What is suggested?

[chrism]

ACBL

Swiss Teams

Board 1, first board of the first round.

[hv=pc=n&e=sqj2hq4dt872caq96&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2h(Weak%202-bid%2C%20no%20additional%20information)d3hd(Slow.%20No%20explicit%20agreement)p]133|200[/hv]

 

EW are experts, semi-regular partners. This specific auction is undiscussed though they play responsive doubles in analogous auctions starting at the 1-level.

NS are not regular partners.

Both pairs are playing 2/1.

 

West's double was slow (agreed).

What are East's logical alternatives, and does the hesitation suggest any of them over others?

East stated when asked that with some other partners the double would show 4 spades with a hand too good for a non-forcing 3♠ call, but that was not an explicit agreement for this partnership.

 

(I will post this hand as an online poll when the Bridge Winners site fixes some server glitch that is currently preventing me from posting bidding polls).

[aguahombre]

This is the day after April Fools. QJx QX tXXX AQXX Didn't double 2♥.

[chrism]

This is the day after April Fools. QJx QX tXXX AQXX Didn't double 2♥.

Yes it did; are you looking at some auction other than the one I posted?

[manudude03]

Yes it did; are you looking at some auction other than the one I posted?

 

He's suggesting that the double is so bad it can't be the correct hand in the post.

[RMB1]

I think the slow double suggests not defending 3♥X, so it suggests bidding over passing.

[sanst]

I would say that East's double is a bit, even more than a bit, odd. But there is nothing in the laws aganst it. That being said, I wonder wether W smells something, these two being semi-regular partners. I'm wondering about his hand. But if I were E, I would pass with this hand.

[Finch]

I would pass 3Hx 100% of the time, having doubled on this hand, and see no logical alternative.

(If anything, a slow double suggests partner doesn't want you to pass)

[gnasher]

A slow responsive double suggests either inadequate values or imperfect shape. If the former, it suggests bidding; if the latter, it suggests passing.

 

A slow undiscussed double might be the same, or partner might merely be thinking about what double means.

 

I don't think any action is demonstrably suggested over another, so East is not constrained.

 

Regarding the LAs, if you give partner a prototypical responsive double like Kxx xx Kxxx Kxxx it's not clear what you should do (though it's clear what you should have done on the previous round). If you're going to bid, there are arguments for either minor. I think that pass, 4♣ and 4♦ are all LAs.

[gordontd]

I think we need to consider what West's double means and in my experience different players have different views on that. Whatever this partner's view is, that's not the West hand on this occasion.

[euclidz]

East's hesitation shows he has some strength. West does not know if that strength is H's or elsewhere but he knows East has some tricks in his hand. If he factors that information (UI) into his hand and forms the view that the contract can be defeated, he must pass. The question for me is . . . if West has got the other H's and a natural/obvious/LOGICAL penalty double MUST be still pass because the laws states that he must not choose that (advantageous) logical alternative and must choose the less sensible/logical alternative and pass?

[lamford]

East's hesitation shows he has some strength. West does not know if that strength is H's or elsewhere but he knows East has some tricks in his hand. If he factors that information (UI) into his hand and forms the view that the contract can be defeated, he must pass. The question for me is . . . if West has got the other H's and a natural/obvious/LOGICAL penalty double MUST be still pass because the laws states that he must not choose that (advantageous) logical alternative and must choose the less sensible/logical alternative and pass?

I think you mean West's hesitation. I agree with FrancesHinden that there is no sensible alternative to Pass. You have made your bed; now lie in it. I also agree with gnasher that you are not constrained.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&e=sqj2hq4dt872caq96&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2h(Weak%202-bid%2C%20no%20additional%20information)d3hd(Slow.%20No%20explicit%20agreement)p]133|200|EW are experts, semi-regular partners. This specific auction is undiscussed though they play responsive doubles in analogous auctions starting at the 1-level. NS are not regular partners.Both pairs are playing 2/1. West's double was slow (agreed). What are East's logical alternatives, and does the hesitation suggest any of them over others? East stated when asked that with some other partners the double would show 4 spades with a hand too good for a non-forcing 3♠ call, but that was not an explicit agreement for this partnership.(I will post this hand as an online poll when the Bridge Winners site fixes some server glitch that is currently preventing me from posting bidding polls).[/hv]

I'm unsure of the answer but part of the problem is disclosure rules which say that if you don't know your agreement, then you shouldn't speculate. You are rarely certain, but In an experienced partnership, you can normally "guess" better than opponents. Sometimes you can provide some help to opponents by explaining related agreements. Almost always, some otherwise plausible explanations wouldn't fit your partnership philosophy. All that can take minutes and often you can't remember why one explanation is more likely than another. It would be shorter and more helpful if the rules permitted you to cut to the chase and supply a rough probability estimate. For example, here you might speculate 97% take-out, 1% penalty, 2% other. This kind of disclosure is likely to be more accurate and honest although I don't know whether that would help the director to make a ruling. Asking the bidder to explain his own call. in your absence is a simpler better alternative but, in practice, few directors are prepared to endure the palaver.

