What does partner's hesitation suggest?

[WesleyC]

First, I hope I'm not breaking any rules by posting in this forum rather than in a director's forum but this situation feels more a case of judgement than purely rules.

 

This hand occurred in the qualification phase of a matchpoint pairs event. The overall field is weak but this round you are playing with an expert (in a new partnership) against a strong pair. You play 2/1 with a semi-forcing 1NT (opener will only pass with 11-13 balanced).

 

You are East and the auction proceeds as follows:

 

[hv=d=n&v=b&b=13&a=p1sp1n2hdp2spp3hpp]133|100|[/hv]

 

There was a long hesitation before West (partner) bid 2S. His other calls (1NT and the final Pass) were made in normal tempo.

 

When South's 3H bid is passed back to you, pass and double are the logical alternatives.

Does partner's second round hesitation suggest one of these alternatives ahead of the other?

[Trinidad]

Partner was probably contemplating whether to bid 3 of a minor or 2♠. He may also have been thinking of bidding 2NT, but decided not to do that now that you showed short hearts. The one thing partner does not have is the weak 3 card spade raise.

 

I don't really see how this information helps me significantly to decide between pass, double and 3♠.

 

Rik

 

P.S. I like the way you presented the problem. Normally (i.e. with all hands shown) everybody automatically assumes that the UI showed the hand that the hesitator held at the table.

[whereagles]

In my experience, hesitation is 99% thinking whether pard's dbl was take out or pen.

[PhantomSac]

If it was a weak player I would assume they weren't sure what X was. Since it's an expert and we're in 2014 I am going to assume that was not what the hesitation was about.

 

When combined with the in tempo pass of 3H I agree with Trinidad and think that they were deciding between 2S and 3m with 2S and a 5 card minor. Often a slow 2S was considering passing the X of 2H and decided not to, but with that hand he would X 3H so I will rule that out.

[Cyberyeti]

Also possible he was considering what 2N would mean (nat, good/bad, 2 places to play) if he wanted to bid a minor.

[WesleyC]

In my experience, hesitation is 99% thinking whether pard's dbl was take out or pen.

 

FWIW you're 99% sure partner knows its a T/O double.

[whereagles]

Ok then.

 

In this case responder could be thinking of pass, 3m, 2♠, 2NT, or even 3♠. Since he passed 3♥ you can scrap pass. With so many options still open, I would say "result stands".

[Fluffy]

Partner's hessitation makes it possible that he has a strong hand, like a strong hand that planned on rebidding 2NT, but now he has no bid, for me its complicated to say if it suggests doubling or nothing. But certainly it doesn't suggest passing over double (could suggest passing over 3 spades though)

[nige1]

[hv=d=n&v=b&b=13&a=p1sp1n2hdp2spp3hpp]133|100|

First, I hope I'm not breaking any rules by posting in this forum rather than in a director's forum but this situation feels more a case of judgement than purely rules. This hand occurred in the qualification phase of a matchpoint pairs event. The overall field is weak but this round you are playing with an expert (in a new partnership) against a strong pair. You play 2/1 with a semi-forcing 1NT (opener will only pass with 11-13 balanced). You are East and the auction proceeds as follows: There was a long hesitation before West (partner) bid 2S. His other calls (1NT and the final Pass) were made in normal tempo.

When South's 3H bid is passed back to you, pass and double are the logical alternatives.

Does partner's second round hesitation suggest one of these alternatives ahead of the other?

[/hv]

With 3♠s, you would expect partner to bid 2♠ in tempo. Conceivably, he could have a borderline 3♠ bid but that is unlikely because, I'm told, normal expert practice is to raise 1♠ to 2♠ immediately, rather than to reply 1N on such hands. Thus, if an expert partner tanks, he is unlikely to hold 3♠. Hence, IMO, the unauthorised information suggests Double over Pass, and Pass over 3♠.

[the hog]

With 3♠s, you would expect partner to bid 2♠ in tempo. Conceivably, he could have a borderline 3♠ bid but that is unlikely because, I'm told, normal expert practice is to raise 1♠ to 2♠ immediately, rather than to reply 1N on such hands. Thus, if an expert partner tanks, he is unlikely to hold 3♠. Hence, IMO, the unauthorised information suggests Double over Pass, and Pass over 3♠.

 

Is your last comment serious? If I have a pass, I pass. Partner's hesitation could hav many meanings and I am not going to second guess here.

[Fluffy]

I don't understand you Ron, Nigel made it totally clear, the hessitation suggests that borderline hands between pass and double should double, and borderline hands between pass and 3 spades should pass. What does it have to do with what you are saying?

[mcphee]

I do not quite follow the reasons for paying any attention to partners hesitation. Who cares what he did, we aresupposed to bid wht we have. The double is take out and partner was likely considering if pass was was worth the risk. If we double now it is going to need to be pretty clear, the same if we advance with 3S, if it isn't 80% clear you can bet the opps will call the police. Score may be adjusted and all close decisions for an adjustment will be going to the other guys. You are going to need at least an 17- 18 count to act again.

[gordontd]

I do not quite follow the reasons for paying any attention to partners hesitation. Who cares what he did, we aresupposed to bid wht we have. The double is take out and partner was likely considering if pass was was worth the risk. If we double now it is going to need to be pretty clear, the same if we advance with 3S, if it isn't 80% clear you can bet the opps will call the police. Score may be adjusted and all close decisions for an adjustment will be going to the other guys. You are going to need at least an 17- 18 count to act again.

If the UI doesn't demonstrably suggest anything we can do as we like.

