Protective action?

[VixTD]

Club teams-of-four (IMPs):

[hv=pc=n&n=skqj82hqt42d42c65&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1dp2dp(slow)p]133|200[/hv]

EW are playing Acol, weak NT. 1♦ showed 4+, 2♦ was a normal (not inverted) raise.

 

EW complained when North protected with 2♠ after a slow pass from partner. NS are experienced club players who normally play for the third county team-of-eight. I tried to poll some similar players at the end of the evening, but most of them had gone home. Both players I asked complained that they would have overcalled on the first round.

 

Do you think anyone would pass in this situation, and do you think the hesitation could demonstrably suggest bidding over passing?

[RMB1]

Do you think anyone would pass in this situation, and do you think the hesitation could demonstrably suggest bidding over passing?

Does no one (seriously consider) double?

[Trinidad]

I think that the hesitation could demonstrably suggest bidding (or doubling) over passing. But I cannot see that passing would be an LA.

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

Does no one (seriously consider) double?

If the question were "Does no one except me seriously consider double?", the answer might well be "Yes".

[barmar]

The problem with a poll may be finding players who wouldn't have overcalled 1♠ on the first round.

[aguahombre]

The problem with a poll may be finding players who wouldn't have overcalled 1♠ on the first round.

Not necessary, IMO. Those who would have overcalled 1S on the first round (of which I am not one), are strong evidence that 2S now has no L.A. Also, I see nothing in the laws requiring the pollees to all agree with North's previous action -- only that they be conversant with the partnership methods and experience level.

[blackshoe]

Not necessary, IMO. Those who would have overcalled 1S on the first round (of which I am not one), are strong evidence that 2S now has no L.A. Also, I see nothing in the laws requiring the pollees to all agree with North's previous action -- only that they be conversant with the partnership methods and experience level.

Please explain your second sentence. Also, the laws don't say anything about polling at all.

[mycroft]

We have a rule: "They don't play 2-of-a-fit." We break it occasionally - "never" always means "almost never" in bridge - when we can justify to partner why pass was likely right (whether it was or not on this hand). "Demonstrably suggested", to use a relevant term.

 

Nothing on this hand makes me believe that pass is going to be right. In fact, the UI makes it more likely that we're both short in diamonds (4 diamonds is an obvious pass unless partner has much more strength than the 11 that is her expected maximum (strong NT RHO, 6-9 LHO, 8 me), so the pause means "should I balance-in-direct-seat?") So, pass is not an LA *for me*.

 

In fact, were my partner in this situation (I wouldn't be, I'd have overcalled 1♠; I can see her doing it, though), and asked to come up with my hand for the tank, she'd probably give something like (32)=2=♣AJTxxx with maybe a card, or even 3316 same hand, where "hmm, could 3♣ be 800 territory with a much safer landing in a major?"

 

But I know several players (who play invm, too! They just don't understand *why* they play invm) who let us play 2x all the time. So, I don't guarantee I'm this N/S peer.

[VixTD]

I really just wanted some assurance that pass was not a logical alternative. I didn't think it was and ruled that the score should stand. If NS accost me I can say I've asked a few more players. Thanks.

[Trinidad]

The problem with a poll may be finding players who wouldn't have overcalled 1♠ on the first round.

The overcall is a matter of style. With some of my partners I will overcall, with other (equally good) partners I won't.

 

The balancing action is a matter of life and death. If I'm alive I will balance, if I am dead I won't.

 

Rik

[Manastorm]

I don't like this argument, but it reappears often in UI situations. If N was willing to defend 1♦, then surely he is more than willing to defend 2♦.

Therefore pass is a logical alternative.

[blackshoe]

I don't like this argument, but it reappears often in UI situations. If N was willing to defend 1♦, then surely he is more than willing to defend 2♦.

Therefore pass is a logical alternative.

I don't buy this argument. In particular, one's willingness to defend 1♦, or more likely lack of values to compete against it, has little to do with one's willingness or lack thereof to defend 2♦ in the passout seat.

[aguahombre]

Please explain your second sentence. Also, the laws don't say anything about polling at all.

You are saying the same thing I am. A logical alternative is one which ---of players with similar methods and experience --- some would consider it/actually choose it (percentages open to interpretation). We get these la's via polls (sometimes); but there is no requirement that people being polled are actually using the same methods or actually have the same experience.

 

We often get our poll group from players who have the capability of knowing the methods used and judging what players of a given level would do.

 

In this case, you would have to poll people who have no concept of balancing theory in order to get an alternative (pass); and I would refuse to call it logical.

[Trinidad]

I don't like this argument, but it reappears often in UI situations. If N was willing to defend 1♦, then surely he is more than willing to defend 2♦.

Therefore pass is a logical alternative.

So, if I pass in a situation where I am close to 100% certain that I will get another turn to bid, this pass suddenly means that I am willing to defend? And it must also mean that I am still willing to defend when the opponents have found a fit and stop in 2♦?

 

Some people use an initial pass to limit their hand. It gives them the freedom to take aggressive action later in the auction. No matter how aggressive they get, partner will not play them for values. If you play this style, the North hand isn't merely worth a balancing 2♠ bid, but at MPs (which this isn't I am aware) would even be worth a double if the opponents would go on to 3♦. The initial pass makes it clear to partner that you won't have close to an opening hand.

 

Rik

[campboy]

FWIW I could imagine passing over 1♦, but if I did I would certainly protect.

[mycroft]

I don't like this argument, but it reappears often in UI situations. If N was willing to defend 1♦, then surely he is more than willing to defend 2♦.

Therefore pass is a logical alternative.

This argument does appear often in UI situations. But not at the 1 level, and not in an uncontested auction. A "failure to overcall" of a 1♦ opener says nothing about "willing to defend"; after all, when was the last time you *did* defend a 1-of-a-suit contract? (I did, twice, Wednesday night, but the last time before that was a couple of months ago, and I can't recall the last session it's happened twice). We're still "boxed in system", where pass simply denies the kinds of hands that systemically overcall.

 

It's when we're competing up to the 3 or 5 level, and both sides have announced their fit suits, and there isn't anything else to "show" except "more ODR" or "more DOR" or "nothing more to say" that "after the tank says 'I want to do something', the fact that you weren't willing to go last time implies that the new information that makes you willing to do it this time is partner's tank."

 

The auctions are qualitatively different - the difference being "I'm willing to defend 1m if it looks like a misfit to partner" and "I'm not willing to defend two, *now that they've told us there's a fit*".

[lamford]

I don't like this argument, but it reappears often in UI situations. If N was willing to defend 1♦, then surely he is more than willing to defend 2♦.

Therefore pass is a logical alternative.

What a load of Tottenham. North's pass over 1♦ did not say that "he was willing to defend 1♦". It just showed that he was in the Roth-Stone school of sound overcalls, and it had nothing to do with whether he would make the (automatic) 2♠ bid on the next round, showing a hand just short of a 1♠ overcall by his stringent standards.