Hesitation Situation

[WesleyC]

[hv=pc=n&s=s92ht8765dt54caj7&w=st86543hd832cq862&n=skqhaqj932dqj9ck3&e=saj7hk4dak76ct954&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1hd3h3s4hpp4s5hdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

This hand is from a State Level IMP Swiss Pairs Tournament. The opponents play ACOL.

 

I was West and over 3H I chose not to jump to 4S to avoid giving partner a 5 level problem.

My plan was to bid 4S over 4H on the next round in almost all cases (including through (4H) x ).

 

As the hand played out, partner hesitated over 4H before passing.

 

I bid 4S reasoning that pass wasn't a logical alternative, (in particular against this north).

I also thought that partner's hesitation didn't necessarily suggest bidding and that partner's pass was more likely to be a double vs pass situation than a choice between 4S and pass.

 

Over 4S, North unsuccessfully chose to continue with 5H however the director adjusted the score from 5Hx -2 to 4H undoubled -1.

 

Is this ruling correct?

[helene_t]

If it hesitates, shoot it ....

 

I agree with you but maybe the TD's reasoning is that after an in tempo pass you might have reasoned that NS could have missed a slam and therefore decide to pass.

[ahydra]

I once got ruled against in a similar situation as opener in this sequence:

 

1C-(X)-3C (PRE)-3H; 4C-(4H)-slow p-(p); 5C

 

The director said I should have jumped to 5C straight away since opps were almost certainly bidding 4H anyway. Here you could apply a similar argument - you have no defence to 4H and the sac is likely to be cheap. However, partner is unlimited and you don't want to pre-empt him if it's him, not North, who has the big hand, so I think this is less clear-cut.

 

In any event you're perfectly right about the X vs P vs 4S thing so I think the ruling is wrong on that basis.

 

ahydra

[billw55]

Is pass a logical alternative to 4♠? I think the answer is yes, so I agree with the ruling.

 

As an aside, why did east hesitate?

 

As another aside, why was 4♠ especially appealing against this particular north?

[lamford]

I don't believe Pass is a Logical Alternative to 4♠. But all we can do is poll players of a similar ability. It does not matter whether they would have bid 4♠ on the previous round. Your plan is reasonable, and those polled are just told the auction.

[WesleyC]

Is pass a logical alternative to 4♠? I think the answer is yes, so I agree with the ruling.

 

As an aside, why did east hesitate?

 

As another aside, why was 4♠ especially appealing against this particular north?

 

I asked East this myself! He wasn't sure whether double would show unilateral penalty (ie. 18+ balanced, misfit) or simply a normal T/O double (with extras and a defensive preference). In the end he wasn't sure and decided to pass. The hesitation was only 10-15 seconds (however I don't think the length matters).

 

Although generally a conservative player, north has a tendency to bid one more at high levels. I offer this hand as an example - 5H certainly isn't a logical alternative for me.

[mcphee]

A good ruling. Players take advantage of partners hesitations and your argument makes little sense to me. How do you know the opps will bid over 3S, bottom line is you don't. Perhaps he should have allowed 4S to play going 1 in the glue. That would have suited you even less.

[barmar]

This month's Bridge World editorial is about an appeal of something like this, where the editors disagreed with the AC's ruling. They acknowledged that pass was an LA, but they didn't think partner's hesitation suggested bidding over passing.

[gnasher]

I don't think pass is a logical alternative, so I disagree with the ruling.

 

I do think partner's pass suggests bidding over passing. All the reasons he might have for thinking suggest bidding.

[bixby]

How can Pass not be a LA? As this deal itself shows, you might be in a situation where 4H and 4S are both going down. So bidding 4S could be taking you out of a plus and into a minus. You certainly can't be sure as you be 4S that North will go to 5H. So I don't understand how pass can not be a LA. And I don't think the fact that you planned a 4S bid as you bid 3S means you have a right to bid it if your partner subsequently hesitates.

[aguahombre]

Continuing theme: "I was always gonna..." If you were gonna, do it. Problem solved.

 

The dog can walk itself. I understand the simple, "He didn't do it, therefore, he might not have done it." from a TD or an AC. For a player who didn't bid four earlier, of course a pass is a logical alternative now. No poll needed.

[Vampyr]

My answer is to not attend a major event scored by IMP pairs.

[sfi]

My answer is to not attend a major event scored by IMP pairs.

 

Not planning to play in Australia then? 'Cause that's what we've got.

[gnasher]

How can Pass not be a LA? As this deal itself shows, you might be in a situation where 4H and 4S are both going down.

You might be, but looking at the West hand it seems quite unlikely, and 4♠ is likely to be very cheap, and there's a good chance that they'll compete to 5♥. Even on this deal, where partner has about the worst hand he could have - only three spades, a heart honour, all his minor-suit strength in our shorter side suit, and crisp defensive values - 4♠ may still be right, because it may make on ♥A lead, or 4♥ may be making because ♥A is offside, or they may bid on to 5♥.

 

So bidding 4S could be taking you out of a plus and into a minus. You certainly can't be sure as you be 4S that North will go to 5H. So I don't understand how pass can not be a LA.

For 4♠ to be the right bid, we don't need certainty of success. It merely has to gain more than it loses on average.

 

And anyway, the bridge merits of 4♠ and pass aren't relevant, What's relevant is what West's peers would have done, or thought about doing, after 4♥. If (paraphrasing) almost all of them would think 4♠ obvious, pass is not an LA.

