Hesitation 5H

[shevek]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj9852hdt4cqj64&w=s7hajt7d753cat975&n=st64hk5dqj982ck32&e=sa3hq986432dak6c8&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p1h4sp(agreed%20BiT)p5hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Been called 3 times so far. 1 East doubled, other 2 bid 5♥.

IMPs. All 30 tables have played 5♥ or higher, some 5♠x.

Of course, some Wests must have bid 5♥ directly.

Calling NSs have been good players, EWs average

 

Views

[mr1303]

4S S -1 25% and 4S S - 2 75%.

 

5H is not allowed given the UI

[aguahombre]

I would have liked to assert that West used East's use of West's UI when he passed 5H. But, that doesn't work because 6H is cold.

[blackshoe]

5H is not allowed given the UI

You need to be more specific than that. What information does the BIT convey? What are the LAs? Which LAs demonstrably could have been suggested over which others by the UI?

[shevek]

I would pass as East but in 8 instances of the same auction, all East's peers chose to act.

Some of them might been opposite a BiT, don't know.

If you act, double is clearly better than 5♥. Do we disallow 5♥ because it is a poor choice?

The East who doubled opposite BiT said it was routine. All actions lead to 5♥ or so.

 

One concern is the possible lack of a director call at tables with poor to average players, where players don't realise they can get a better result by calling the director. Or they think it's mean.

[gnasher]

At the table where East doubled, what did his "obvious" double mean? Regardless of the meaning, it doesn't seem at all obvious to me.

 

If it's anywhere in the takeout/card-showing spectrum, the most likely effect is that partner will bid 5♣. Why would you want to get to the five-level opposite xx xx xx KQxxxxx ?

 

If it's for penalties, I suppose you might do it, but there's no special reason to think 4♠ is going down.

[gnasher]

You need to be more specific than that. What information does the BIT convey? What are the LAs? Which LAs demonstrably could have been suggested over which others by the UI?

The BIT conveys that West was considering action.

 

The LAs are pass, double and 5♥.

 

East knows from his spade holding, and possibly also from his methods, that whatever action West was considering was offensive action. Hence the UI suggests both 5♥ and double over pass.

[shevek]

At the table where East doubled, what did his "obvious" double mean? Regardless of the meaning, it doesn't seem at all obvious to me.

 

If it's anywhere in the takeout/card-showing spectrum, the most likely effect is that partner will bid 5♣. Why would you want to get to the five-level opposite xx xx xx KQxxxxx ?

 

If it's for penalties, I suppose you might do it, but there's no special reason to think 4♠ is going down.

 

 

 

While not defending East's double, East may simply think that the hand has too much potential to pass. If partner passes the double and they make 790, no big deal.

East was hoping for pass or 5♥. She would convert 5♣ to 5♥ and hope for the best, aware that this sequence could be converting +50 to -500. Eh bien. East should probably pass 5♦. Partner might have

♠x ♥xx ♦QJTxxxx ♣Axx

 

One thing I forgot to add is the location. Australia, so no skip bid warnings.

[blackshoe]

Is there a requirement in Australia for a longer than normal tempo over a skip bid? Or is "normal tempo" considered the same as over a simple bid, say 2-3 seconds for most folks?

 

I don't think "too much potential to pass" is enough in the presence of UI. Pass is still an LA, and so the constraints in Law 16B apply.

 

If pass is not an LA, then we have to consider whether any of the remaining LAs could demonstrably be suggested over another.

[aguahombre]

One thing I forgot to add is the location. Australia, so no skip bid warnings.

Thanks, but when you post that there was an agreed BIT, we should be working from there forward with it as an established fact. I further assume that a certain amount of time would be expected to have been taken by West, and the hesitation was noticeably more than that.

 

That seems to leave us with Andy's assessment and a rollback to 4S passed out. Down two seems routine.

[weejonnie]

The short answer is:

 

Is Pass a LA - it doesn't matter that it is an option per se.

 

In other words is it an action that a significant number of people would consider and some actually make?

 

The evidence we have 'all roads lead to 5 Hearts at least' suggests that pass is not a LA - but the only way you can tell is to poll (other) players and find out what they would do. If this is impossible then you may have to find out whether any other auctions went the same way as the one indicated. Iff that is impossible then you can adjudicate.

 

Note that if 4 Spades was to be doubled by East then West can take it out to 5 Hearts. Indeed there may be some auctions replicating that very sequence.

[whereagles]

BIT suggests bidding on, and 5♥ is one of the alternatives to bid on.

[aguahombre]

BIT suggests bidding on not passing, and 5♥ is one of the alternatives to bid on passing.

