What does the pauses, demonstrably, suggest.

[OleBerg]

Hi all,

 

Any input or advise is appriciated.

 

Pass - (Pass) - 1♠ - (Pass)

4♥¹ - (Pass) - 4♠ - (X)

Pass²

 

1 = Long pause

2 = Short pause, but noticeable

 

What does the pauses, if anything, suggest? And how demonstrably do they suggest it?

 

Best Regards

[Cyberyeti]

Are the pair of a standard where 4♥ might have been natural ? if so, that's what it suggests. Any non pass other than a possible XX with a really good hand is disallowed.

[weejonnie]

I must admit I cannot think that 4♥ is natural (having passed the first time round). However I suppose it is possible.

 

I suspect that the 'virtual system file' is marked down as 'natural' or 'no agreement' or possibly 'splinter' or even 'fit jump' - in which case the pause doesn't really convey much and certainly doesn't demonstrably suggest that 4♠ is going to be preferred over another call. All that is known is that the bidder did not think that 4♥ was an obvious bid.

 

if there is no agreement then presumably partner can bid what they want as they will have to guess its actual meaning.

 

Was the 4♥ call alerted/ not alerted? If so that may provide UI.

 

The pause after the double (presumably for penalties) could be construed either as contemplating a redouble (i.e. partner has a maximum) or contemplating running to 5♥. In neither case is any action demonstrably suggested.

 

Note that the side that has passed initially - and then doubled - may be allowed restoration of equity if it turns out that 4♥ wasn't natural. (splinter or no agreement) and not alerted. Would need to know if any questions were asked at the end of the auction about the call.

 

This assumes all non-natural calls of suits in the first round of the auction have to be alerted. i.e. opening bid and the next three calls. Different RAs may have different rules.

[blackshoe]

Since when does "no agreement" require an alert?

[barmar]

Since when does "no agreement" require an alert?

If you play splinters in other sequences, this might be considered part of that default agreement, and should be alerted. If he doesn't alert, you can infer that he didn't treat it that way.

[ggwhiz]

The 1st pause might well be wary of a light 3rd seat opener or........?

 

The "short but noticeable pause" over the double of 4♠ could easily be interpreted as surprise at a sneak attack by south or.......?

 

If this auction doesn't go float from here there will be a forensic audit of their agreements and cards before I would be prepared to rule but it's a longshot that I don't rule 4♠ doubled as the final contract.

[pran]

Since when does "no agreement" require an alert?

I have never accepted "no agreement" as a "hideout" to avoid accusations of misinformation.

 

But anyway, I believe that every regulation on alerting includes something about calls for which opponents cannot reasonably be expected to have a full understanding and that such calls shall be alerted?

 

Surely "No agreements" will always qualify for a required alert under such regulations?

 

(Haven't I somewhere seen: "If you are unsure about partner's call then alert it and explain that you are unsure"?)

[sanst]

Nobody can give an answer that is based on sufficient information, since that is missing, such as the agreements of this pair. And even with that information you wouldn't get an answer that is useful. We have no idea about the quality of this pair. The way to get a more or less useful answer is to poll the peers of this pair.

[blackshoe]

If a pair truly have no agreement on a bid, and the partner of the bidder knows that, then he not unsure about his partner's call. He may be unsure about the meaning of the call, but that doesn't matter. If it did, partner of a player who psychs would get in trouble for not alerting the psych - even if he legitimately had no more reason to expect it than opponents had.

[OleBerg]

Nobody can give an answer that is based on sufficient information, since that is missing, such as the agreements of this pair. And even with that information you wouldn't get an answer that is useful. We have no idea about the quality of this pair. The way to get a more or less useful answer is to poll the peers of this pair.

 

Thx for the reply. Polling peers is ufortunately not an option.

 

The pair has no agreements, but the play in a circle, where 4♥ = Shortness would be the default expectation. But then again, the 4♥-bidder might not be completely up to date on this.

 

Best Regards

[weejonnie]

Since when does "no agreement" require an alert?

 

Since the EBU white book states (1.4.5.2)

 

Misinformation

The law instructs the TD to presume misexplanation rather than misbid and this presumption will be stronger if the partner’s actions suggest they do not believe their own explanation. There are various possibilities for what the TD will determine is the likely partnership understanding, for example:

(a) The meaning intended by the player who misbid is the partnership understanding.

(b) The partnership understanding is that the call is effectively two-way: either the intended meaning or the explained meaning; perhaps because the agreement changed recently and/or one of the players often forgets the agreement.

© There is no partnership understanding, and that is what the opponents are entitled to know.

 

And 1.3.1

 

A player who is not sure whether or not a call made is alertable should alert it. If there is no partnership understanding about the meaning of the call, the player should say so rather than say how is going to treat it.

 

Then I would suggest that it applies in England - whether it applies elsewhere I do not know.

[blackshoe]

You may be right, but that approach seems likely to increase drastically the number of required, if not the number of given, alerts in a session.

[alok c]

May be

1)Splinter or limit raise(long pause-thinking)

2)Rdble(short pause-temptation)

[pran]

You may be right, but that approach seems likely to increase drastically the number of required, if not the number of given, alerts in a session.

So what?

The purpose of alerts is to alert opponents of possible/probable surprises, and a "No agreement" situation should certainly be a surprise? And I consider the failure to alert when the explanation is "no agreement", "I am unsure" or words to similar effect to automatically be misinformation.

 

If a side effect of increased number of required alerts turns out to be less abuse of "no agreement" then so much the better.

[aguahombre]

So, let me grasp this. The EBU regulation says if we don't have an alertable agreement we should alert it.

