Hesitation Situation

[nige1]

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

A poll might help decide whether pass is an LA

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

I agree the tank suggests 4♠ over pass.

[biggerclub]

Pass is definitely a LA.

 

You never win when Partner hesitates.

 

Well I did once. I passed a 4-3-3-3 AK, A hand as dealer (don't ask me why, it's the first time in my life). Partner opens in 3rd seat, 1♠. RHO bids 2♥, I bid 3♥, LHO bids 4♥. Partner tanks . . . and PASSes. RHO PASSes. I insta-double. Director is called. All PASS.

 

I made the apparantly compelling argument that I am always going to double a 4 level contract with 3 defensive tricks opposite a partner who opens, even in 3rd seat.

[blackshoe]

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.

September, I think.

[weejonnie]

The question comes down to this.

 

Is 4♠ demonstrably suggested by the BIT? (And is the pass forcing after a free bid?)

 

The BIT suggests that partner has a 'flawed' TOD (which he has) and therefore is relatively weak in Spades. It also suggests good defensive values. Both these inferences would seem to suggest that 4♠ is not suggested by the pause.

 

That, at least, is the argument I would put forward at appeal.

[blackshoe]

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.

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.

I think Agua is suggesting ruling under Law 73C rather than Law 16. I also think that if the TD determines that a previous bid was a sign-off, he should make that fact clear when polling the player's peers. I note in passing that "sign-off" does not mean that partner should not bid, nor does it mean that the player himself must always pass in future rounds. This player's future calls depend on what the other players at the table do.