Are you constrained?

[jillybean]

A hand from NAP Flight A

 

[hv=pc=n&n=skj9865ha95d9cjt2&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1npp?]133|200[/hv]

 

You chose to pass in first seat, LHO opens a 12-14 NT, partner makes an obvious pause before passing.

 

Will you consider bidding now or are you constrained by partners BIT?

[blackshoe]

Of course I'll consider it. The question is whether I'll do it. B-)

 

Partner's hitch suggests he has more than minimum values. This suggests that the points around the table are at worst roughly evenly divided, and that suggests that I balance. If pass is a logical alternative, then I should pass. But is it? It doesn't seem to me that it is. If it's not, then I can bid. So I bid. If I have failed to carefully avoid taking advantage of UI, so be it.

[WesleyC]

On one hand, the fact that this hand passed in 1st seat rather than opening 2S, suggests passing out 1NT might be a logical alternative, at least for this player.

 

As a counterpoint, after (1NT) P (P) the opponents have denied game values and it's easy to come up with hands where both 1NT and 2S are making. You could make a strong case that even if you passed originally, bidding now is more likely to gain and less likely to lose.

 

Only way to come up with a fair judgement would be to poll several players of a similar skill level.

 

FWIW I personally would never pass.

[aguahombre]

Bidding vs a 12-14 nt without full 2-level overcall strength is very dangerous, especially red. The BIT reduces that risk, IMO. I don't think it reaches the level of "must" pass, because "must" is a very strong word connoting evil if we don't do what we "must"; so, I just choose to pass because I think I have too much information to bid.

 

And, good decision not to open 2♠ in 1st unfavorable; without that Jack of clubs, I might.

[ahydra]

Need to poll other players - it's quite close. Partner and I protect quite aggressively so this would be a clear 2S bid with the 6th spade.

 

ahydra

[aguahombre]

Need to poll other players - it's quite close. Partner and I protect quite aggressively so this would be a clear 2S bid with the 6th spade.

 

ahydra

If you think it is close, you already know there is an alternative to bidding 2♠. No need to poll other players; the poll is to determine if there are alternatives, not what ruling to give.

[billw55]

No, I do not think you are constrained. West's pass shows that partner has values, at least 8 points and often more.

 

In general in situations like this, I prefer to make my normal bid, and let the director decide to allow it or not. I feel that passing here would amount to making a ruling, which players should not do. Besides my partner, other contestants are also entitled to a correct ruling, especially in a matchpoint event.

[sfi]

On one hand, the fact that this hand passed in 1st seat rather than opening 2S, suggests passing out 1NT might be a logical alternative, at least for this player.

 

I don't see the initial pass as suggesting this at all. Surely if you pass, you do so because it doesn't fit an initial 2-level action but you plan to show it by bidding later. For instance, the outside ace, moderate suit quality, and 3 hearts are all negative features for an initial preempt, but don't stop the hand from having reasonable playing strength.

 

In fact, I see passing as less likely after the initial pass rather than more. You know partner will now play you for a flawed weak two, whatever that looks like in the partnership, and won't hang you with moderate values. In fact, I would feel constrained to bid if I had UI that partner were unusually weak for this auction. So bidding here looks obvious to me.

[Cyberyeti]

Is partner's hitch definitely favouring bidding ? The most likely hand you want to bid opposite is a weak no trump which is an easy pass. Maybe partner has 5 diamonds and 4 hearts and is wondering whether he has enough to bid.

[steve2005]

If west doesn't have the balls to open 2♠ in 1st seat Vul vs NV. I don't see how knowing there is 12-14 points sitting behind him and possibly 10 points or even a bad 11 with other opponent is going to get up the courage to bid without BIT?

[steve2005]

I don't see the initial pass as suggesting this at all. Surely if you pass, you do so because it doesn't fit an initial 2-level action but you plan to show it by bidding later. For instance, the outside ace, moderate suit quality, and 3 hearts are all negative features for an initial preempt, but don't stop the hand from having reasonable playing strength.

 

In fact, I see passing as less likely after the initial pass rather than more. You know partner will now play you for a flawed weak two, whatever that looks like in the partnership, and won't hang you with moderate values. In fact, I would feel constrained to bid if I had UI that partner were unusually weak for this auction. So bidding here looks obvious to me.

Of course your partner isn't going to hang you, your a passed hand.

 

But knowing partner has some values makes 2♠ a much safer proposition.