 

The significance of hesitations is even more a function of partnership experience,

[euclidz]

I think you mean West's hesitation. I agree with FrancesHinden that there is no sensible alternative to Pass. You have made your bed; now lie in it. I also agree with gnasher that you are not constrained.

 

Ooops, my mistake, although I have to say that if it had been E's hesitation it throws up more interesting (and more common) set of questions.

But, for the sake of my education, I would like to use this example with East as the hesitant, to learn and will create it as a new question

[blackshoe]

few directors are prepared to endure the palaver.

What palaver? "You, go stand at least four tables away." "You, explain the meaning of your call." wtp? B-)

[Vampyr]

What palaver? "You, go stand at least four tables away." "You, explain the meaning of your call." wtp? B-)

 

Yes, it is not frequent, but it happens.

[nige1]

What palaver? "You, go stand at least four tables away." "You, explain the meaning of your call." wtp? B-)

Recently. Mike Amos reminded us of this option but I can't remember any director taking it, in practice, even when a player suggested it..

[campboy]

Recently. Mike Amos reminded us of this option but I can't remember any director taking it, in practice, even when a player suggested it..

I've certainly taken it several times, and IIRC not only when a player suggested it.

 

But this is only appropriate where there actually is an agreement that bidder's partner can't remember. A TD will not get bidder to say what he meant when there is no agreement.

[Cyberyeti]

I've certainly taken it several times, and IIRC not only when a player suggested it.

 

But this is only appropriate where there actually is an agreement that bidder's partner can't remember. A TD will not get bidder to say what he meant when there is no agreement.

 

I had this a couple of years ago when an opp couldn't remember what partner's bid meant and the meaning of my double would be T/O over one meaning and pens over the other. The bidder volunteered the actual meaning in partner's absence with the director's cooperation.

[aguahombre]

I had this a couple of years ago when an opp couldn't remember what partner's bid meant and the meaning of my double would be T/O over one meaning and pens over the other. The bidder volunteered the actual meaning in partner's absence with the director's cooperation.

This is really good, and does not give UI to partner of the bidder, IF....the partner already acknowledged that it had some special meaning (as stated). Otherwise, sending the guy away is UI in/of itself.

[Cyberyeti]

This is really good, and does not give UI to partner of the bidder, IF....the partner already acknowledged that it had some special meaning (as stated). Otherwise, sending the guy away is UI in/of itself.

 

Yeah, partner was in an "it's either this or this" type situation

[blackshoe]

Otherwise, sending the guy away is UI in/of itself.

Actions are not information, they're actions. Therefore, they cannot of themselves be unauthorized information.

[barmar]

Actions are not information, they're actions. Therefore, they cannot of themselves be unauthorized information.

We routinely conflate the UI from an action with the UI transmitted by the action. For instance, it's common to refer to a BIT or a surprised reaction as UI. What do we gain by distinguishing whether something is UI from whether it causes UI?

[aguahombre]

Actions are not information, they're actions. Therefore, they cannot of themselves be unauthorized information.

You know better. If partner creates a situation where you are sent away from the table while a part of the auction is discussed, this gives you information about what you previously thought was your partnership agreement or non-agreement. Observation gives information on this planet. You can play with the exact wording, but the result is the same.

 

Edit: I didn't say, "You SHOULD know better", knowingly risking a comment about my being a mind reader.

[blackshoe]

We routinely conflate the UI from an action with the UI transmitted by the action. For instance, it's common to refer to a BIT or a surprised reaction as UI. What do we gain by distinguishing whether something is UI from whether it causes UI?

Clarity.

 

You know better. If partner creates a situation where you are sent away from the table while a part of the auction is discussed, this gives you information about what you previously thought was your partnership agreement or non-agreement. Observation gives information on this planet. You can play with the exact wording, but the result is the same.

 

Edit: I didn't say, "You SHOULD know better", knowingly risking a comment about my being a mind reader.

it is the information that's unauthorized, not the action that transmitted it.

[aguahombre]

Clarity.

 

it is the information that's unauthorized, not the action that transmitted it.

A distinction without a difference in effect could be described by many terms; 'clarity' isn't one I would choose.