Action after agreed hesitation

[chrism]

ACBL

IMPs, 12-board match (non-standard 20VP scale), played at home

All players advanced to expert.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sq763ha73d982ck92&w=sakj98hkqt52d6cq4&n=st5h64dak753c8763&e=s42hj98dqjt4cajt5&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1sp1n(semi-forcing)p2hp2s(Very%20long%20pause%2C%20agreed)p3hp4hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

This was played in a local Round Robin league. A ruling was solicited by email after the match. The facts in evidence are all the facts that you have to go on.

========

Facts

1NT was announced as "semi-forcing" - West can pass with a flat minimum. East-West are playing 2/1 with a 15-17 NT opening.

East paused 60-90 seconds before bidding 2♠.

West confirmed/announced as he bid 3♥ that East had made a very long pause.

Result: making 4, EW +620

========

 

A poll on this hand (without mention of any UI) has been posted here on the BridgeWinners site, except that 1NT is there described as "forcing". The poll currently has about 14% of respondents passing over 2♠, almost all others bidding 3♥.

 

Your opinion is invited.

[ArtK78]

I don't see how passing 2♠ cannot be a logical alternative to trying for game. The 1NT bid could have been passed, and the preference to 2♠ indicates that responder neither has a "real" raise to 2♠ nor a significant heart fit. Based solely on responder's bidding, any try for game is dangerous - it could either turn a plus into a minus or it could get us high enough so that the opps can double if we were already in trouble.

 

The long pause by responder over 2♥ can hardly mean anything but that responder was considering some other action. In the vast majority of cases, given the silence of the opponents, the action responder would be considering would be to make a move towards game. This makes a game try by opener far safer than it would be without the UI.

 

I like opener's hand. Without any UI, I would have no problem with a game try. But I would also have no problem with a pass. The bottom line is that I would not permit the game try under these circumstances.

[barmar]

The poll indicates that Pass is a logical alternative. So the only real question is what the hesitation suggests. If it suggests bidding on, you have to pass.

 

The problem I have is that it's difficult to decide what the hesitation suggests when I'm biased by seeing the actual hand East holds. I can't help thinking that it implies that he was thinking of passing to play in the possible 4-3 fit, which obviously suggests bidding 3♥. But could there be other things he was thinking of, such as stretching to 2NT -- that would imply wasted values opposite the singleton.

[Trinidad]

The poll indicates that Pass is a logical alternative. So the only real question is what the hesitation suggests. If it suggests bidding on, you have to pass.

 

The problem I have is that it's difficult to decide what the hesitation suggests when I'm biased by seeing the actual hand East holds. I can't help thinking that it implies that he was thinking of passing to play in the possible 4-3 fit, which obviously suggests bidding 3♥. But could there be other things he was thinking of, such as stretching to 2NT -- that would imply wasted values opposite the singleton.

Deciding what the hesitation suggest is often a difficult problem for those who have seen the entire hand. I think this is the area where TDs (and ACs) are most likely to go wrong when ruling in UI cases. Far too often they conclude that the UI meant that the player had the hand he held.

 

You really need to look at the West hand and the auction only. Then you need to determine the LAs. After you have determined the LAs, you need to add the information that East has tanked before bidding 2♠. Then you need to look what that BIT could mean.

 

Looking at the auction only, I would conclude that East has at most 5 cards (2-3) in the majors and, therefore, at least 8 cards in the minors (still consistent with the actual East hand :)). When I add the West hand and the BIT into the picture, I would suspect that East holds a long diamond suit and was considering bidding 3♦. (Not consistent with the actual East hand.) I wouldn't rule out other possibilities, but long diamonds will be the first thing on my mind.

 

What LAs are suggested by the BIT might depend somewhat on what a 3♦ bid would show. I play it as constructive, say 9(8) to a bad 12, so if I were East and tanked, I would probably hold 1-2 spades, 6+ diamonds, and about 7-8 points. That certainly does not suggest bidding on. It would suggest a pass.

 

Another holding that East could have for his tank is a balanced hand at the top of the range (i.e. what East actually had). This holding would suggest bidding on.

 

So, I would conclude that the UI does not suggest one LA over the other (where pass and 3♥ are the LAs). Therefore, I would allow 3♥.

 

----

 

As an aside, this case shows how careful you need to be with handing out PPs for using UI: You need to be pretty sure that the UI was easy to interpret for the player and clearly suggested the chosen action over the LA.

