What is suggested by hesitation?

[Pig Trader]

[hv=pc=n&s=s7h85djt532cqt843&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1sp2spp]133|200[/hv]

 

This is from an online match at BCL.

 

There was an agreed hesitation by partner over the 2♠ bid. I have polled and passing is unsurprisingly a LA.

 

Generally, of course, a hesitation followed by Pass demonstrably suggests action, but I wonder if the AI of the auction and what we have in our hand makes action insufficiently suggested over passing to consider adjusting.

 

The player did bid 2NT (showing 5+/5+ in the minors) and NS did end up with a better score than defending 2♠ - hence the request for a ruling.

 

EW are playing Benji Acol, weak NT and four card majors.

 

TIA for opinions.

[sanst]

Although it doesn't make much difference in this case, it makes sense to give information about the kind of match (IMPs, MPs or whatever) and vulnerability. The poll showed that pass is a LA, so I would correct to 2♠. For me it's also a consideration that S could have called 2NT in the first round but refrained from doing so. From the auction he knows legally that EW don't consider going to game and that N hasn't a hand fit for a TO double, which makes it more attractive to bid. But nonetheless, this hand is so weak that pass certainly is a LA, as the poll also showed.

[ArtK78]

If you believe your opponents, they are not going to bid game on this hand if you reopen.

 

How can you let your opponents play in 2♠ when you have a reason to push them up a level or you believe that you have a plus score available to you?

 

I don't believe that the hesitation puts you under any ethical restraint here. You KNOW that partner has a good hand as the opponents have a fit and stopped at the 2 level. You have reasons for bidding and reasons for not bidding. The fact that partner hesitated really has no influence on your decision.

 

I would not criticize a player who bid 2NT on these cards, and I would not roll the auction back to 2♠ if a player bid on these cards.

 

 

 

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=s7h85djt532cqt843&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1sp2spp]133|200| Pig Trader writes "This is from an online match at BCL. There was an agreed hesitation by partner over the 2♠ bid. I have polled and passing is unsurprisingly a LA. Generally, of course, a hesitation followed by Pass demonstrably suggests action, but I wonder if the AI of the auction and what we have in our hand makes action insufficiently suggested over passing to consider adjusting. The player did bid 2NT (showing 5+/5+ in the minors) and NS did end up with a better score than defending 2♠ - hence the request for a ruling. EW are playing Benji Acol, weak NT and four card majors."

 

Agree with sanst: A poll confirms that Pass is a logical alternative. Partner's hesitation indicates bidding values and makes action safer. The suggested action improves the NS score. Hence the director should roll the contract back to 2♠ and consider imposing a PP for use of UI.[/hv]

[akwoo]

1) Form of scoring?

 

2) Not being familiar with Acol as it is currently played, how likely are E/W to be in a 4-3 fit?

 

3) How good are N/S and what are their general tendencies? Class of player matters here, and if possible, I would like "class of player" to be specific enough to consider how aggressive N/S are in these kinds of situations, not just their general abilities.

[aguahombre]

If you believe your opponents, they are not going to bid game on this hand if you reopen.

 

How can you let your opponents play in 2♠ when you have a reason to push them up a level or you believe that you have a plus score available to you?

 

I don't believe that the hesitation puts you under any ethical restraint here. You KNOW that partner has a good hand as the opponents have a fit and stopped at the 2 level. You have reasons for bidding and reasons for not bidding. The fact that partner hesitated really has no influence on your decision.

 

I would not criticize a player who bid 2NT on these cards, and I would not roll the auction back to 2♠ if a player bid on these cards.

Agree with Art. Wonder what planet they got the pollees from, Or maybe they were given more information than they should have been given.

[WellSpyder]

I think the important question is the one actually asked in the OP - what is actually suggested by the BIT? It is possible to argue over whether pass is an LA, but I am happy to accept the implied TD's view that it is, whether or not it might be sensible bridge. Nevertheless, I don't think the BIT tells you much that you don't already know. I guess partner has some values (not hard to deduce from the auction), and probably too many spades to have an easy take-out double - not that hard to guess from your hand. So I don't think I have learnt much from the BIT, and certainly nothing clear that helps me choose between pass and any other bid.

