A different kind of Hesitation Blackwood

[chrism]

[hv=pc=n&s=st653h976d8532ct7&w=skqj2hqjt53daca82&n=sa9874hdqj4cqj653&e=shak842dkt976ck94&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1hp2n(GF%20raise%20with%204+%20hearts)p3s(0-1%20spades)p4n(RKC1430)p6h(See%20narrative)p7hppp]399|300|Result: making 7[/hv]

Disclaimer: I was not the table director and did not participate in the appeal; I was DIC of the event and discussed the hand at the time of the ruling, and briefly with the Appeal Committee chair after their decision. Thus, the account that I present is based partly on second-hand information. Please discuss the hypothetical case as presented here, whether or not it is precisely what actually occurred.

 

EW were playing 2/1. All players are experienced, but neither partnership is well established.

 

East paused a long time before the 6♥ call; NS asserted about 2 minutes and EW did not dispute this. NS called the director after the hand and expressed the opinion that the slow 6♥ suggested bidding on, and that the contract should be rolled back to 6♥ making 7.

 

When questioned by the director, EW claimed that 6♥ showed 2 keycards with a void (clearly in spades since East had already shown shortness there with the 3♠ response to Jacoby), and on that basis the grand would be at worst on a ruffing finesse in spades.

 

The directors considered that the slow 6♥ did not demonstrably suggest bidding on over passing. While the BIT could certainly be based on extra values or shape, it could also have been based on a weaker hand nervous of committing to a small slam in order to show the void (for example, the same hand with Kx in each minor replaced by QJ).

 

On the basis that though there was clearly UI, it did not demonstrably suggest 7♥ over Pass, the table ruling was 7♥ making 7.

 

NS appealed. In the appeal, NS asserted that they had asked about the 6H call during the auction and West had been unclear about the meaning (on the lines of "I don't know how I am supposed to respond"). EW disputed this. The Appeal Committee also found that while EW expressed confidence that 6♥ showed 2+void, they were uncertain how to show 1+void or 3+void in their methods.

[helene_t]

The directors considered that the slow 6♥ did not demonstrably suggest bidding on over passing. While the BIT could certainly be based on extra values or shape, it could also have been based on a weaker hand nervous of committing to a small slam in order to show the void (for example, the same hand with Kx in each minor replaced by QJ).

This seems clear. In fact I think bidding 7 is the most ethical thing to do since if anything the hesitation suggests a less slamish hand than a fast 6♥ would suggest.

 

EW don't seem to be honest. How can they be confident about how to show 2+void when they don't know the rest of the structure? More likely NS are correct that they weren't so confident at the table.

 

It doesn't change the fact that the BIT doesn't suggest bidding 7, though.

[RunemPard]

2 minutes?!? That is all I have to say about this.

[barmar]

This partnership is apparently playing the opposite of the common treatment for showing voids (usually 5NT shows even+void, 6 trumps shows odd+void above trump). Couldn't East's hesitation simply be because he was trying to remember if that's what they do? If they were a regular partnership this wouldn't be an issue, but since they're not an established partnership it can be a serious concern.

[Vampyr]

 

It doesn't change the fact that the BIT doesn't suggest bidding 7, though.

 

I am sure that it does. A weaker hand as suggested in the OP would not have showed the void.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=st653h976d8532ct7&w=skqj2hqjt53daca82&n=sa9874hdqj4cqj653&e=shak842dkt976ck94&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1hp2n(GF%20raise%20with%204+%20hearts)p3s(0-1%20spades)p4n(RKC1430)p6h(See%20narrative)p7hppp]399|300|Result: making 7

Disclaimer: I was not the table director and did not participate in the appeal; I was DIC of the event and discussed the hand at the time of the ruling, and briefly with the Appeal Committee chair after their decision. Thus, the account that I present is based partly on second-hand information. Please discuss the hypothetical case as presented here, whether or not it is precisely what actually occurred. EW were playing 2/1. All players are experienced, but neither partnership is well established. East paused a long time before the 6♥ call; NS asserted about 2 minutes and EW did not dispute this. NS called the director after the hand and expressed the opinion that the slow 6♥ suggested bidding on, and that the contract should be rolled back to 6♥ making 7. When questioned by the director, EW claimed that 6♥ showed 2 keycards with a void (clearly in spades since East had already shown shortness there with the 3♠ response to Jacoby), and on that basis the grand would be at worst on a ruffing finesse in spades. The directors considered that the slow 6♥ did not demonstrably suggest bidding on over passing. While the BIT could certainly be based on extra values or shape, it could also have been based on a weaker hand nervous of committing to a small slam in order to show the void (for example, the same hand with Kx in each minor replaced by QJ). On the basis that though there was clearly UI, it did not demonstrably suggest 7♥ over Pass, the table ruling was 7♥ making 7. NS appealed. In the appeal, NS asserted that they had asked about the 6H call during the auction and West had been unclear about the meaning (on the lines of "I don't know how I am supposed to respond"). EW disputed this. The Appeal Committee also found that while EW expressed confidence that 6♥ showed 2+void, they were uncertain how to show 1+void or 3+void in their methods.[/hv]