 

I could certainly understand a TD who would judge that the maximum balanced hand is far more likely than the hand with long diamonds. Perhaps he ran a sim, or otherwise has a different (better) judgement of the likelihoods for the hand patterns. In that case, he should certainly adjust the score. But when the player has done the thinking, considered his legal options carefully, followed the laws consistent with his conclusions at the table, and acted properly based on his interpretation of the UI, he should not get a PP. That would in essence punish him for having a bridge judgement that is different from the TD's.

 

Rik

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq763ha73d982ck92&w=sakj98hkqt52d6cq4&n=st5h64dak753c8763&e=s42hj98dqjt4cajt5&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1sp1n(semi-forcing)p2hp2s(Very%20long%20pause%2C%20agreed)p3hp4hppp]399|300| ACBL. IMPs. 12-board match (non-standard 20VP scale), played at home. All players advanced to expert. This was played in a local Round Robin league. A ruling was solicited by email after the match. The facts in evidence are all the facts that you have to go on. 1NT was announced as "semi-forcing" - West can pass with a flat minimum. East-West are playing 2/1 with a 15-17 NT opening. East paused 60-90 seconds before bidding 2♠. West confirmed/announced as he bid 3♥ that East had made a very long pause. Result: making 4, EW +620. A poll on this hand (without mention of any UI) has been posted here on the BridgeWinners site, except that 1NT is there described as "forcing". The poll currently has about 14% of respondents passing over 2♠, almost all others bidding 3♥.[/hv]

The hesitation was agreed. Pass appears to be an LA, which the Bridgewinners poll confirms. IMO the law-book should stipulate that after the first question, pollees be told the nature of the UI and asked a follow-up question "What does the UI suggest?" A possible explanation of the hesitation is false-preference. Anyway, the hesitation makes it safer to bid on. NS were damaged, so IMO the director should revert the contract to 2♠.

[gordontd]

IMO the law-book should stipulate that after the first question, pollees be told the nature of the UI and asked a follow-up question "What does the UI suggest?"

I don't think the law book is the best place for advice on best TD practice. Imagine how cumbersome it would quickly become if it started to include things like that. I thought you usually argue for simpler & clearer laws, Nigel!

[StevenG]

A possible explanation of the hesitation is false-preference. Anyway, the hesitation makes it safer to bid on.

For me, the probable explanation of the hesitation is lack of support for either major. Does that still make it safer to bid on?

[blackshoe]

As an aside, this case shows how careful you need to be with handing out PPs for using UI: You need to be pretty sure that the UI was easy to interpret for the player and clearly suggested the chosen action over the LA.

 

I could certainly understand a TD who would judge that the maximum balanced hand is far more likely than the hand with long diamonds. Perhaps he ran a sim, or otherwise has a different (better) judgement of the likelihoods for the hand patterns. In that case, he should certainly adjust the score. But when the player has done the thinking, considered his legal options carefully, followed the laws consistent with his conclusions at the table, and acted properly based on his interpretation of the UI, he should not get a PP. That would in essence punish him for having a bridge judgement that is different from the TD's.

I agree with what you say here, Rik, but… I know some players around here who, when they have UI, don't bother to think about the legal implications, they just do "what they were going to do anyway". Education via discussion is the first option for most of these folks, but at some point I think you need to start imposing PPs, or they're just going to forever keep on doing things their way.

[nige1]

For me, the probable explanation of the hesitation is lack of support for either major. Does that still make it safer to bid on?

With a minimum hand, lacking support for either major, responder has little to think about. Responder has more to think about, if he has extra values or is giving false preference. In either of the latter cases, bidding on is safer.

[ArtK78]

In my experience, the nearly automatic ruling for the TD upon assessment of the facts and agreement about the hesitation is to revert the auction to the contract that existed after the hesitation and advise the offending side about their appeal rights. In the vast majority of cases, this is the correct procedure for the TD.

 

In some cases, the TD may have to also inform the OS that, in his opinion, any appeal would be frivious and that procedural penalties might be imposed if they pursue an appeal.

 

Summarily imposing procedural penalties after a hesitation followed by a bid prior to any appeal is too harsh.

[blackshoe]

Best practice these days is to take in the facts and make the best ruling you can, whichever side that ruling favors. No ruling should be "nearly automatic" — and no PP should ever be issued "summarily". If there's a good reason for a PP, you issue one. If there isn't, you don't. What you don't do is leave it to the committee to decide whether a PP is appropriate, or make an "automatic" ruling and then let the committee sort it out. Of course, the committee might disagree on both the ruling and the PP. But the idea is for the TD to get it right, and the committee to uphold his ruling, including the issuance (or not) of a PP.