[helene_t]

The bit suggests that he considered x so that he is not too far from a t/o double shape (maybe 34(24) or so) or that he has a suit which is borderline biddable (probably hearts). The former would make it more attractive to bid 2NT while the latter makes it less attractive. So I don't think that one action is more ethical than the other. I would allow pass and I would also allow 2NT. I would certainly allow double since the BIT says that p doesn't have a trap pass so it actually makes double less attractive. But probably nobody will double.

[nige1]

I think the important question is the one actually asked in the OP - what is actually suggested by the BIT? It is possible to argue over whether pass is an LA, but I am happy to accept the implied TD's view that it is, whether or not it might be sensible bridge. Nevertheless, I don't think the BIT tells you much that you don't already know. I guess partner has some values (not hard to deduce from the auction), and probably too many spades to have an easy take-out double - not that hard to guess from your hand. So I don't think I have learnt much from the BIT, and certainly nothing clear that helps me choose between pass and any other bid.

PigTrader and WellSpyder emphasise the importance of what the hesitation suggests. You can't be sure why North hesitated but a reasonable inference is that North holds sufficient values to tempt him to bid but decided not to do so. Hence, IMO, the hesitation

 

• Reduces the likelihood that that one or both opponents is trapping or has misbid or has taken a pessimistic view to underbid.
• For example, if you re-open, opponents are less likely to wake up to bid a makable game.
• Suggests that North's values aren't purely defensive. For example. with just a trump-stack, partner would pass happily, in tempo.

Without the BIT, South's 2N bid is perfectly reasonable. The bottom line. however, is that North's BIT increases the attractiveness of South's 2N relative to the logical alternative of Pass.

 

 

 

[lamford]

A hesitation followed by a pass always suggests wanting to make a call but not finding any suitable one. Partner is marked with values, but all we know is that he has 13-19 as they seem to have roughly 18-24 as they did not make a game try. Partner probably has four spades, and is therefore unsuitable for a take-out double. If he has a 4-5-2-2 13 count, bidding would not work well, but the BIT suggests he is more likely to have a 4-3-3-3 18 count, when bidding will work just fine. So, we adjust, as the BIT sugggests he is in the upper half of his likely point range.

[helene_t]

If he has a 4-5-2-2 13 count, bidding would not work well, but the BIT suggests he is more likely to have a 4-3-3-3 18 count, when bidding will work just fine. So, we adjust, as the BIT sugggests he is in the upper half of his likely point range.

I would think that 4333 is a fast pass so the bit makes him more likely to be 4522. on that basis you might disallow pass.

[mcphee]

We have so little its easy to place partner with what is likely the best hand at the table. It would not surprise me if he has about 15 HCP. Frankly it may be somewhat risky to bid as partner could easily be 2-2 in the minors. I'm not at all convinced The BIT gave away any thing.

[gordontd]

If he has a 4-5-2-2 13 count, bidding would not work well, but the BIT suggests he is more likely to have a 4-3-3-3 18 count, when bidding will work just fine.

I think you need to do a bit more to demonstrate the truth of this.

[nige1]

I think you need to do a bit more to demonstrate the truth of this.

IMO offensive values are a common cause of hesitation, so partner's hesitation usually suggests action. In any case, should the director spend much time trying to mind-read which particular inference from North's hesitation might have finally decided South to bid 2N? The modern trend seems to be to give the benefit of the doubt to those in receipt of UI. IMO, that's unfair to those who try to abide by the law.

 

Imagine a different kind of tempo-break. Suppose North passed very quickly over LHO's 2♠. IMO that might indicate a trump-stack -- and suggest a pass (or even a double if South's hand were slightly different).

[Cyberyeti]

I'm not sure the BIT tells you very much, you already know he has a decent hand from the AI.

 

Maybe he was thinking on his 4612 "have I got enough to bid 3♥" (in which case 2N will mess him up) or "do I have a bid on my big 4522".

[helene_t]

Suppose North passed very quickly over LHO's 2♠. IMO that might indicate a trump-stack -- and suggest a pass (or even a double if South's hand were slightly different).

I think it matters if EW are playing a style in which they could easily be in a 4-3 fit. In that case, a fast pass would be consistent with North holding five spades, so action might be suggested by the BIT.

[Cyberyeti]

I think it matters if EW are playing a style in which they could easily be in a 4-3 fit. In that case, a fast pass would be consistent with North holding five spades, so action might be suggested by the BIT.

 

But the suggested action is X not 2N, 2N in that case would probably be worse than pass or X.

[helene_t]

But the suggested action is X not 2N, 2N in that case would probably be worse than pass or X.

