Partner's Pause

[barmar]

The BIT suggests double over pass and 5♦, since a double will always work.

Couldn't you view it as the BIT suggesting values, so taking some action (bidding 5♦ or doubling) is likely to work better than passing?

[Trinidad]

Couldn't you view it as the BIT suggesting values, so taking some action (bidding 5♦ or doubling) is likely to work better than passing?

I think you and I have different ideas of high level competitive bidding (guessing). The BIT may suggest values, but that is not what I would like to know to decide whether to pass or bid 5♦. I would like to know whether my partner's hand fits with mine (bid) or does not fit with mine (pass). The BIT doesn't say anything about that.

 

Rik

[biggerclub]

I feel very strongly that a BIT strongly suggests an action other than PASS. As one of my partner's says, "A BIT followed by a PASS means it's a forcing PASS."

 

So when MY partner does it, I feel obliged to PASS if that is a LA. But apparently, if I can construct any case, no matter how convoluted that partner's pause did not suggest specifically the actual action I take . . . then I am off the hook. Who knew?

 

My friend, who suggested calling TD at the time of the pause, seems to be angle shooting a bit. Her rationale "The TD will tell the player that any action must be based on his own holding only. That tends to shut them up [get them to PASS]."

 

I don't like the feel of that . . . I only call the director when I want to force a PASS.

 

I do think I should have called the director at the point of the BIT.

[blackshoe]

Your constructions are not relevant. It's the TD who gets to judge whether you've broken the law.

 

When there is a BIT (or any other action that might pass UI) you ask the opponents if they agree that UI might have been passed. If they don't, they are supposed to call the director. If they don't, then you call him. So your friend's suggestion is improper procedure except when they disagree tht UI might have been passed and they don't call the TD. You don't call the TD "because you want to force a pass". First, that's incorrect procedure. Second, it ain't happening - even the director cannot force a player to pass, just because he may have received UI.

 

"I do think I should have called the director at the point of the BIT. "

 

Nope. See my previous paragraph.

[Trinidad]

I feel very strongly that a BIT strongly suggests an action other than PASS. As one of my partner's says, "A BIT followed by a PASS means it's a forcing PASS."

In many cases your feeling happens to be correct. But you cannot generalize that feeling, since in many cases it is wrong.

 

A typical case where a BIT suggests an action other than pass is where we are investigating a slam, partner tanks, and signs off in game. He chose the weakest action and can only have thought about something stronger. The BIT demonstrably suggests to bid on.

 

But not all UI cases are like that. There are cases where the UI actually suggests a pass over a bid and passing is an infraction. An example is this current thread in this very same forum. There, the South player has the UI that North thinks South has shown spades. South is supposed to think that North has bid spades voluntarily. He is not allowed to rebid the clubs that (he thinks) he has shown. Neither is he allowed to pass the 4♥. He is supposed to raise partner's spades. The UI told him that partner didn't promise spades. (The fact that -inexplicably- North has a lot of spades is irrelevant for South.)

 

In that thread Helene_t, generally a kind and forgiving person, is clear that South deserves a Procedural Penalty for NOT raising spades. And, if South has any experience at all, I agree with Helene (though I consider myself a kind and forgiving person too).

 

So, sometimes the UI suggests to be aggressive, and sometimes the UI suggests to be passive. And sometimes, as in your case, the UI suggests very little: It suggests enough that doubling would not be allowed (since it caters to all possible reasons for the BIT), but it is impossible to say whether passing or bidding 5♦ would be suggested over the other by the BIT. And then the player is free to chose from those two alternatives.

 

So, in each UI case, you will have to analyze: What are my logical alternatives (LAs)? What does the UI mean? Which of the LAs does the UI suggest? And then you have to choose one that is not suggested. Sometimes that means you have to pass. At other times that means you have to bid. And, again at other times, it means that you are free to choose from several LAs.

 

Rik

[pran]

I feel very strongly that a BIT strongly suggests an action other than PASS. As one of my partner's says, "A BIT followed by a PASS means it's a forcing PASS."

 

So when MY partner does it, I feel obliged to PASS if that is a LA. But apparently, if I can construct any case, no matter how convoluted that partner's pause did not suggest specifically the actual action I take . . . then I am off the hook. Who knew?

 

My friend, who suggested calling TD at the time of the pause, seems to be angle shooting a bit. Her rationale "The TD will tell the player that any action must be based on his own holding only. That tends to shut them up [get them to PASS]."

 

I don't like the feel of that . . . I only call the director when I want to force a PASS.

 

I do think I should have called the director at the point of the BIT.

 

I have a vague memory of once adjusting a result from 5[major] just made to 6[major] down 1 after a hesitation (BIT) followed by a PASS.

 

No details available, I just mention this to make it clear that hesitation - PASS does not necessarily result in a PASS from partner being acceptable.

[campboy]

I have a vague memory of once adjusting a result from 5[major] just made to 6[major] down 1 after a hesitation (BIT) followed by a PASS.

 

No details available, I just mention this to make it clear that hesitation - PASS does not necessarily result in a PASS from partner being acceptable.

If you adjusted because a player's pass, following a slow pass from his partner, was judged unacceptable, I fail to see how the table score can possibly have been 5M making by OS.

[pran]

If you adjusted because a player's pass, following a slow pass from his partner, was judged unacceptable, I fail to see how the table score can possibly have been 5M making by OS.

Well, as I wrote I now longer remember the details, but the general situation was that the pair was steadily heading towards a slam. The partner's BIT in a Blackwood sequence had the effect of a red light that made the player "brake" in 5M instead of bidding 6. (It obviously wasn't hesitation PASS.)

