yet another hesitation

[avoscill]

[hv=pc=n&s=skj62h9642da5c754&w=s95hat8dkt6432ct9&n=sqt87hkq753dqj9c6&e=sa43hjd87cakqj832&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp1h3h4hpp5cppp]399|300[/hv]

This board was played yesterday, at our local tournment, in Pula, Croatia. When asked about the meaning of partner jump cuebid, West said it was not defined in their system. Nevertheless, he took considerable time before passing. Perhaps I should add that South raised to 4♥ quite hastily, and that it was North who did the asking (before West's pass). East tought there was no logical alternative to bidding 5♣, especially at IMPs, so he bid. North, on the other side, thought that East was helped by partner's excessive thinking in his decision. South led a heart, so East made his contract, and North, thinking their side has been damaged, called the director. However, we are a small club, and don't have a director. One of the partecipants has been choosen to take a decision when such situations arise, but he would much appreciate some advice from this forum. Thank you.

[blackshoe]

If there was no LA to 5♣, then whether East was "helped" in his decision is irrelevant. It looks to me like East was correct: there is no LA. So I would rule result stands.

 

North asked about East's bid before West's pass? Why did he do that? It's not his turn. Did he ask before his partner bid 4♥ or after?

 

What lead could South have made that would defeat the contract? That's just curiosity, it wouldn't affect the ruling. At first glance, anyway, 5♣ appears to be cold.

[Vampyr]

At first glance, anyway, 5♣ appears to be cold.

 

Glance again.

[sanst]

When asked about the meaning of partner jump cuebid, West said it was not defined in their system. Nevertheless, he took considerable time before passing.

If a partner of mine makes an undiscussed jump cuebid, I would need some time, maybe rather long, to figure out what message he is trying to convey and what should be my action. "Excessive" is in the eye of the beholder, opps using a different watch than the thinker and his partner.

FWIW, I would probably raise to 5♣ too, one off when S leads a trump.

[Cyberyeti]

FWIW, I would probably raise to 5♣ too, one off when S leads a trump.

 

With the wrinkle that if declarer wins in hand and plays a diamond, you have to switch to a heart not play a second trump when you win the A.

 

Would I bid 5♣ - probably

 

Do I think P is a logical alternative - yes, give partner xxx, Q10x, Kxxxxx, x and now 5♣ is hopeless and so is 4♥.

 

I don't know if you can weight, but some of 4♥-1 and some of 4♥-2 would seem appropriate.

[Zelandakh]

Am I right in thinking that N-S have broken correct procedure twice here? Once when South called immediately rather than pausing and once again when North asked at South's turn to call. Given that West's explanation was that the 3♥ overcall is undefined, it would be quite remarkable (and horrendous UI) for West to pass quickly - some time for thought is to be expected. It would be good to know just how much time West took - that is relevant. Some sort of poll determining LAs would also be sensible - just because we can find some hands where pass might work out better does not make it automatically a LA. Finally, questions that get answered with "no agreement" are often accompanied by something of an inquisition, so it should be investigated whether West was badgered in North's infraction prior to the hesitation.

[Phil]

Tough one.

 

1. Was there UI? Arguably twice - when west answered no agreement (that's the arguable part. If they had an agreement and West forgot then there's UI as well as MI. Otherwise maybe not) and when west tanked over 4H (again debatable if South insta-4Hd and the hitch wasn't too long)

 

2. What does the UI suggest. If a misunderstanding then it means West isn't on board and getting the nature of Easts hand across. So 5C is suggested.

 

3. I'd poll given the conditions. A respondent might say, "didn't I already express my hand with 3H"? This is what I'd say - give partner soft cards and short clubs and we are beating 4H and 5C.

 

If East truly thought they had an agreement (and why not?) they should disclose the meaning about 3H.

 

So I'm not sure.

[avoscill]

Tough one.

 

1. Was there UI? Arguably twice - when west answered no agreement (that's the arguable part. If they had an agreement and West forgot then there's UI as well as MI. Otherwise maybe not) and when west tanked over 4H (again debatable if South insta-4Hd and the hitch wasn't too long)

 

2. What does the UI suggest. If a misunderstanding then it means West isn't on board and getting the nature of Easts hand across. So 5C is suggested.

 

3. I'd poll given the conditions. A respondent might say, "didn't I already express my hand with 3H"? This is what I'd say - give partner soft cards and short clubs and we are beating 4H and 5C.

 

If East truly thought they had an agreement (and why not?) they should disclose the meaning about 3H.