I too would likely bid this hand, but wouldn't get the chance as I would have opened 2♠, which by the way is safer than coming in now.

[mycroft]

So, partner has "at least 8", and by "at least 8", we mean 14-11-9 = 6. Probably not - many 11s will invite (but many will not, especially if they know you'll balance on anything and they'll have a good shot at 200 into no game or 500 into NV game), but possible.

 

Does partner have 6? After the hitch, of course not. Partner has 10 or 11, maybe even 12 with no real suit to bid. Are we going for 200 (or 500) into 90 or 120? Also, of course not. Are there dangers? Well, yes; the most likely one is turning +50 into -100 on bad breaks everywhere. But the chance of pulling +100 into +110 is much much higher.

 

Were you to ask if I'd balance with this hand? At matchpoints, almost certainly - at teams, 500 into nothing is awfully scary, even if it's very low percentage, and turning a potential -150 into -500 is still turning win 6 or 7 into lose 3 or 2 against our teammates 3NT. Partner will probably take me for what I have - a weak 2 that has too much outside to have opened.

 

As everyone is saying, the question isn't "is 2♠ suggested by the UI" - of course it is. It's "is pass an LA?". I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that WeaSeL is still the best defence to weak NTs.

[steve2005]

I know many at our club who use WeaSel vs weak NT.

It was even worse before you had to announce your NT range in ACBLland.

[richlp]

A hand from NAP Flight A

 

[hv=pc=n&n=skj9865ha95d9cjt2&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1npp?]133|200[/hv]

 

You chose to pass in first seat, LHO opens a 12-14 NT, partner makes an obvious pause before passing.

 

Will you consider bidding now or are you constrained by partners BIT?

 

FWIW.......I'm usually very conservative in these kinds of auctions and would probably pass out 1NT. That may take me out of the "peer" pool for a polling question.

 

 

A side question for the panel.........

 

Do your partners have a problem passing balanced hands of moderate strength at this vulnerability vs a weak NT?

 

Could this hesitation mean that partner has close to bidding values with an unbalanced hand and chose not to bid because of the vulnerability? If so, then does the hesitation suggest a misfit and that pass might be the winning action?

 

 

 

I'm usually pretty bad at figuring out the answers to these sorts of questions (what does the hestitation suggest). I've been ruled against because I got the "suggestion" wrong and took the "winning" action for the "wrong" reason so I usually just make the bid I think is right and let the director (or committee) make the ultimate decision.

[sfi]

If west doesn't have the balls to open 2♠ in 1st seat Vul vs NV. I don't see how knowing there is 12-14 points sitting behind him and possibly 10 points or even a bad 11 with other opponent is going to get up the courage to bid without BIT?

 

It's not about courage or safety. There are entirely valid reasons why this hand may not be suitable for a weak 2 in this partnership, and I'm certain this hand would be within the strength range of their agreements. Thinking that North will continue to pass just because they didn't open the first time is a poor argument - not everyone plays like you do.

 

And yes, opening initially may be safer than bidding here. That doesn't necessarily make passing a logical alternative for someone who passed as dealer.

[sfi]

Is partner's hitch definitely favouring bidding ? The most likely hand you want to bid opposite is a weak no trump which is an easy pass. Maybe partner has 5 diamonds and 4 hearts and is wondering whether he has enough to bid.

 

Maybe, but what is the likelihood of that compared to a hand that has good values and secondary spade support but no clear action? Even if the actual hand may not be what is expected, the break in tempo definitely suggests bidding will be more successful in the long run than a smooth pass would. As mycroft said, the only real question is whether pass is a logical alternative.

[Cyberyeti]

Maybe, but what is the likelihood of that compared to a hand that has good values and secondary spade support but no clear action? Even if the actual hand may not be what is expected, the break in tempo definitely suggests bidding will be more successful in the long run than a smooth pass would. As mycroft said, the only real question is whether pass is a logical alternative.

 

I really don't agree, I know if MY partner hitches and passes, it's very unlikely to be a particularly good hand, and he'll have been thinking whether his hand is worth a 2 suited bid or a WJO at this vul and decided that it isn't. I would feel constrained if anything to be MORE aggressive on a potential misfit here, and would certainly bid what I consider the routine 2♠.

 

The only good hand partner is likely to hold is a single suited minor where the thought is whether to make a shaded X or overweight WJO as we don't otherwise have a bid for this.