Seemingly, the EW agreement was not defined on their card, EW did not produce corroborative system-notes and, even if East's 6♥ showed a void, he was unclear how he would have shown 1 or 3 keys. If East's 6♥ were the clear systemic action, surely East might bid it more quickly. When asked by the appeal committee, EW and NS disputed how West had explained 6♥ at the table.

 

IMO: the director should have asked what explanation was given by West, before giving his ruling. What is clear to me is that a slow action usually shows some willingness to bid more. That seems especially likely here. Hence, the director should rule 6♥+1. Equity law encourages West to give into temptation. Suppose (different players, different case), West is unclear about their agreement but easily recognises the hesitation as suggesting a keen interest in the grand. West believes that if he passes then he almost certainly misses a grand. Suppose further, that he eventually manages to persuade himself that 6♥ systemically shows 2 keys and a void -- and there is no real LA to 7♥. The worst likely result for West is that opponents call the director, the director rules against him, and the contract is wound back to 6♥+1. Heads West wins, tails he doesn't lose.

[ggwhiz]

2 minutes?!? That is all I have to say about this.

 

That's not a hesitation, it's a coma. I'm supposed to take their word for it that 6♥ is agreed to show 2 with a void? Even then West admitted the grand may be on a ruffing finesse.

 

I agree that the coma suggests extras as opposed to not showing the void and am rolling it back.

[Trinidad]

This partnership is apparently playing the opposite of the common treatment for showing voids (usually 5NT shows even+void, 6 trumps shows odd+void above trump).

That is the method to use when the void was not known. You will need to be able to show the void suit and, therefore, you show odd/even number of keys.

 

However, when the void is known there are other methods. I play:

5NT 0/3 and a known void (rarely 0, of course)

6♣ 1/4 and a known void

6♦ 2 without queen and a known void

6♥ 2 with queen and a known void

 

I thought that this was relatively standard for experienced pairs.

 

Couldn't East's hesitation simply be because he was trying to remember if that's what they do? If they were a regular partnership this wouldn't be an issue, but since they're not an established partnership it can be a serious concern.

That is certainly possible.

 

However, I think that EW don't have any agreement at all. (Would you and I ever discuss this if we would be playing a few times together? I don't think so.) East's problem is that he needs to reply 5♥ to "standard RKCB". He doesn't want to do that, because he doesn't want West to pass 5♥. Given that he has been tanking a while already he really doesn't want to bid 5♥, since his partner will be in trouble after his BIT. So, East -after thinking it over properly- just guesses to bid the slam, rather than to show his keycards.

 

The question is whether the BIT made bidding 7♥ more attractive. I don't think the hesitation makes 7♥ more attractive. I think the fact that East decided that 6♥ must be a good bet, combined with the fact that East didn't want to show his keycards (which can only mean that he has a spade void) makes bidding 7♥ attractive. So, I would say that the BIT didn't have any influence.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

2 minutes?!? That is all I have to say about this.

What's the problem with a 2 minute BIT? Have you never seen anybody think in your life?

 

A 2 minute BIT is just as much BIT as a 15 second BIT, so once you are in BIT territory you might just as well use your time to make the right decision.

 

Rik

[nige1]

... However, when the void is known there are other methods. I play:

5NT 0/3 and a known void (rarely 0, of course)

6♣ 1/4 and a known void

6♦ 2 without queen and a known void

6♥ 2 with queen and a known void

I thought that this was relatively standard for experienced pairs ...

That seems sensible.

... However, I think that EW don't have any agreement at all. (Would you and I ever discuss this if we would be playing a few times together? I don't think so.) East's problem is that he needs to reply 5♥ to "standard RKCB". He doesn't want to do that, because he doesn't want West to pass 5♥. Given that he has been tanking a while already he really doesn't want to bid 5♥, since his partner will be in trouble after his BIT. So, East -after thinking it over properly- just guesses to bid the slam, rather than to show his keycards. The question is whether the BIT made bidding 7♥ more attractive. I don't think the hesitation makes 7♥ more attractive. I think the fact that East decided that 6♥ must be a good bet, combined with the fact that East didn't want to show his keycards (which can only mean that he has a spade void) makes bidding 7♥ attractive. So, I would say that the BIT didn't have any influence.

