What is suggested by hesitation?

[Zelandakh]

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.

Is not one of the possibilities that partner holds a BBH, perhaps 5♠(332), and was unsure whether 2NT would be taken as natural or not? I think the one call we can definitely say is demonstrably suggested is double. Whether 2NT is also demonstrably suggested is murkier.

[helene_t]

I think the one call we can definitely say is demonstrably suggested is double.

Funny, I would say that double is the least suggested, since partner could have a hand close to a 3♥ overcall in which case double would lead to him jumping to 4♥.

[StevenG]

deleted

[lamford]

Is not one of the possibilities that partner holds a BBH, perhaps 5♠(332), and was unsure whether 2NT would be taken as natural or not? I think the one call we can definitely say is demonstrably suggested is double. Whether 2NT is also demonstrably suggested is murkier.

Double is not an LA, so there is no need to consider whether it is suggested. It would not be chosen by anyone. Surely the only 2 LAs are 2NT and Pass.

[Zelandakh]

Double is not an LA, so there is no need to consider whether it is suggested. It would not be chosen by anyone. Surely the only 2 LAs are 2NT and Pass.

If the player were to have doubled, which is what we are considering here, then it would be subject to the LA rules even if it would not be considered a LA otherwise. It is well accepted that you cannot bypass your responsibilities by choosing a call that is not amongst the LAs.

[lamford]

If the player were to have doubled, which is what we are considering here, then it would be subject to the LA rules even if it would not be considered a LA otherwise. It is well accepted that you cannot bypass your responsibilities by choosing a call that is not amongst the LAs.

Indeed. If the player were to have bid 4NT it would have become an LA. But we are told in the OP: "The player did bid 2NT". We do no need to consider Double at all, therefore.

[gordontd]

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.

I think I'm just about persuaded now.

[barmar]

If the player were to have doubled, which is what we are considering here, then it would be subject to the LA rules even if it would not be considered a LA otherwise. It is well accepted that you cannot bypass your responsibilities by choosing a call that is not amongst the LAs.

But since he didn't, and it wasn't among the LAs found from polling, we don't have to consider whether it's suggested by the UI.

[Zelandakh]

I think I'm just about persuaded now.

Let's say for argument that the BIT suggests that partner has such a BBH. Does that make bidding 2NT more attractive than their holding a minimum strong NT, say? Presumably in that case they would be making 2♠ against our being down in 3m. With partner a trick stronger we are making 3m against their being down in 2♠. That is roughly -50 versus -110 for the case we can rule out and +110 versus +50 for the case we are assuming. We seem to be gaining about 60 points either way. So I would like a little more to demonstrate the unsuitability of the 2NT call. Outside of a basic club level, it is questionable whether there is really a LA to 2NT. Now there may well be but I would like to here the case for Pass from someone whose opinion I respect.

[helene_t]

If partner has a balanced 18 count with four spades you just want to defend, no? They might go down in 2♠, and 2NT might get raised to 3, possibly doubled.

[mycroft]

I'm bidding, no question, no thought. "I'd rather be -1100 than -110". IMPs maybe - only maybe - not.

 

With the people I play with the hesitation most likely means "if I bid, are they going to bid and make game?" We have a number of "never balance against" pairs - they will take the push to 3, partner will take it as a game try and bid 4, and it will roll.

 

But it's likely that this partner has a hand that wants to do something but doesn't like anything. 4=4=3=2 with the wrong kind of stopper for 1♠-1NT a not-great stopper, or 4=3=2=4 and really doesn't want to hear 3♦. And enough stuff that he's afraid I won't balance. It could be the "hesitation penalty double", too - which has the benefit of only going -140 when he catches me with this hand.

 

I agree with most (see my previous statement) that double is not a LA, unless -570 is logical where you live.

 

Edit: can't read. Thanks, Barry.

[barmar]

4=4=3=2 with the wrong kind of stopper for 1♠-1NT

What's the "right kind of stopper" to bid out of turn?

[aguahombre]

Outside of a basic club level, it is questionable whether there is really a LA to 2NT. Now there may well be but I would like to here the case for Pass from someone whose opinion I respect.

Yep.

[lamford]

If partner has a balanced 18 count with four spades you just want to defend, no? They might go down in 2♠, and 2NT might get raised to 3, possibly doubled.

If partner raised to 3NT when I show a hand too weak to bid 2NT on the previous round I would find a new partmer

[Pig Trader]

It was Love All and the match was a Swiss Pairs Match MPs > VPs. Apologies - I am usually the first to criticise lack of information in an OP.

 

The NS players are around 55-60%ish players and my first three pollees said they would pass.

 

So I stopped polling that question to focus on "demonstrably suggested" because I was not convinced that the hesitation showed me enough that I didn't already know. Opinion here suggests that this is approaching a borderline case.

[WellSpyder]

IMO offensive values are a common cause of hesitation, so partner's hesitation usually suggests action.

In my experience many players manage to find a bid with offensive values. It is hands with values but without obvious offense that I find are a common cause of hesitation - though this is somewhat dependent on the level of the players.

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).

I'm not sure I know what I think would be suggested, but certainly a worthwhile thought experiment.

[blackshoe]

If the player were to have doubled, which is what we are considering here, then it would be subject to the LA rules even if it would not be considered a LA otherwise. It is well accepted that you cannot bypass your responsibilities by choosing a call that is not amongst the LAs.