 

So I'm not sure.

 

I (East) truly thought we had an agreement. Since we have never had the occasion to use it, I wasn't sure my partner will remember it, but I regard my intended meaning of the jump cuebid so logical that I hoped he will get it right. After all, it was just a matter of bidding 3NT with a heart stopper. I've never seen another use for this bid. True, most people require that all the remaining suits be stopped, but at the table I was somewhat disposed towards gambling. And yes, I did try, as declarer, to explain them what my bid shows, but again South was very swift in putting his lead on the table, and again North prevented any explanation on my part.

 

I am well aware that knowing that pard didn't understand my bid was UI. But does it matters here? My hand was anyway very close to a 5♣ opener (one club card less, one ace more). To me, bidding 5♣ on this auction is automatic.

[Phil]

Hi Avoscill.

 

The only way to truly know at the time of the session is for a director to poll your peers.

 

If you are looking for something objective I'd post the hand on Bridgewinners. Don't mention the UI and don't mention your partners lack of understanding. Just say you hold this, and you bid 3H which means this. Then you'll have a better idea of the accuracy of the ruling.

[Cyberyeti]

 

I am well aware that knowing that pard didn't understand my bid was UI. But does it matters here? My hand was anyway very close to a 5♣ opener (one club card less, one ace more). To me, bidding 5♣ on this auction is automatic.

 

I think you're a club short, partner can have quite a good useless hand Jxx, KQx, QJxxx, xx where 3♥ has no play if clubs are 2-2 and 5♣ is dialling 800, but he can't double because you could easily have 8 clubs and a spade card.

 

It does matter in that the UI means he could have a suitable hand for you that he would have already bid on had he understood the bid (like the same shape but ♥xxx and ♦AKxxxx).

[barmar]

The standard for LA is not whether you can come up with hands where other actions would work, it's what other similar players would consider and choose. If practically everyone would bid 5♣ after partner's in-tempo pass, then pass is not an LA.

[avoscill]

Hi Avoscill.

 

The only way to truly know at the time of the session is for a director to poll your peers.

 

If you are looking for something objective I'd post the hand on Bridgewinners. Don't mention the UI and don't mention your partners lack of understanding. Just say you hold this, and you bid 3H which means this. Then you'll have a better idea of the accuracy of the ruling.

Thank you for your offer Phil.

 

It is not so much for the result, but, upon listening at some opinions in our club and in this forum, I really got interested in what bid the majority of players would choose at this point in the auction. If you post this problem, please specify that the scoring was IMPs. Since EW are vulnerable, East should bid games with probabilities of success much less then 50%. In addition, there is the question of NS heart game, and they too are vulnerable. It seams to me that the mathematics here is pretty clear.

[mycroft]

I don't think *I* know that partner knows I have clubs. Assuming that partner happily answered "looking for a heart stop for 3NT", and passed 4♥ (is 4NT to play or takeout? I sure don't know), partner could easily be xxxx xx (either way) in the minors and not know which suit.

 

Oddly enough, with the UI that partner doesn't know what 3♥ means, the UI from the pause says "partner doesn't know what 3♥ means". It doesn't show or deny anything - it's not a "I'd like to <something>, but I don't know if it's right", it's a "what could that possibly mean?" So I don't think the pause is an issue.

 

I would want to know, since East "knew" he had an agreement, what the agreement says about calls once 3NT is out of the picture. If they "have" a call that says "I have a stopper, is 4NT fine?" or "please bid your suit" (or P/C), then there may be a different set of LAs than if their agreement is "ya know, I don't think we've ever thought of that..."

[Vampyr]

Oddly enough, with the UI that partner doesn't know what 3♥ means, the UI from the pause says "partner doesn't know what 3♥ means". It doesn't show or deny anything - it's not a "I'd like to <something>, but I don't know if it's right", it's a "what could that possibly mean?" So I don't think the pause is an issue.

 

The pause is very much an issue, since the assumption is that partner knows your agreement and is thinking about what to do. You are constrained in exactly the same way as if partner had not said he didn't know your agreement.

 

But then you are also constrained by the comment, which makes the situation very tricky.

[tzigesh]

Dear avoscill, I think your partner made a mess of it, but still you have all the rights to bid 5C. Bid 3H is pretty strange, but I find it very very good, showing at least 8 tricks in NT, showing (possible) all other stoppers except H stopper and asking partner for the stopper, something like 'Gambling 3NT' but a little bit stronger because of opponent opening. I think that after 3H, you have only two way forward... either to leave the partner in 3NT if he has H stopper, or to bid 5C, so partner's hesitation doesn't influence at all your natural bidding flow, it's clear cut that after 3H you will play the game, either 3NT or 5C.