FYP

[whereagles]

yeah whatever

[WellSpyder]

I would pass as East but in 8 instances of the same auction, all East's peers chose to act.

Do you actually know it was the same auction, or simply that the hand wasn't played in 4♠? Perhaps West found a bid rather than just a hesitation over South's pre-empt?

[sfi]

Is there a requirement in Australia for a longer than normal tempo over a skip bid? Or is "normal tempo" considered the same as over a simple bid, say 2-3 seconds for most folks?

 

No. Skip bid warnings are unheard of, and most people here wouldn't know what to do if they came across one.

 

They were introduced for the PABF in 2008, but completely ignored during that event (not just by Australians) and we've never heard of the concept again.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj9852hdt4cqj64&w=s7hajt7d753cat975&n=st64hk5dqj982ck32&e=sa3hq986432dak6c8&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p1h4sp(agreed%20BiT)p5hppp]360|270|

Been called 3 times so far. 1 East doubled, other 2 bid 5♥. IMPs. All 30 tables have played 5♥ or higher, some 5♠x. Of course, some Wests must have bid 5♥ directly. Calling NSs have been good players, EWs average. Views.[/hv]

IMO...

sfi is right to consider similar events at other tables.

But a poll would probably confirm that Pass is an LA for East.

In view of East's ♠ holding, West's BIT is likely to indicate offensive values.

Hence, to East, the hesitation suggests action rather than pass.

East's 5♥ call damaged North-South.

So the TD should probably rule 4♠-1

(or 4♠-2 If the director judges that East-West will almost always find the ♣ ruff).

Sensible stop regulations, rigorously enforced, reduce the frequency of such cases.

[blackshoe]

No. Skip bid warnings are unheard of, and most people here wouldn't know what to do if they came across one.

 

They were introduced for the PABF in 2008, but completely ignored during that event (not just by Australians) and we've never heard of the concept again.

Then "normal tempo" over a skip bid is, in Australia, the same 2-3 seconds as over a simple bid.

[aguahombre]

No. Skip bid warnings are unheard of, and most people here wouldn't know what to do if they came across one.

 

They were introduced for the PABF in 2008, but completely ignored during that event (not just by Australians) and we've never heard of the concept again.

 

Then "normal tempo" over a skip bid is, in Australia, the same 2-3 seconds as over a simple bid.

I haven't played in Australia, but sfi's post is about the "warnings", not about the tempo in skip-bid situations. Perhaps players there are mature enough to recognize a skip bid all by themselves and appropriately vary their tempo.

[barmar]

I haven't played in Australia, but sfi's post is about the "warnings", not about the tempo in skip-bid situations. Perhaps players there are mature enough to recognize a skip bid all by themselves and appropriately vary their tempo.

But Blackshoe's original question was about the tempo in skip-bid situations, not the warning. So the answer (about use of the warning) was non-responsive.

[aguahombre]

But Blackshoe's original question was about the tempo in skip-bid situations, not the warning. So the answer (about use of the warning) was non-responsive.

Oh, I see. He concluded something about Australian tempo in skip-bid situations from a statement which didn't apply to skip bid situations, only to warnings. I should have figured that out; oh, wait, I did.

[sfi]

You're both right. No skip bid warnings exist and no change in tempo is required or expected.

 

Despite the lack of rules regarding skip bids, I rarely see director calls that would have been prevented by a mandated pause (although I almost never direct, so my experience may be skewed). It feels totally normal if a player takes a couple of extra seconds to process the information relating to the skip bid, and I've never seen a director call for a 5 second pause instead of 3 seconds.

[Vampyr]

You're both right. No skip bid warnings exist and no change in tempo is required or expected.

 

That's a shame. I wish that here we had more stop warnings and the ensuing extra time, like for competitive bids at or above the three-level.

[sfi]

That's a shame. I wish that here we had more stop warnings and the ensuing extra time, like for competitive bids at or above the three-level.

 

I used to think that until I saw it work in practice. Now I actually prefer not having them.

 

But this is off topic and I don't feel particularly strongly about it one way or another. So this thread is probably not the place to discuss their merits or otherwise.

[nige1]

That's a shame. I wish that here we had more stop warnings and the ensuing extra time, like for competitive bids at or above the three-level.

Agree with Vampyr. Also the timing should be less subjective. The timing could be electronic (e.g. a Bridgemate function). Or each table could have a double egg-timer. You must wait seven seconds (say) before any action and complete it within ten seconds (say). You could also use the enforced thinking-time of the other 3 players. IMO this would speed up the game and reduce UI.