[Trump Echo]

It's my understanding that it doesn't matter what my partner's hesitation suggests since, ethically, I am bound to read partner's call for its face value and dismiss any advantage that might be gained from a hesitation. I think this is in the rules somewhere, isn't it?

[Trinidad]

It's my understanding that it doesn't matter what my partner's hesitation suggests since, ethically, I am bound to read partner's call for its face value and dismiss any advantage that might be gained from a hesitation. I think this is in the rules somewhere, isn't it?

Then your understanding is wrong.

 

When they are more logical alternatives (LAs), you are not allowed to choose one that is suggested by the hesitation over an other.

 

If there are more than 2 LAs, they can be ranked by how strongly they are suggested by the hesitation. As a result you are supposed to pick the one that is least suggested by the hesitation.

 

So, you are not allowed to simply ignore the UI. You have to face the UI and do the opposite of what the UI suggests. So, it is does very much matter what the hesitation suggests.

 

Rik

[the hog]

I don't understand you Ron, Nigel made it totally clear, the hessitation suggests that borderline hands between pass and double should double, and borderline hands between pass and 3 spades should pass. What does it have to do with what you are saying?

 

"Conceivably, he could have a borderline 3♠ bid but that is unlikely"

 

" Hence, IMO, the unauthorised information suggests Double over Pass, and Pass over 3♠. "

 

I suggest you re read his post and my response Fluffy, paying attention to the quotes.

[GrahamJson]

Leaving aside the ethics of this, how sure can you be that it was partner who hesitated, or indeed anyone? Could it not be simply delays caused by the wifi, either your own or others? I'm pretty sure if you played with me you would think I was hesitating all the time (well, at least on some days) whereas in fact it is my dodgy wifi. Service.

[Trinidad]

Leaving aside the ethics of this, how sure can you be that it was partner who hesitated, or indeed anyone? Could it not be simply delays caused by the wifi, either your own or others? I'm pretty sure if you played with me you would think I was hesitating all the time (well, at least on some days) whereas in fact it is my dodgy wifi. Service.

Hi Graham,

 

The OP wrote:

This hand occurred in the qualification phase of a matchpoint pairs event.

 

I realize that there is a growing group of people out there who only play bridge over the internet. But this deal was clearly played with 52 pieces of card board in the fingers of four players sitting around one table, like they used to do in the 20th century. This was reality, without a place for the word "virtual". Wifi, dodgy or not, was not the cause of the hesitation.

 

Rik

[GrahamJson]

Rik, thanks for the clarification. I'm a bit new to BBO but thought that there were regular mp events for regular partnerships. However reading the initial question again it is clear that it was real bridge, not the virtual version.

[nige1]

Is your last comment serious? If I have a pass, I pass. Partner's hesitation could hav many meanings and I am not going to second guess here.

IMO, partner's hesitation before bidding 2♠ implies that he's unlikely to hold 3♠s. This unauthorised information suggests double over pass and pass over 3♠.

 

Several legal and bridge experts, whose views I respect, judge that the break in tempo does not suggest one call over another, so I admit that I may have suffered from a blind-spot -- but I have yet to discover what it is.

[whereagles]

Sometimes it's clear what it suggests, others (like this one) it may suggest so many things that one cannot reasonably block action.

[Trinidad]

IMO, partner's hesitation before bidding 2♠ implies that he's unlikely to hold 3♠s. This unauthorised information suggests double over pass and pass over 3♠.

 

Several legal and bridge experts, whose views I respect, judge that the break in tempo does not suggest one call over another, so I admit that I may have suffered from a blind-spot -- but I have yet to discover what it is.

The blind spot is that the UI denied several things:

- the weak hand with 3 spades (indeed suggesting pass/double over 3♠)

- the balanced 8 count (suggesting 3♠ over pass/double, i.e. the exact opposite)

 

The UI suggested that partner holds:

- a doubleton spade with a five card minor (suggesting 3♠ over pass/double)

or

- an invitational balanced hand (11 HCP) that got worse on the auction (suggesting double/pass over 3♠)

 

If you look at all the hand types that the UI might indicate or might deny, you simply conclude that there are too many possibilities to be able to interpret the UI in such a way that you can indicate LAs that are demonstrably suggested by it.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

IMO, partner's hesitation before bidding 2♠ implies that he's unlikely to hold 3♠s. This unauthorised information suggests double over pass and pass over 3♠.

 

Several legal and bridge experts, whose views I respect, judge that the break in tempo does not suggest one call over another, so I admit that I may have suffered from a blind-spot -- but I have yet to discover what it is.

 

I think you see the matter very clearly.

[WesleyC]

Thanks to everyone who took the the time to respond. Special thanks to Trinidad for several well written responses (which happen to align with my personal opinion :P).

 

At the table Partner held: [Kx xxx Kxxx T9xx] - which looks like the world's most obvious 2S bid to me!

He was worried about the opponents' 9 card heart fit and was considering an ambiguous 2NT bid to put more pressure on South to compete in hearts directly (rather than comfortably balancing 3H in the pass-out seat).

 

On the other side of the table, I concluded that my choice of action wasn't limited by the hesitation. A combination of Matchpoint Madness, over-aggressive opponents and table feel (South's 3H bid was also made after a significant hesitation) led me to a speculative double on [AQxxxx Qx Axx Kx]. Declarer failed to find the Qh so we picked up +200 and 97%. There was no director call, but the hand was brought up at pub that night, so I needed to clear my name!

[whereagles]

If you look at all the hand types that the UI might indicate or might deny, you simply conclude that there are too many possibilities to be able to interpret the UI in such a way that you can indicate LAs that are demonstrably suggested by it.

 

Nicely put. That was my point as well.