Yes, X (or pass) would be suggested by a fast pass. Hence, 2NT would be suggested by the slow pass.

 

As I said before, I don't really buy it since I think that the slow pass is also consistent with something like AQJx- Jxxxxx-Qx-K while a fast pass would be consistent with Axxx-Axx-KQxx-xx so one could argue that the BIT makes pass more attractive. But if I were told that EW could easily be in a 4-3 fit on this auction then I would have more sympathy for the view that the result should be adjusted to 2♠.

[lamford]

But the suggested action is X not 2N, 2N in that case would probably be worse than pass or X.

If South doubled on this hand, men in white coats would arrive to take him away. The only LAs are Pass and 2NT. I think the latter is suggested over the former by the BIT, because partner cannot have a weak NT as nobody would think on such a hand. Therefore he is either stronger or has an awkward hand.

[lamford]

I think you need to do a bit more to demonstrate the truth of this.

I can only say that the hands I suggest are more likely because one of the hand types that partner might have from the AI, a weak NT, has been eliminated by the UI. "Cogito ergo sum 15+" is the well-known saying ...

[weejonnie]

If this was MPs then I have seen appeal decisions recorded on the EBU website (15 years worth) with the experts saying that at pairs passing is not a LA at this vulnerability and auction, if you have any offensive hand.

 

At IMPs, however, you would normally pass - far better to accept a -110 or -140 than risk a -300 or -500.

 

A poll has been taken - was it of players of the same ability/ temperament playing the same system? If so then the TD is correct in the ruling and the AC has to presume initially that his ruling is correct.

 

So what can we deduce about partner's hand. We can infer a minimum strength of 11 (or 12) points, maybe even more since there has been no game try. Opponents may even have the minority of points (but that is unlikely). Partner is very likely to have 4 spades (in Acol 1 spade only promises 4) so is very unlikely to be 16-18 balanced.

 

It rather looks as if partner has a flawed take out double. He can deduce on the second round that you have spade shortage so he must be worrying about a suit. If he had 5 hearts then he might have overcalled 2 hearts to take away bidding space, so his hand is going to be 4=4-3-2 (not strong enough to overcall 1NT) or 4=4-4-1. He may even only have 3 hearts (which improves the 2NT protection). And, of course, it is very likely that partner's HCP are not in spades - thus improving South's hand - and any finesses are more likely to make.

 

There is also the possibility that North has 5 spades, couldn't do anything on the first round and now has to remember whether a double on the second round is penalty or take-out.

 

If South came to me with this spiel then I would certainly not be issuing a PP for blatant use of UI - even if I disallowed his call.

[gordontd]

I can only say that the hands I suggest are more likely because one of the hand types that partner might have from the AI, a weak NT, has been eliminated by the UI. "Cogito ergo sum 15+" is the well-known saying ...

It's not that I was questioning - it was why you concluded that strong balanced was more likely than 4522.

[lamford]

It's not that I was questioning - it was why you concluded that strong balanced was more likely than 4522.

Just on frequency. Partner can have (4 3 3 3) (4 4 3 2) (5 3 3 2) or (4 5 2 2) if balanced. The last is the least likely. The chance of him having 3-card support for a minor (and that is AI) is high. The chance of him having a strong NT or similar is also high (but that is from the UI that he does not have a weak NT). I trust you would adjust here if the hesitator said "I really want to bid here, pard, but nothing fits the bill. I don't have a good single-suiter or I would bid it."

[gordontd]

Just on frequency. Partner can have (4 3 3 3) (4 4 3 2) (5 3 3 2) or (4 5 2 2) if balanced. The last is the least likely.

That may be so a priori. I think the first three are less likely to give declarer a problem - many of them would be an easy pass or 2NT (if played as natural). I still don't think we've reached the "demonstrably suggested" standard.

[lamford]

That may be so a priori. I think the first three are less likely to give declarer a problem - many of them would be an easy pass or 2NT (if played as natural). I still don't think we've reached the "demonstrably suggested" standard.

I surveyed several people at my club about the auction 1S-(P)-2S-(2NT) and the majority thought minors. I don't know if they are right, but I cannot phone a friend at the table to find out which is standard. The BIT demonstrably suggests a hand that wants to bid 2NT (17-19 balanced) but realises that it is either minors, or more likely, undiscussed. Just being more likely to be right because of the BIT makes a call demonstrably suggested, I think, and eliminating a weak NT tips the scales.