Unauthorized Information

[euclidz]

Continuing on from the question posed by chrism 'What is suggested' . . . what if it had been East that had hesitated in that bidding sequence:

 

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2hdpp]133|100[/hv]

 

East's hesitation followed by a Dble shows that he believed he had options. Those options are: Bid; Dble; Pass.

 

West receives this UI and it could be that from the shape and strength of his own hand that he could form a view on whether East was more likely to be considering one option over another(but we don't know that).

 

So what does West know?

He knows that East's hand has some value and some winning tricks. If he factors that into his hand and forms the view that their combined weight gives them a worthwhile bid he must Pass. Yes?

 

Now lets say that West is holding 6 decent H's a void and few outside points and as soon as the 2H bid hit the table he was salivating. Now he WANTS to pass, can he pass?

[campboy]

If there was a genuine hesitation before doubling (i.e. not just 10s or so for the skip bid) then that suggests East has either minimum values, or an off-shape hand which might have trouble coping with certain responses. Both of these suggest keeping the bidding low if possible. So I'd be more worried about (say) a 2S bid where 3S would have been a logical alternative. I don't think either passing or bidding is demonstrably suggested, so I would not rule that a player who bid should have passed or vice versa. Certainly with the hand you describe, passing is the only plausible option so is completely fine.

 

What you say about being required to pass in some circumstances also sounds very wrong to me. In order for a TD to rule that you should have passed, passing needs to be a logical alternative. It normally will not be on this auction (takeout doubles are expected to be taken out). You never have to do something ridiculous just because partner hesitated.

[Cyberyeti]

Another option, he could be at either end of a 2N overcall or slightly offshape for it.

[gordontd]

The way West's hand has been described, it's hard to see that there can be any LAs to passing.

[barmar]

Continuing on from the question posed by chrism 'What is suggested' . . . what if it had been East that had hesitated in that bidding sequence:

 

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2hdpp]133|100[/hv]

 

East's hesitation followed by a Dble shows that he believed he had options. Those options are: Bid; Dble; Pass.

Those are the only options in any situation, aren't they?

West receives this UI and it could be that from the shape and strength of his own hand that he could form a view on whether East was more likely to be considering one option over another(but we don't know that).

 

So what does West know?

He knows that East's hand has some value and some winning tricks. If he factors that into his hand and forms the view that their combined weight gives them a worthwhile bid he must Pass. Yes?

The AI from the double tells him that East has values. The hesitation tells him that he had a close decision. Maybe he has a minimum takeout double and was considering pass. But it's also possible that he was deciding between double and 2NT, or between double and bidding his own suit (perhaps his shape is 4252 or 3154).

Now lets say that West is holding 6 decent H's a void and few outside points and as soon as the 2H bid hit the table he was salivating. Now he WANTS to pass, can he pass?

That makes 2NT unlikely to have been in East's mind. But it's hard to imagine an LA to pass with a hand like that (although at unfavorable vulnerability 3NT might be a consideration).

[euclidz]

Thanks to all for the helpful posts

[ggwhiz]

Continuing on from the question posed by chrism 'What is suggested' . . . what if it had been East that had hesitated in that bidding sequence:

 

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2hdpp]133|100[/hv]

 

East's hesitation followed by a Dble shows that he believed he had options. Those options are: Bid; Dble; Pass.

 

West receives this UI and it could be that from the shape and strength of his own hand that he could form a view on whether East was more likely to be considering one option over another(but we don't know that).

 

Now lets say that West is holding 6 decent H's

 

I would think that any clues west has because of their shape is AI (I have long hearts, I know 2nt was not an option) but taking a position based on strength and the hesitation is not kosher as in bidding 2♠ with a 3♠ bid as mentioned upthread.

 

As a regular partnership I would consistently "guess" right as to whether partner was light or offshape so would just bid what I thought I could justify on my own cards and accept any ruling if I missed the mark.

[blackshoe]

As a regular partnership I would consistently "guess" right as to whether partner was light or offshape so would just bid what I thought I could justify on my own cards and accept any ruling if I missed the mark.