 

And I don't think the fact that you planned a 4S bid as you bid 3S means you have a right to bid it if your partner subsequently hesitates.

That depends. If we judge that the only reason a player of West's ability and temperament would bid 3♠ was because he intended to bid 4♠ on the next round, that makes pass not an LA for this West.

[Vampyr]

Not planning to play in Australia then? 'Cause that's what we've got.

 

I would love to play in Australia; if I ever get the opportunity to do it I suppose I will have to restrict myself to team games.

[WesleyC]

Many thanks to everyone for taking the time to respond! Based on your collective commentary and a poll of a few friends i'm going to see how much hassle lodging an appeal would cause. If I do appeal, I'll be sure to return with the results...

 

A few other questions/comments:

 

Barmar:

I couldn't find the relevant BW article, which issue is it in?

 

Gnasher: <Re: "All the reasons he might have for thinking suggest bidding">

Consider an impossible theoretical situation: I KNOW partner's hesitation is based on a close decision between double (suggesting a defensive strong hand) and pass.

Now, the unauthorised knowledge of partner's defensive orientation surely indicates NOT to compete. There must be an increased chance that 4S and 4H are both down, or that 4Sx is going down too many.

 

McPhee:

1H (x) would be even worse for my side, perhaps you could find a way to correct the result to that?

[bixby]

 

For 4♠ to be the right bid, we don't need certainty of success. It merely has to gain more than it loses on average.

 

 

That is a good point. Thanks.

[gnasher]

Gnasher: <Re: "All the reasons he might have for thinking suggest bidding">

Consider an impossible theoretical situation: I KNOW partner's hesitation is based on a close decision between double (suggesting a defensive strong hand) and pass.

Now, the unauthorised knowledge of partner's defensive orientation surely indicates NOT to compete. There must be an increased chance that 4S and 4H are both down, or that 4Sx is going down too many.

Yes, you're right, "All" was an overstatement, because he could have a balanced hand that was too strong for a 1NT overcall, or some other strong offshape hand.

[barmar]

Barmar:

I couldn't find the relevant BW article, which issue is it in?

The one that arrived a few days ago. It's the opening editorial. It's in the car, so I don't have the issue date.

[barmar]

For 4♠ to be the right bid, we don't need certainty of success. It merely has to gain more than it loses on average.

But for Pass to be an LA, it doesn't have to be the right bid, it just has to be one that a significant number of peers would consider, and some would choose.

 

You might always have planned on bidding 4♠, and consider passing ridiculous. But if there's disagreement among your ilk, Pass is an LA.

[aguahombre]

But for Pass to be an LA, it doesn't have to be the right bid, it just has to be one that a significant number of peers would consider, and some would choose.

 

You might always have planned on bidding 4♠, and consider passing ridiculous. But if there's disagreement among your ilk, Pass is an LA.

Yes, this is the way it is written. I go farther; for a player who signed off earlier..not bidding 4S now is a logical alternative regardless of what others would do or consider.

[billw55]

Continuing theme: "I was always gonna..." If you were gonna, do it. Problem solved.

 

The dog can walk itself. I understand the simple, "He didn't do it, therefore, he might not have done it." from a TD or an AC. For a player who didn't bid four earlier, of course a pass is a logical alternative now. No poll needed.

Agree. Walking the dog has its risks. This is one of them.

[barmar]

Yes, this is the way it is written. I go farther; for a player who signed off earlier..not bidding 4S now is a logical alternative regardless of what others would do or consider.

I don't think that is supported in Law. UI doesn't create new LAs, it just affects the estimation that a particular LA will be most effective, and then constrains your ability to choose it. When determining what is an LA, the director is supposed to ignore the UI (e.g. if you poll players, you don't mention the UI).

 

Your philosophy is at the root of "if it hesitates, shoot it" -- it means that when partner breaks tempo, you can almost never come out on top.

[aguahombre]

I don't think that is supported in Law. UI doesn't create new LAs, it just affects the estimation that a particular LA will be most effective, and then constrains your ability to choose it. When determining what is an LA, the director is supposed to ignore the UI (e.g. if you poll players, you don't mention the UI).

 

Your philosophy is at the root of "if it hesitates, shoot it" -- it means that when partner breaks tempo, you can almost never come out on top.

Not at all. The L.A. was created before the hesitation, and by the player himself. If his bid were invitational + he could do what he wants with that hand. If it was non-invite and willing to stop in 3S, the BIT might have influenced his decision to bid again. It doesn't matter that his partner had nothing to hesitate about, or was hesitating with extra defense or whatever.

[barmar]

Not at all. The L.A. was created before the hesitation, and by the player himself. If his bid were invitational + he could do what he wants with that hand. If it was non-invite and willing to stop in 3S, the BIT might have influenced his decision to bid again. It doesn't matter that his partner had nothing to hesitate about, or was hesitating with extra defense or whatever.

Now I see what you mean -- I didn't recognize the significance of the qualifier "for a player who signed off earlier".

 

I'm not sure it necessarily follows in a case like this one, though. South made a preemptive bid, there's no reason to assume that NS will bid 4♥. West's hand is shapely, but still quite weak, he doesn't know if he can make 4♠. It's not until North bids 4♥ that West has to decide whether NS are bidding to make or sacrificicing against his 3♠. The more hearts the opponents bid, the more valuable his heart void becomes for offense, and the less he can help on defense.

 

I still think Pass is an LA, but I don't think his choice of action on the previous round is the reason. It's an LA because he has a weak hand, and partner's strong hand is sitting behind declarer.