It is well accepted, apparently, that the phrase "logical alternative" does not mean what it says. So be it, sez I, but I don't have to like it.

[aguahombre]

It is well accepted, apparently, that the phrase "logical alternative" does not mean what it says. So be it, sez I, but I don't have to like it.

Oh, I think you know the process, Ed. And I would like to believe most people do. It is just, when trying to make a decision (as a player, a TD, or a blogger) they get tangled up with the words or put the cart before the horse.

 

The process is really quite simple, and the Laws are not that tough --- even though the judgements might be.

 

From the player's point of view:

 

1) Is there UI?

2) I have a call I would like to make.

---a) Is there another call which might be considered (logical alternative)?

---b) If the answer to a) is no (in my judgement), I make the call.

---c) If the answer to a) is yes, could my choice have been suggested over another by the UI?

3) I select my choice, or select another LA which I don't believe is suggested by the UI.

 

From the TD's perspective:

 

1) Was there UI?

2) Did the call made HAVE an LA?

(Note: the call selected is considered among LA's; it isn't in itself a LA, it might not have a LA and it might not be logical.)

3) If the answer to 2) is no, no adjustment.

4) If there is no damage, no adjustment (maybe PP)

5) If the answers to 2) is yes, could the call made by the player have been suggested by the UI?

6) Make the ruling.

 

The people who keep saying 'I ignore the UI' are not abiding the rules.

[wank]

i'd never bid here. partner will hang you too often - he can't play you for as little as this. there's a line for how low you can go and this is well over it.

 

pass then 2nt doesn't show a hand too weak for 2NT directly. it's normally a 2254 10 count or so.

 

it's a fallacy that you should never let the opponents play. sometimes it's just their hand and bidding helps them in the play to make some overs. unless you think you've got enough to actually do something productive, you should keep your gob shut. holding 3 the opps are much more likely to be closer to 25 than 20, game try or no game try.

[blackshoe]

From the player's point of view I would suggest:

 

• 
   
  
• What call do I want to make?
  
• Has partner given me UI?
  
• If so, could the call I want to make possibly be seen as having been influenced by the UI?
  
• If not, make the call.
  
• If so, make a different call, reiterating this process.
  
• If I can't find a call that seems untainted by UI, make the call least likely to gain advantage.
  

[aguahombre]

From the player's point of view I would suggest:

 

• 
   
  
• What call do I want to make?
  
• Has partner given me UI?
  
• If so, could the call I want to make possibly be seen as having been influenced by the UI?
  
• If not, make the call.
  
• If so, make a different call, reiterating this process.
  
• If I can't find a call that seems untainted by UI, make the call least likely to gain advantage.
  

That would be fine, if you want to presuppose that there is a logical alternative to your original choice. Otherwise, I recommend that be a very early consideration, so you don't have to keep going back to square one.

[blackshoe]

That procedure is not really concerned with logical alternatives per se. Rather, it's based on

Law 73C: When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

 

* i.e., unexpected in relation to the basis of his action.

[mycroft]

I want to bid X. Is it suggested by the UI? If so, is there another reasonable (even if 'clearly' inferior) call? If not (to either question), bingo. If the TD is called, that's your argument - be prepared to back it up, and be prepared to be ruled against if your judgement is, in the TD's opinion and the poll's results, clouded.

 

I don't know why people gripe so much about this, it's simple, and I don't remember the last UI ruling against me. Oh yes, I do know why - many bridge players try to skirt their responsibilities because they don't want to bid themselves into a bad board. That they *know* is bad because their partner told them. And they get away with it 9 times out of 10 at least, because their opponents don't know or care either. If I'm being generous, it's because they never learned the Law (if I'm being less generous, they carefully avoided learning it).

 

I don't know how you get to a national final (even a national 5K final) and being shocked that the opponents would call you on blatant use of UI, and that the directors (and appeal committee) would agree with them. But it happened this year.

[nige1]

Oh yes, I do know why - many bridge players try to skirt their responsibilities because they don't want to bid themselves into a bad board. That they *know* is bad because their partner told them. And they get away with it 9 times out of 10 at least, because their opponents don't know or care either. If I'm being generous, it's because they never learned the Law (if I'm being less generous, they carefully avoided learning it).

 

I don't know how you get to a national final (even a national 5K final) and being shocked that the opponents would call you on blatant use of UI, and that the directors (and appeal committee) would agree with them. But it happened this year

Agree with Mycroft: using UI is common, often goes unnoticed, and is rarely reported. Finally, TDs are reluctant to award victims adequate redress. Thus, under current rules, effective users of UI show a long-term profit.

[barmar]

That procedure is not really concerned with logical alternatives per se. Rather, it's based on

So if you can't figure out a way to rule against someone based on 16B, you just revert to 73C, since the vague "must carefully avoid taking any advantage" is much easier to apply than performing the LA calculus?

 

We've had a number of threads where we've tried to reconcile these two laws, since they seem to describe two very different ways to determine whether a player's action after the receipt of UI was illegal. It's like when they wrote one of the laws they completely forgot that the other law already existed.

 

IMHO, the only good way to deal with them is that 16B is describing how one avoids taking advantage of the UI. You shouldn't consider them alternative ways to judge the situation.