[campboy]

When you think that they are damned whatever they do, the UI doesnot (and could not) suggest one alternative over another. The fact that the BIT indicates a hand that would make a left turn more attractive or a hand that would make a right turn more attractive does not and cannot suggest a left turn over a right turn or vice versa.

Of course it can suggest a left turn over a right turn, depending on the probabilities involved. If there is a BIT which is very likely to indicate the sort of hand that would make a left turn more attractive, the fact that occasionally it will turn out to be based on a completely different sort of hand does not stop the left turn being suggested.

 

Here I think bidding on is suggested over pass. Whatever partner was thinking of doing, I would be happier if he had done it. Because of the BIT, it looks like we are heading for a bad score defending 4♠ undoubled, whereas I think there is a decent chance that we will get a good score if I bid. Without the BIT I would be happy to pass.

[helene_t]

When you have so little defense yourself, partner's pause is very likely to mean that he would have liked to double for penalties. Assuming that that is the case, there are basically two possibilities:

- He was just half a defensive trick short of a good penalty double

- Double would have been slightly less penalty oriented than he would like it to be (or he is unsure if we would take a double as penalty).

 

So depending on the agreements (if any) we have about a double in this situation, it may be likely that he has short hearts and plenty of defense. In that case, the BIT suggests double>pass>bid.

 

I suppose this may be far fetched.

 

I am inclined to allow 5♦ (or 4NT) as well as pass but to disallow double, see Rik's argument in this thread: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/66655-slow-responsive-double

[whereagles]

Result stands. 5♦ is obvious, plus pard's pause doesn't necessarily suggest bidding on. He might have been contemplating to dbl, in which case bidding would be disastrous.

[Trinidad]

Of course it can suggest a left turn over a right turn, depending on the probabilities involved. If there is a BIT which is very likely to indicate the sort of hand that would make a left turn more attractive, the fact that occasionally it will turn out to be based on a completely different sort of hand does not stop the left turn being suggested.

Of course, I fully agree with this.

 

However, I definitely don't agree with this:

Here I think bidding on is suggested over pass.

Helene gives some good reasons why.

 

I simply don't think that there are significantly more possible hands for partner that would make bidding more attractive than passing. If I think anything, I would tend to think that there are more hands that make passing more attractive. (Partner has trumps, but an "I didn't have any points and I didn't dare to double".) But I wouldn't go as far as to say that passing is suggested over bidding. For me, there is just too much uncertainty.

 

But let me cut myself out of the equation. The simple fact that there is no agreement among BBF bridge players whether passing or bidding was made more attractive is all we need to know. We, as a group, cannot decide what the BIT could suggest. That means that the player at the table could not make that decision either (unless he knew something that we don't know). That simply takes him off the hook: He is free to choose between bidding and passing (but not doubling).

 

He chose (guessed) to bid. We (he, his partner, the opponents, the TD, BBF) have to live with that. It seems that he guessed right, otherwise we wouldn't have heard about this. Good for him and his partner. Too bad for his opponents, better luck next time.

 

Rik

[biggerclub]

. . .

 

He chose (guessed) to bid. We (he, his partner, the opponents, the TD, BBF) have to live with that. It seems that he guessed right, otherwise we wouldn't have heard about this. Good for him and his partner. Too bad for his opponents, better luck next time.

 

Rik

 

Thank you for your input. Despite my occasionally whiney tone through this thread, my question really was answered. When the director was called, the facts were presented as they should have been (that is, all players agree that there was a BIT).

 

I did not articulate my case clearly to the Director . . . and next time I will. "I believe that PASS is a LA to 5D and I believe that bidding on over 4S was suggested by the BIT." [Actually, I still believe that it was STRONGLY suggested by the BIT, followed by PASS, arguments about disagreement within the forum notwithstanding.]

 

Now, I may be wrong about that, but that is stating my case.

 

As I say to opponents who cringe when a director call is made. "We will just explain what happened and he will make a ruling."

 

So the director made his ruling and I decided not to appeal (even though the difference between winning and finishing third hung in the balance). And I will be a bit more active after my partners' BIT when my hand warrants action.

[mycroft]

The TD should know the Law, and the issues around it. You need not tell him anything, when you call him back, besides "I think that there is an issue". Obviously, if you're asked what the issue is, you explain your case. If you have an issue with the ruling, you can ask away from the table if you want education, or appeal if you want a different result.

 

OTOH, the TD (if not a playing TD, and if it's not hand-dealt), should be working on the problem as soon as he walks away from the table, having confirmed that there was a BIT.

 

OTGH, there are several TDs who "should" know the Law, and still need help. But it's still not your job as a player to educate them at the table (except possibly as a "could you explain your ruling please?" or "could you read that one out of the Law Book, please?" when you are almost certain they are wrong. Note, I would not suggest that on a judgement ruling).

 

To the case:

 

There is a strong implication if there really was a BIT (over and above what is required for a skip bid - does this South habitually follow skip bid pauses?) that 4♠ undoubled is not the best place to play - and she's probably right, especially with my void. Frankly, were I to be polled, without the UI, I'd be thinking about 4NT, but would probably double (partner can see my void, I think, and I do have defence. Swap the ♣A with either red suit, and I'd be much more worried about letting partner let them play).

 

Unless they're playing Precision or the like, or unless they're the type who bid 2♠ with a minimum raise, 3♠ with a limit raise, and 4♠ with a game-forcing raise. Then I'm passing like a shot; any peep I make is going toll-free at best. Of course, what partner would have to think about with her two count I don't know - 8 clubs to the QT? 8 *diamonds* to the QT? But if 4♠ is preemptive, I don't think - with this hand - that pass is an alternative for me. I Could Be Wrong.