can agree with.

[iviehoff]

Would any of these players who think they would bid 3H not have bid it on the previous round? What have you learned that makes it more attractive to bid now?

[aguahombre]

Would any of these players who think they would bid 3H not have bid it on the previous round? What have you learned that makes it more attractive to bid now?

I obviously am not one of those who think it is attractive now, except to someone using the UI; however, bidding a direct 3H on the previous round is a whole different animal. East was 4th chair, not a passed hand. 3H direct would show infinitely more playing strength --it is not a prebalance. Passing and then balancing doesn't show that kind of power.

[lamford]

The AI tells us that partner has values. The UI adds the information that his values are offensive. That UI demonstrably (trivially, in fact) suggests bidding over passing.

The fact that he passed adds the AI that his values are not offensive enough to bid. If his values were defensive, he might think and pass, depending on how quick he is to realise that he has no sensible bid. In my experience poor players with a weak no-trump sometimes pass slowly over a weak NT, often asking for the range to be repeated. So, one cannot conclude that someone only breaks tempo with offensive values. And when someone adds "trivially", "clearly", "obviously" or even "in fact" they are often on shaky ground.

[barmar]

And when someone adds "trivially", "clearly", "obviously" or even "in fact" they are often on shaky ground.

Surely

[mycroft]

I would definitely wonder, especially in flight B (or my opponents, but I'm playing this as 5-5, 8-12), if the tank was "Is partner going to take double as takeout, or 'I have defence and a max pass, DSI"? Yes, we know from the auction that partner has a max pass, and certainly this hand (I have enough hearts to make 3♠ unilaterally a bad call) is a clear tank-and-pass.

 

It's just that there are other hands that would tank-and-pass and those may not lead to "offensive values", at least over here.

[gnasher]

The fact that he passed adds the AI that his values are not offensive enough to bid. If his values were defensive, he might think and pass, depending on how quick he is to realise that he has no sensible bid. In my experience poor players with a weak no-trump sometimes pass slowly over a weak NT, often asking for the range to be repeated. So, one cannot conclude that someone only breaks tempo with offensive values.

You seem to be saying that when a player hesitates before making a call, we shouldn't assume, for the purpose of UI rulings, that he was considering some other call. Would I be allowed to use that argument too, or do only bad players get the benefit of it?

 

And when someone adds "trivially", "clearly", "obviously" or even "in fact" they are often on shaky ground.

Perhaps some people do. Personally, when I use the word "trivially", "clearly", "obviously" or "in fact", it means that I think something is trivial, clear, obvious or a matter of fact. Are you suggesting that when I use one of these words I'm less sure of my ground than I would be if I had not used the word, or just more likely to be wrong?