Bid after hesitation

[tzigesh]

http://www.pohrani.com/f/r/rN/1TswOvxy/image2.jpg

 

Another bidding problem from our last night club tournament. W opened 1♦, N intervened 1♥, E followed with 1NT, and S raised to 2♥. W now said 2♠ showing strong hand with 5+♦ and 4♠, 16-19 HCP following by two passes, and 3♥ by S. W is now again on turn, and he hesitated for about 10 seconds and passes. N passes and now E said 3♠ which is our questionable call, no matter that now W followed with 4♠.

 

Is it legal for E to raise to 3♠ after partner hesitation, even though he already showed strong hand with diamonds and spades?

 

Thanks again. :)

[Cascade]

Maybe there will be enough passers to make pass a logical alternative. For me I would always bid 3♠. An argument can be made for bidding it on the previous round. Even if I was a passer on the previous round, a double fit and an ace seem to make bidding clear. I have already bid 1NT so partner expects some wastage in hearts.

 

Unless I got enough passers from a poll, I am inclined to let the score stand on this one.

[barmar]

The double fit is a plus, but minimum values and a wasted honor in the opponents' suit is a minus. It seems to me that these cancel each other out, so there's no reason to violate the LOTT, so Pass must be a LA.

[pran]

http://www.pohrani.com/f/r/rN/1TswOvxy/image2.jpg

 

Another bidding problem from our last night club tournament. W opened 1♦, N intervened 1♥, E followed with 1NT, and S raised to 2♥. W now said 2♠ showing strong hand with 5+♦ and 4♠, 16-19 HCP following by two passes, and 3♥ by S. W is now again on turn, and he hesitated for about 10 seconds and passes. N passes and now E said 3♠ which is our questionable call, no matter that now W followed with 4♠.

 

Is it legal for E to raise to 3♠ after partner hesitation, even though he already showed strong hand with diamonds and spades?

 

Thanks again. :)

 

That depends on relevant regulations.

 

In Norway (and I believe that at least within most if not all of EBL) the relevant regulation states that when both sides have bid below the three level STOP shall be used with every call other than pass at the three level and higher unless both opponents have passed on the last previous round.

 

In this case the 2♥ and 2♠ bids mandate a STOP with the 3♥ bid so the quoted hesitation with the pass does not in any way restrict partner's call.

 

(For the same reason STOP is required with the 3♠ bid but NOT with the 4♠ bid.)

[Cyberyeti]

The double fit is a plus, but minimum values and a wasted honor in the opponents' suit is a minus. It seems to me that these cancel each other out, so there's no reason to violate the LOTT, so Pass must be a LA.

 

What LOTT violation, you have a known 9 card diamond fit as well as your 8 card spade fit, opps have 8 or 9 hearts, if they only have 8 hearts, they have 9 clubs, LOTT is 18, which says bid 3♠, one or both of 3♥/♠ should make, I think I'd be unlucky for it to be doubled and not make (unless opps should have bid 4♥), partner can be as bad as KQJx, xx, KQxxx, Ax which is sub minimum and 3♠ still makes (3♥ probably also makes).

[gnasher]

In Norway (and I believe that at least within most if not all of EBL) the relevant regulation states that when both sides have bid below the three level STOP shall be used with every call other than pass at the three level and higher unless both opponents have passed on the last previous round.

Which countries do you think have this regulation apart from Norway?

[Cascade]

The double fit is a plus, but minimum values and a wasted honor in the opponents' suit is a minus. It seems to me that these cancel each other out, so there's no reason to violate the LOTT, so Pass must be a LA.

 

The wasted heart honour is not a negative. It is your normal expectation given you bid 1nt. If you raised diamonds at your first turn it would be a negative.

 

I would evaluate:

 

Overall strength minimum but I seldom rate this highly in a competitive situation. A minimum here is bad for offense as well as defense;

 

Spades, the length is offensive, which obviously suggests bidding. It is more offensive than what is expected from my bidding so far. Perhaps much more given I didn't make a negative double;

 

Hearts defensive but just as expected;

 

Diamonds, offensive. I have length that is not expected. An ace is both offensive and defensive. This ace in partner's long suit is more offensive.

 

Clubs, the Doubleton may be a ruffing value. Given our control if we play the hand and that ruffing weakens our h Qxx defensively, this is more likely to be useful offensively than defensively.

 

Overall I think the hand screams offense.

 

Whike partner has the majority of our sites assets and could know better what defensive tricks we might take this evaluation will be difficult not knowing we have any fit.

[Vampyr]

Which countries do you think have this regulation apart from Norway?

 

I think there are one or two in central or southern Europe.

[barmar]

What LOTT violation, you have a known 9 card diamond fit as well as your 8 card spade fit, opps have 8 or 9 hearts, if they only have 8 hearts, they have 9 clubs, LOTT is 18, which says bid 3♠, one or both of 3♥/♠ should make, I think I'd be unlucky for it to be doubled and not make (unless opps should have bid 4♥), partner can be as bad as KQJx, xx, KQxxx, Ax which is sub minimum and 3♠ still makes (3♥ probably also makes).

My understanding is that the LOTT only counts the lengths of the trump suits, not side suits. You have an 8 card fit, the opponents have 8 or 9. That's 16-17 total tricks. Then it says to adjust up when you have a double fit, but adjust down when you have minor honors in the opponents' suit.