[billw55]

So, partner has "at least 8", and by "at least 8", we mean 14-11-9 = 6. Probably not - many 11s will invite (but many will not, especially if they know you'll balance on anything and they'll have a good shot at 200 into no game or 500 into NV game), but possible.

If I am playing people who will blithely turn their backs on game holding 25 points, I expect good results anyway. I certainly don't expect such nice wallflowers to double me very often. But yes, there is a risk, and yes, I did overlook the club jack.

[mycroft]

When it's "at most 25, and two dead balanced hands", especially at matchpoints, also especially when the field has found their fit if there is one, I'll go for +150. On the odd occasions when it is 14/11 and everyone else is in game, oh well. In the even occasions where it's 12 opposite a misfitting 11, and I'm +90 for all the matchpoints, oh well, too.

 

Wallflower? Maybe. But I've played too many 23-point flat mashes in 2NT-one more than it could have been. I also know that the most pleasant results playing a weak NT is when they step in and we get to wield the axe.

[aguahombre]

I also know that the most pleasant results playing a weak NT is when they step in and we get to wield the axe.

So, for you, passing is a logical alternative to bidding 2s. Earlier, you agreed that 2s could have been suggested over pass by the BIT but didn't know if pass was a LA; we are making progress.

[Trinidad]

Need to poll other players - it's quite close. Partner and I protect quite aggressively so this would be a clear 2S bid with the 6th spade.

 

ahydra

If you think it is close, you already know there is an alternative to bidding 2♠. No need to poll other players; the poll is to determine if there are alternatives, not what ruling to give.

I agree with ahydra that the decision whether pass is an LA is quite close.

 

From that it follows that I think the question of whether to bid 2♠ or pass (without the UI) is not close at all. (After all, I am not even sure whether I deem pass an LA).

 

You should not mix up these two cases of "It's quite close".

 

Rik

[mycroft]

So, for you, passing is a logical alternative to bidding 2s. Earlier, you agreed that 2s could have been suggested over pass by the BIT but didn't know if pass was a LA; we are making progress.

Not sure I agree. What I said before was that I don't know if - for me at matchpoints - pass is an LA - which almost certainly means "it is", but you know. The way I'm arguing certainly implies that were I to be the TD, that would be the way I would expect to rule - but because I both have more experience working with weak NT auctions than 90+% of ACBL tournament players and because "those who can, do. those who can't, teach. those who can't teach, go into administration", I'm going to poll this one.

 

And because I'm not likely to be a valid candidate for the weak 2-passer's peer, I'm resisting adding my voice to the poll because it's not useful.

 

What I'm saying is that bidding is not without risk, and that the optimistic *minimum* that BillW and others are implying is just that; and also that you can be conservative when playing an anti-field system (at matchpoints, remember; +150 beats +140 even if game is there) and *also* know where the red cards are. Not that a misfitting 17 is any better than a misfitting 15; but the people arguing that it's so obvious to balance and anyway the extra strength promised in the UI isn't much/any more than what was promised by the auction have a higher hill to climb when the UI promises 11 or so and the auction promises 6 (or likely 7) than when it promises 8 (and likely 9).

[mycroft]

If you were to ask me in the bar after, with the UI, I'd probably say "I'll bid 2♠, but if the TD is called, I'll certainly cooperate - and if I'm ruled against, I wouldn't really be surprised. I don't think it'll be a no-brainer 'it's obvious to pass', though."

[jillybean]

It's clear from this thread that I am reading too much into the laws in that I must "carefully avoid taking any advantage of the unauthorized information."

 

In my inexperienced opinion, my decision not to pre-empt in first seat has now become a clear decision to bid after partner has hitched. If it is a marginal preempt then isn't the marginal

2 level over call influenced by the UI that partner has some values?

[aguahombre]

It's clear from this thread that I am reading too much into the laws in that I must "carefully avoid taking any advantage of the unauthorized information."

 

In my inexperienced option, my decision not to pre-empt in first seat has now become a clear decision to bid after partner has hitched. If it is a marginal preempt then isn't the marginal

2 level over call influenced by the UI that partner has some values?

Yep. You are reading it just fine. If you believe the BIT could suggest to you that bidding 2s would get a better result than the LA of passing, then you should pass. Some people don't think passing is a LA; I believe it is. Some posters have tried to justify 2s as the ethical alternative on the theory that the BIT suggests a misfit for spades; they could try that on a TD and maybe find one who would buy it.