[Trinidad]

I agree with what you say here, Rik, but… I know some players around here who, when they have UI, don't bother to think about the legal implications, they just do "what they were going to do anyway". Education via discussion is the first option for most of these folks, but at some point I think you need to start imposing PPs, or they're just going to forever keep on doing things their way.

I am certainly not opposed to giving PPs. But you need to make sure that you are giving them for ethical violations, not for differences in bridge judgement, or even erroneous bridge judgement. In practice, this means that you only hand out PPs in crystal clear UI cases.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

When a player tells me "I just did what I was always going to do" that is not a difference in bridge judgement.

[Zelandakh]

With a minimum hand, lacking support for either major, responder has little to think about. Responder has more to think out, if he has extra values or is giving false preference. In either of the latter cases, bidding on is safer.

Really, how about if they were 2173 or 2164? Deciding between playing your own minor at the 3 level rather than a 5-2 major at the 2 level might cause some thinking time for a few players. It might make a difference here if WJSs were being played. Put it another way, if Responder did hold that hand and Opener with a similar hand plus ♥J passed, would the same opponents not also be screaming blue murder? And probably getting a fair amount of support from the gallery too.

 

It is not that I am per se disagreeing with what the hesitation suggests, after all the false preference hands are more common than a long minor, but when I see two posters essentially ignoring the other possibilities then I feel the need to post something to address it.

[nige1]

I don't think the law book is the best place for advice on best TD practice. Imagine how cumbersome it would quickly become if it started to include things like that. I thought you usually argue for simpler & clearer laws, Nigel!

Currently, few directors and fewer players seem to understand UI law (e.g. the ACBL club directors handbook gives seemingly unlawful advice).

 

If the law-book contained a protocol for dealing with the putative use of UI, then it would help struggling players and directors understand the law. This might be a first step on the road to players abiding by the law and directors correctly enforcing it. A suggested protocol

 

IMO, the director should

1. If possible, find peers of the player, who
   1. Are unfamiliar with the board, the result, or the call actually made
   2. But are prepared to accept the player's calls prior to the allegedly illegal call.

[*]Explain relevant partnership agreements.[*]Ask pollees to suggest logical alternatives.[*]Add the call actually made to the list of all suggested alternatives.[*]Ask the pollees to give marks out of 10 this augmented list.[*]Tell the pollees about the unauthorized information (UI).[*]Ask the pollees to mark the calls, again, pretending that the UI is, in fact, authorized.[*]If the average mark of the chosen call improves relative to the alternatives and it was more successful, then consider an adjusted score.[*]If this protocol is impracticable, then the director should go through this procedure in his head.[*]If you substitute "call or play" for "call", then this protocol can be used for UI in general.

AFAIR, David Stevenson and some others dislike this protocol. Please would they improve and simplify it. A specific clear law-book protocol would help directors to rule more consistently. It would help ordinary players like me to recognize and to avoid suggested alternatives. It might save rain-forests of local regulations and interpretations.

 

Edited in the light of criticism by Campboy.

Edited June 16, 2014 by nige1

[Trinidad]

When a player tells me "I just did what I was always going to do" that is not a difference in bridge judgement.

I agree.

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

If W says "before I bid 2♥, I thought seriously about bidding 3 hearts, but decided the milder try of 2♥ then 3♥ over 2♠ was more appropriate" then when polling, do you have to find people who seriously considered 3♥ as his second bid ?

[PhilKing]

Just because 14% of people on BridgeLosers pass, does not make it a logical alternative - the passers could be mostly beginners or weak, timid players.

 

I don't believe any real players would pass - game has decent play opposite one high card as long as partner is 2-3M, and pard's preference could easily contain two cover cards, hesitation or no hesitation.

[barmar]

Really, how about if they were 2173 or 2164? Deciding between playing your own minor at the 3 level rather than a 5-2 major at the 2 level might cause some thinking time for a few players.

But we're told that these are advanced+ players. I would expect someone with one of those hands to have decided at the time they made the forcing NT bid what they planned to do following opener's likely rebids.

 

So a long tank most likely means that opener made a rebid responder wasn't expecting, for which the best continuation is'n't clear. What could that be other than responder's 3-card suit, and he's deciding whether to play in the Moysian (with hopes for a good result if opener happened to be 5-5)?

[Zelandakh]

No advanced+ player tanks for that long with a normal false preference hand regardless of what the OP might claim.

[chrism]

The player in question has won at least one US open national championship and is in full command of his faculties. While you are not alone in being baffled at why anyone would tank in this instance, the evidence that he is expert far outweighs any intrinsic suggestion of this auction that he is not.