 

Your opponents made by themselves a problem here by asking your partner what 3H means, because it's pretty obvious that here is a case of logical bid, not agreement bid. If they would have not ask, then here will be no problem.

 

Your partner hesitation is quite normal, I would say quite expected after your 3H, and opponent 4H immediately after, he is in strange situation after totally normal opening 1H.

[Vampyr]

Tzigesh, the opponents are always entitled to know your agreements. In a case like this, most players will assume that the jump cubic is stopper-asking even if they have not specifclly discussed it. This was not the case with West, but the opponents have no reason to know this. Indeed not even East knew.

 

Not sure why you think that West's hesitation is "normal" or "expected", but these are not the criteria used to determine the constraints on East. The criteria are: what the hesitation suggests (with the assumption that West answered the question correctly) and what logical alternatives to 5♣ exists. You feel there are none, so that is fine, but it doesn't mean you discount the other considerations.

 

While it's true that North made the case more complicated by asking out to turn, the effect on East would be the same if he had asked at the proper time. If he hadn't asked at all there would have been UI from the hesitation but not from the answer, which is simpler, but that is not the opponents' fault. They have the right to ask.

[barmar]

Tzigesh, the opponents are always entitled to know your agreements. In a case like this, most players will assume that the jump cubic is stopper-asking even if they have not specifclly discussed it. This was not the case with West, but the opponents have no reason to know this. Indeed not even East knew.

If it's something most players will assume, he doesn't need to disclose it. 40B6a:

he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

frequently denoted GBK.

[tzigesh]

I agree... If opponents haven't ask, the UI would be still because of hesitation.

 

But I really think E has no logical alternatives, he can not pass 4H after his 3H bid, it should be game forsing.

If S passes 3H, and let's say W shows no stopper H with 3S... will now E bid 4C, or 5C? I think that's the question that should be investigated by the poll, and according to the poll made the decision. I would bid 5C, that's why I would leave the 5C made by E, regardless of his partner hesitation and bad explanation.

[Vampyr]

If it's something most players will assume, he doesn't need to disclose it. 40B6a:

 

No, that's not right. East has assumed that he and his partner had an implicit agreement about the bid. If West assumes the same then he must disclose it.

 

frequently denoted GBK.

 

Players' agreements are not GBK. Even if a particular convention is well-known and fairly common.

 

And in any case, there is at least one player to whom it is not known, so "general" is certainly an exaggeration.

[barmar]

No, that's not right. East has assumed that he and his partner had an implicit agreement about the bid. If West assumes the same then he must disclose it.

Did he assume they had an implicit agreement? Or did he make the bid because he thought "everyone knows what this bid means" or "anyone with any competence should be able to figure out what it must mean"?

 

There is a problem with the concept of GBK -- there are lots of things that are well known to most advanced players (many cue bids, splinters), but not life novices (and certainly not real novices). Where's the line?

[blackshoe]

Over there somewhere.

[Vampyr]

Did he assume they had an implicit agreement? Or did he make the bid because he thought "everyone knows what this bid means" or "anyone with any competence should be able to figure out what it must mean"?

 

It doesn't matter much. The player made a conventional bid, confident that partner would know what it meant.

 

What do you think East should answer if asked about the bid behind screens?

 

There is a problem with the concept of GBK -- there are lots of things that are well known to most advanced players (many cue bids, splinters), but not life novices (and certainly not real novices). Where's the line?

 

The concept is utterly absurd.

[Zelandakh]

What do you think East should answer if asked about the bid behind screens?

We do not have an explicit agreement but I believe it will be taken as a stopper ask with a running minor by analogy with similar auctions in our system, perhaps?

[mycroft]

The pause is very much an issue, since the assumption is that partner knows your agreement and is thinking about what to do. You are constrained in exactly the same way as if partner had not said he didn't know your agreement.

 

But then you are also constrained by the comment, which makes the situation very tricky.

Yeah, I was trying to say that. The pause doesn't pass any more or any different UI than the comment does; you are constrained in exactly the same way. There are situations that are different, where the two sources of UI (and possible AI) show different information and constrain you in different ways.

 

It is weird.

[Vampyr]

We do not have an explicit agreement but I believe it will be taken as a stopper ask with a running minor by analogy with similar auctions in our system, perhaps?

 

Right. East thinks they have an implicit agreement.