[barmar]

The wasted heart honour is not a negative. It is your normal expectation given you bid 1nt. If you raised diamonds at your first turn it would be a negative.

The LOTT doesn't care what you're expected to have based on previous bidding. It's still a defensive value, but not an offensive value, so it reduces the total tricks. Partner might make judgements about his bidding based on the expectation that you have a heart honor, but we're talking about an action by the player who holds that card.

[pran]

Which countries do you think have this regulation apart from Norway?

The key word is "competitive auction", and as far as I know we have adopted our regulations from WBF or EBL (to be in line with the rest of at least Europe) so I would be very surprised if we are alone with this rule.

[gnasher]

The key word is "competitive auction", and as far as I know we have adopted our regulations from WBF or EBL (to be in line with the rest of at least Europe) so I would be very surprised if we are alone with this rule.

It's not part of the CoC in EBL or WBF events, and I don't believe it's widely used in individual European countries. The only country where I have encountered this rule is Norway. It's an excellent rule though.

[gnasher]

In determining East's LAs, we are supposed to decide what a player of East's class might do. He bid 1NT with a suit-oriented hand and an easy negative double, and then passed 2♠ with a hand that's clearly worth an invitational raise. It seems unlikely that this East is capable of the sort of analysis that has been suggested in this thread.

[Cyberyeti]

My understanding is that the LOTT only counts the lengths of the trump suits, not side suits. You have an 8 card fit, the opponents have 8 or 9. That's 16-17 total tricks. Then it says to adjust up when you have a double fit, but adjust down when you have minor honors in the opponents' suit.

 

My understanding was that you count the longest suit provided you have an 8+ card trump suit. If you have solid 4-4 fit and 5-4 fits, you have 9 cashers, whichever you play in.

 

Also as in the actual hand, you don't know that total tricks isn't 19.

[barmar]

My understanding was that you count the longest suit provided you have an 8+ card trump suit. If you have solid 4-4 fit and 5-4 fits, you have 9 cashers, whichever you play in.

 

Also as in the actual hand, you don't know that total tricks isn't 19.

My understanding is that the LOTT assumes you're going to play in your best fit.

[Vampyr]

It's not part of the CoC in EBL or WBF events, and I don't believe it's widely used in individual European countries. The only country where I have encountered this rule is Norway. It's an excellent rule though.

 

Yes, this is true. I encountered this rule in Croatia. Our opponents may have been Norwegian, but I had the impression that they were from somewhere further South; this is why I think that there is probably another country or two.

[nige1]

In determining East's LAs, we are supposed to decide what a player of East's class might do. He bid 1NT with a suit-oriented hand and an easy negative double, and then passed 2♠ with a hand that's clearly worth an invitational raise. It seems unlikely that this East is capable of the sort of analysis that has been suggested in this thread.

East's 1N would usually deny 4♠, so west's 2♠ would often show 65. With his actual hand, West's hesitation over 3♥ appears to be an overbid, so perhaps there's no LA to East's 3♠. Nevertheless, the director should consider Gnasher's argument, which frequently seems to be ignored when considering LAs.

[aguahombre]

The double fit is a plus, but minimum values and a wasted honor in the opponents' suit is a minus. It seems to me that these cancel each other out, so there's no reason to violate the LOTT, so Pass must be a LA.

With the double fit on both sides of the auction, the LOTT is somewhere around an adjusted 20 total tricks. But, having misbid 1NT and then misbid Pass the next time out of fright because his 1NT was understrength, I doubt this particular East should be given any credit for thinking like Gnasher now.

 

If you could find a peer for East, you would probably find Pass to be his L.A.

[hirowla]

Coming in late, maybe I'm missing something here. Are the questions to be considered as follows:

1. Did West's break in tempo give UI to East?
   
2. If so, was there an logical alternative to East's bid?
   
3. If so, did East choose the alternative that was suggested by the UI?
   

If so, my initial thoughts on it are:

1. I believe UI was transmitted - it said West was thinking of bidding, which made it more attractive for East to bid
   
2. I believe pass is a logical alternative - after all, East passed the first time after 2♠.
   
3. Out of the alternatives, East chose the option suggested by the UI
   

 

So based on this, shouldn't the East bid of 3♠ be changed to a pass and the contract played in 3♥ and (on a brief look) makes.

 

Or is everybody assuming the first item in the list and purely considering whether pass was a LA?

[blackshoe]

So based on this, shouldn't the East bid of 3♠ be changed to a pass and the contract played in 3♥ and (on a brief look) makes.

No. You cannot change the bidding at the table (except possibly in an MI case). The contract will be played in 4♠ by West, regardless of the fact that UI was (allegedly) used to get there. Then, if the TD judges that an infraction occurred, he may adjust the score — after the play is over. This is one of the reasons why Law 16B3 tells players to call the director "when play ends" if they think an infraction of the prohibition against using UI has occurred.

[hirowla]

Sorry just bad phrasing on my part. I meant that's the contract you consider when assessing whether damage was caused, it's far too late in the auction to roll it back.

[Cascade]

I believe pass is a logical alternative - after all, East passed the first time after 2♠.

 

 

This is fallacious. A pass on the previous round does not necessarily mean pass is a logical alternative on the current round. We have more information which may suggest bidding. 3s on the previous round would be invitational, or at least we may have thought so, but it's only competitive on this round. We had the opportunity of playing 2s previously now or choice is to play 3s or defend. Our decision on the previous round has little bearing on the current situation.