This presumes that partner has done this before, and frequently enough that he has established a pattern. While it may be true, and is a useful assumption for discussing what you should do if it is true, it is not an assumption that should be made a priori, especially by a director called to rule on the situation, or an opponent who thinks he might have been damaged.

[barmar]

This presumes that partner has done this before, and frequently enough that he has established a pattern.

I think his point was that in a regular partnership, you get to know your partner's tendencies, the kinds of things that cause him to think, etc. So you don't need previous examples like this, you can extrapolate from what you know about him in general. This may be totally unconscious, and it takes specific effort to try to ignore these feelings.

[WellSpyder]

I think his point was that in a regular partnership, you get to know your partner's tendencies, the kinds of things that cause him to think, etc. So you don't need previous examples like this, you can extrapolate from what you know about him in general. This may be totally unconscious, and it takes specific effort to try to ignore these feelings.

I do wonder about this point - I don't think I have any more idea with my most regular partner than with anyone else what specific difficulty he is facing on any given hand.

 

I have never forgotten a ruling I was involved in when I hesitated before inviting game. My partner had no idea what I was thinking about, and decided he had enough to accept the invitation. The TD (and AC) decided that pass was a LA - as they were fully entitled to do, of course. But they also decided that people apparently more often have strong invitations than weak ones when they hesitate, and my partner would have known if this was true for me, so bidding on was suggested. The fact that I was actually debating whether to pass rather than invite was completely ignored!

[weejonnie]

Obviously I cannot comment too much on 'inviting game' but general guidelines would suggest that "All that can be deduced is that partner did not have a clear game invite." - the fact that " people apparently more often have strong invitations than weak ones when they hesitate" is confusing the situation when partner makes a minimum response after hesitating. In that scenario it is much more likely that they have extras as the options are "THE BID" and "A HIGHER BID" - in this case, you actually had a response lower than a game invite - presumably 'pass' or 'preference'.

 

And if there are options ABOVE and BELOW then nothing can really be inferred. (And it doesn't matter if you are an aggressive or cautious bidder, there will always be two set of hands either way where you will be 'in doubt')

 

The example quoted by the EBU is simple and clear.

 

You open 1NT. Partner hesitates and then bids 2NT (which we assume is natural). There is no way of knowing whether he was thinking of passing or raising direct to 3 (or even using Stayman inbetween!)

 

Contrast this with "2 Clubs : P : [pause] 2 Diamonds (negative)". As there is no lower bid than 2 Diamonds, it is clear that partner was thinking about a more positive action and therefore has a hand distinctly better than "XXX XXXX XXX XXX" (probably about 8 points or so but with quacks)

[lamford]

Contrast this with "2 Clubs : P : [pause] 2 Diamonds (negative)". As there is no lower bid than 2 Diamonds, it is clear that partner was thinking about a more positive action and therefore has a hand distinctly better than "XXX XXXX XXX XXX" (probably about 8 points or so but with quacks)

Another possibility is that he was trying to recall whether you played 2H as Roth, showing 0-4, but decided that you had not agreed that. So he could have xxx xxxx xxx xxx. He might also have been trying to recall whether you had agreed to play Precision, in which case 2D would be a strong relay, and he could have initially been considering Pass. You have no idea what he was thinking about.

[weejonnie]

Another possibility is that he was trying to recall whether you played 2H as Roth, showing 0-4, but decided that you had not agreed that. So he could have xxx xxxx xxx xxx. He might also have been trying to recall whether you had agreed to play Precision, in which case 2D would be a strong relay, and he could have initially been considering Pass. You have no idea what he was thinking about.

I suppose so theoretically. The above was an illustration - but at my level of bridge pure acolites will never have come across any of those options. And, as I Have stated elsewhere, the director cannot impose on a partnership 'possible agreements' that they don't have. (Just as an opponent cannot assume that an 'alerted bid' shows the same strength/ distribution that they play.)

[ggwhiz]

This presumes that partner has done this before, and frequently enough that he has established a pattern. While it may be true, and is a useful assumption for discussing what you should do if it is true, it is not an assumption that should be made a priori, especially by a director called to rule on the situation, or an opponent who thinks he might have been damaged.