[pran]

So, let me grasp this. The EBU regulation says if we don't have an alertable agreement we should alert it.

No:

If your explanation will be "No agreement" (or "I don't know") then you should alert the call.

[blackshoe]

No:

If your explanation will be "No agreement" (or "I don't know") then you should alert the call.

Maybe. This interpretation seems bizarre at best, though.

[aguahombre]

No:

If your explanation will be "No agreement" (or "I don't know") then you should alert the call.

If you have no agreement, you have no alertable agreement. "I don't know" is different.

 

1) You have an agreement, but don't remember what it is; alert.

2) You have an agreement, but don't know if it is alertable; when in doubt alert.

3) If we had an agreement, it might be alertable: duh, you don't have an agreement.

 

Apparently, your interpretation of the EBU regs is that they require alerts of things which don't exist. You might be right.

[pran]

No:

If your explanation will be "No agreement" (or "I don't know") then you should alert the call.

Maybe. This interpretation seems bizarre at best, though.

If you have no agreement, you have no alertable agreement. "I don't know" is different.

 

1) You have an agreement, but don't remember what it is; alert.

2) You have an agreement, but don't know if it is alertable; when in doubt alert.

3) If we had an agreement, it might be alertable: duh, you don't have an agreement.

 

Apparently, your interpretation of the EBU regs is that they require alerts of things which don't exist. You might be right.

See it this way:

No regulation (to my knowledge) states that a call with an undefined interpretation is exempted from alerting.

 

On the contrary regulations essentially say that you need not alert calls when you know the call sufficiently well to positively explain it as a call that does not require alert.

 

Other calls must be alerted (unless explicitly exempted, for instance because of bid level).

[Finch]

This auction is an example of the reason for the EBU rule.

Option (i): You have an agreement that 4H is natural. You do not alert.

Option (ii): You have an agreement that 4H is artificial. You alert.

Option (iii): You do not have an agreement about this auction, but you are unaware of any possible meaning other than natural. You do not alert, because in your world your agreement is (by definition) natural.

Option (iv): You do not have an agreement about this auction, but you are aware that partner might mean it as shortage, or might mean it as natural. You alert, when asked you say you do not have an agreement but you are aware that it is possible that partner intends it as shortage.

 

Advantages of option (iv):

- if the opponents do not ask, partner has no UI from the alert, because he also knows you have no agreement but that it might be artificial.

- if you do not alert, opponents know that you believe you have an agreement that it is natural

 

If you simply don't alert when you have no agreement, then the hand sitting over the 4H bidder is left in a difficult position if he has hearts: if he want to double if it's a splinter but not if it's natural, he is forced to ask just in case it might be a splinter. When you alert, he can ask, and then get the same full disclosure of your agreements: that it is undiscussed but may or may not be artificial.

 

Also, suppose you don't alert and then treat it is as shortage: you must have some reason for assuming it isn't natural - what is that? You are bidding as if you have an implicit partnership understanding about the meaning of the call. Aren't the opponents entitled to the same information?

[pran]

I think Frances sums it up pretty well.

[WellSpyder]

I think Frances sums it up pretty well.

So do I.

 

To return to the original question, I don't think the first pause demonstrably suggests anything. Most likely the player was thinking "If I bid 4♥, will partner interpret it as natural or a splinter?", but there is no way to decide what conclusion he reached. (Incidentally, this is an auction that I do have agreements with opposite most of the people I play with, but the agreement differs with different partners, so there is still the chance of a pause while I try to remember what the agreement is with this particular partner.) The second pause might mean different things - as someone has mentioned, it might be because a redouble is being considered. But if there is any doubt about the meaning of 4♥ then it seems much more likely to me that the 4♥ bidder was thinking "I have to assume partner interpreted my natural 4♥ bid correctly and still took it out to 4♠, so do I have a hand that is prepared to play in 4♠ on that basis or not?" That might well suggest to opener that 4♠x isn't a good place to play if he originally bid it assuming there was spade support opposite.

[mycroft]

We have a few pairs who like to hide behind "no agreement", and, because they have no agreement, they have no Alertable agreement (and, of course, since it's "just bridge", they don't have a regulatable agreement (should the sequence, if agreed to, be part of a prohibited agreement)). They can keep this up for *years*. Therefore, the regulations (and Laws) are written so that you don't have to talk about it for it to be disclosable; your experience with this partner or your shared playing environment is also subject to regulation.

 

And, of course, the partner (who "guesses" very well, thank you, because it's all "reasonable"), is in much better shape than random opponent who is frequently in Frances' situation of "if I ask, either I pass a lot of UI to partner which might constrain him, or I get the 'right' answer and may not want to do anything anyway; either way, the opponents get a good look at my hand" (which is, ostensibly, AI to them). And some of these players are very very good at working out why people would ask things, and playing around it.

 

I know I'm prompting (preempting?) blackshoe's story, but I once asked about an entire auction (before the opening lead), because I wanted to know about one call. "Which call do you need to know about?" of course, and I insisted on "everything." The looks I got as the first couple of rounds (which were just "standard", and everybody knew that) were nasty, but eventually they just told me everything. At the end of the hand they asked why I didn't just ask about the relevant call - to which I straight up said "because I didn't feel like telling *you* what I was interested in." Luckily this same pair is of the opinion that it is stupid *not to use* information from partner's questions or answers, so at least they wouldn't yell for the TD if I asked about one call and partner took advantage of the question - not that I would want that, either.

[blackshoe]

I know I'm prompting (preempting?) blackshoe's story…

I imagine a lot of us have similar stories. :)