EW claimed that they had agreed 6♥ = void + 2 key-cards but Trinidad thinks that they had no agreement at all. Would Trinidad rule in EW's favour, In spite of arguing that they lied about their understandings?

[blackshoe]

What's the problem with a 2 minute BIT? Have you never seen anybody think in your life?

 

A 2 minute BIT is just as much BIT as a 15 second BIT, so once you are in BIT territory you might just as well use your time to make the right decision.

 

Rik

Depends on the player. The other day, one of my semi-regular partners took his usual fifteen seconds or so to decide what to call. My LHO said "do you agree there's been a BIT here?" I just shrugged, but I should have said "no, that's his normal tempo." B-)

[Vampyr]

Depends on the player. The other day, one of my semi-regular partners took his usual fifteen seconds or so to decide what to call. My LHO said "do you agree there's been a BIT here?" I just shrugged, but I should have said "no, that's his normal tempo." B-)

 

Does he really take 15 seconds before every call?

[Trinidad]

Would Trinidad rule in EW's favour, In spite of arguing that they lied about their understandings?

Yes. Because the (assumed) lie does not have any bearing on the principle point of the case: The BIT does not make 7♥ more attractive. End of case.

 

If they told me that Rush Limbaugh is a left wing liberal and Barack Obama is Donald Trump's brother then it is still true that the BIT does not make 7♥ more attractive.

 

I would, however, try to smoke them out on their lie (which is what the AC did by quizzing them about the replies for 1 and 3 keys) and if successful penalize them for that lie.

 

Rik

[campboy]

From West's point of view, there are two possible explanations for the BIT.

 

1. East might have been considering giving the normal response to RCKB rather than jumping to show the void. This would suggest passing, since he is likely to have a worse hand than a quick 6♥.

 

2. East might have been unsure which void-showing bid was correct on his hand. If West is confident that 6♥ shows two+void, then this also suggests passing, since East might have gotten it wrong, in which case they are missing a keycard. If West isn't sure what 6♥ shows either, I don't think the hesitation suggests anything in particular.

 

So I think pass is suggested and 7♥ is the ethical thing to do.

[gnasher]

If I were considering making an undiscussed jump response to Keycard, I would take some time about it too. I don't think that the pause tells us anything about East's hand.

[blackshoe]

Does he really take 15 seconds before every call?

Pretty much.

[Trinidad]

Does he really take 15 seconds before every call?

Pretty much.

I hope the two of you are not playing a relay system. I would recommend a very wide ranging gambling 3NT.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

I agree that the coma suggests extras as opposed to not showing the void and am rolling it back.

You are making the wrong comparison.

 

We all agree that 6♥ suggests extras as opposed to not showing the void.

 

The question is whether the coma + 6♥ suggests more values then 2-3 seconds + 6♥.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

I hope the two of you are not playing a relay system. I would recommend a very wide ranging gambling 3NT.

 

Rik

We play a fairly simply Standard American. I'm trying to convince him to switch to 2/1, but it's slow going.

[Trinidad]

We play a fairly simply Standard American. I'm trying to convince him to switch to 2/1, but it's slow going.

Don't do that!

 

Make sure that he gets to bid as few times as possible. Each bid costs 15 seconds. So, no transfers, because they take an extra half round of bidding. Takeout doubles are out for the same reason. Just bid what you can make.

 

If you would switch to 2/1, at some point someone will fall asleep before the auction is over.

 

Rik

[chrism]

To complete the story - the committee ruled the contract to 6H making 7. I was not privy to their discussion, but I understand that they considered it a close decision.

[Vampyr]

I think that what really happened is that the player knew that they had not agreed how to show a void and so just bid slam. Thus he didn't show any number of aces at all; only a void. I would come down hard on this pair for lying.

[blackshoe]

I think that what really happened is that the player knew that they had not agreed how to show a void and so just bid slam. Thus he didn't show any number of aces at all; only a void. I would come down hard on this pair for lying.

And what will you do when it turns out they weren't lying? You are, after all, acting on an assumption which may not be true.

[blackshoe]

Don't do that!

 

Make sure that he gets to bid as few times as possible. Each bid costs 15 seconds. So, no transfers, because they take an extra half round of bidding. Takeout doubles are out for the same reason. Just bid what you can make.

 

If you would switch to 2/1, at some point someone will fall asleep before the auction is over.

 

Rik

Maybe - but I'm trying to help him become a better player, not be a hand hog myself.

[Lanor Fow]

I'm with those who don't think that this suggests passing or bidding. I'd be more surprised if, in a not that established partnership, a unusual response to keycard was bid in tempo, than out of it.