 

I have never seen a situation other than a club game where the Director was privy to the detailed partnership history. Although I did intend this assumption as a guideline to my own actions I would have thought it should be a consideration in say, a 20 year partnership.

[barmar]

Another possibility is that he was trying to recall whether you played 2H as Roth, showing 0-4, but decided that you had not agreed that. So he could have xxx xxxx xxx xxx. He might also have been trying to recall whether you had agreed to play Precision, in which case 2D would be a strong relay, and he could have initially been considering Pass. You have no idea what he was thinking about.

That's where the difference between a regular partnership and a pickup becomes truly significant. If you've been playing together for years, and haven't made any recent changes, you're not going to forget such basic system agreements.

[barmar]

I do wonder about this point - I don't think I have any more idea with my most regular partner than with anyone else what specific difficulty he is facing on any given hand.

Like I said, it's likely to be subconscious. You really have no idea what your subconscious mind has learned over the years. But psychological studies have shown that it's pretty good at picking up subtle clues on things like this.

[blackshoe]

Do the laws really ask us to take the subconscious into account?

[gordontd]

Another possibility is that he was trying to recall whether you played 2H as Roth, showing 0-4, but decided that you had not agreed that. So he could have xxx xxxx xxx xxx. He might also have been trying to recall whether you had agreed to play Precision, in which case 2D would be a strong relay, and he could have initially been considering Pass. You have no idea what he was thinking about.

For most players and their partners, to say "You have no idea what he was thinking about" is a distinct overbid.

[blackshoe]

The question is not "what was partner thinking about?" but "what could partner have been thinking about?" Thus, what he was actually thinking about is irrelevant. Remember that when partner tanks, we have at best only partial information about what's in his hand.

[barmar]

The question is not "what was partner thinking about?" but "what could partner have been thinking about?" Thus, what he was actually thinking about is irrelevant. Remember that when partner tanks, we have at best only partial information about what's in his hand.

That's true. But we develop our ideas of what players could be thinking about based on the history of what people actually have thought about. That's where the guidelines about what the TD shold assume when making a ruling come from: people mostly hesitate because of X rather than Y, so the hesitation suggests X.

 

And that's the point of having written guidelines. An individual TD might not have enough experience to know that tendency, but the collective experience of many TDs was sufficient that the guidelines can be compiled.

[mycroft]

That's where the difference between a regular partnership and a pickup becomes truly significant. If you've been playing together for years, and haven't made any recent changes, you're not going to forget such basic system agreements.

I would temper that with "infrequent system agreements, even if basic".

 

I had 2♣-p-2♠ on Wednesday night. The last positive I can remember was over a year ago, with a different partner. Yes, I remembered, as did partner; but these are the kind of "basic system agreements" people either forget about or get wrong because they "never" come up.

 

Also, the number of times regular partnerships have bid their strong NT defence against my weak NT (Partner, of course, remembers) is legion. In one memorable case, they forgot one week, then did it again the immediately following week playing against us again.

 

With the 2♣-p-(pause) 2♦ and a regular partner, I'd guess if I was forced to that partner either:

• plays different requirements for 2♥ ultranegative with me and others, and is trying to remember whether QQ is - or --.
  
• has a positive heart hand and can't remember how to bid it.
  
• I guess, borderline minor positive that would be automatic positive in the corresponding major.

 

I do agree that there are "standard cases" that are accurate a high enough percentage of the time that they are considered "suggested"; when your hand is the other way, it feels wrong to be ruled against. As long as when you *do* have the "standard hitch" and partner does the Right Thing, they don't rule against you the other way, it's all good.

 

In other words, "he doesn't have his hesitation" is not always a defence to use of UI from the hesitation.

[blackshoe]

That's true. But we develop our ideas of what players could be thinking about based on the history of what people actually have thought about. That's where the guidelines about what the TD shold assume when making a ruling come from: people mostly hesitate because of X rather than Y, so the hesitation suggests X.

 

And that's the point of having written guidelines. An individual TD might not have enough experience to know that tendency, but the collective experience of many TDs was sufficient that the guidelines can be compiled.

Where are these written guidelines for the ACBL? Tech Files? Duplicate Decisions? And do they really tell the TD to assume certain things in particular auctions?