An impossible hesitation situation?

[cathel]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakq3h7dj963ckq84&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=4hppdp4s5hppdp5sppp]133|200[/hv]

 

 

N's double came after an agreed hesitation.

 

NS do not play a forcing pass and N cannot make a penalty double in this situation so the N double means "I don't know whether we should take the penalty or play the contract so I leave it to you to decide ". His alternative bids are pass, 5♠, or a new suit.

 

After the hand was over there followed a long discussion about the 5♠ bid after the hesitation. EW thought that N could have been influenced by the hesitation but NS countered by saying that, although N gave some thought, he did make a system bid with a clear meaning - it's your decision partner.

 

The real point to this is that there would inevitably be a pause for thought before N makes his final bid and so whatever S does will be challenged if he makes the right decision.

This, I believe, is not what the rules are there for. Of course, there are always two possibilities i.e. a logical alternative that must be considered and some may choose. After all, partner has already said that he cannot decide!

I am very interested in the expert views - other than " change the system!"

[Cyberyeti]

I don't see that the slow X tells you whether he was deciding between P/X or X/5♠ therefore nothing is particularly suggested. Also his spades will be bad, so you know he'll have an awkward decision.

[nige1]

NS do not play a forcing pass and N cannot make a penalty double in this situation so the N double means "I don't know whether we should take the penalty or play the contract so I leave it to you to decide ". His alternative bids are pass, 5♠, or a new suit.

The director should take care to satisfy himself that North-South really do have this unlikely and unusual agreement,

[FelicityR]

It's a strange (to say the least) flexible arrangement. I'm no expert here but I've named it The Multi-Coloured (Hesitation) Takeout/Penalty Double. In my eyes, double and pass in a competitive auction (especially at the five level) should have a definite meaning, not some woolly interpretation.

[WellSpyder]

the N double means "I don't know whether we should take the penalty or play the contract so I leave it to you to decide ".

I agree with others that this is perhaps a somewhat unusual agreement and the TD should see what evidence is available to support this assertion.

 

However, what would you expect the double to mean without such an agreement? To me, it sounds like it is really just saying I think this is our hand so we can't let the oppo play here undoubled. It is pretty unlikely to be based on trump tricks, given the opposing bidding! I'm not sure that interpretation differs very much from that put forward in the OP, and I'm also not sure that a pause for thought before finding the double really gives much clue as to whether pass or 5♠ is likely to be more successful.

[gszes]

The 4s bid has a monstrous range. This makes the use of forcing pass impossible. That means it seems that 5hx is a VERY tiny target where 4hx is wrong but 5hx (for penalty) is right. It seems clear to me (fwiw) that the 2nd x shows a hand that is torn between x and 5s. The hesitation suddenly brings out the "law enforcement" in many of us and this attitude robs south of their natural use of judgement in such situations (especially when they get it right).

[cathel]

I cannot disagree that this is an unusual system and can see flaws, but can also see advantages.

NS were the other half of my team in a T4 match.

Thank you for your comments and, if I may, add a couple more.

Any pre-empt is designed to cause problems for the opponents and this certainly did! In this case, their system enabled them to reach a degree of understanding in so far as S knows his exact two options. A forcing pass gives three choices. (Which is the woolliest?)

WellSpyder has read the situation perfectly and gszes goes one stage further by recognising the lawmen, which is what happened!

At the other table the bidding was the same until 5♥ when everyone passed. This was unbeatable with any defence. 5♠ was 2 or 3 off against best defence following a Lightner double but it wasn't found by EW and so the contract made.

Sadly, just as people back off at the call of "human rights" so do bridge officials when someone has the audacity to take a few moments to consider their options! Sorry, I meant "hesitate"!

[PhilG007]

There is no such thing as an "agreed hesitation" The Laws are quite clear that the only

info allowed between partners shall be through legitimate bids and card play. Anything else

is illegal and subject to penalty.

[ggwhiz]

Unfortunately I think pass of the double is clearly a logical alternative and even called for.

 

No reason to think 5♠ is making and opposite "cards" that are not in the spade suit, no reason to think that 5♥ is making.

[johnu]

At the other table the bidding was the same until 5♥ when everyone passed. This was unbeatable with any defence. 5♠ was 2 or 3 off against best defence following a Lightner double but it wasn't found by EW and so the contract made.

Lightner double??? I've never heard of a Lightner double in this type of bidding situation. I've heard of 3 coughs and a sniffle requesting a specific lead but I assume this wasn't being played.

[1eyedjack]

There is no such thing as an "agreed hesitation"

Que? What have you been smoking?

 

Opposing sides can potentially agree or disagree on just about anything under the sun, including whether or not there was a hesitation.

[aguahombre]

There is no such thing as an "agreed hesitation" The Laws are quite clear that the only

info allowed between partners shall be through legitimate bids and card play. Anything else

is illegal and subject to penalty.

An agreed hesitation is just that -- a hesitation, where both sides agree a hesitation occurred. Here, they agree there was one, and we can get on with our assessment without ever mentioning the possibility that there wasn't one.

[aguahombre]

Unfortunately I think pass of the double is clearly a logical alternative and even called for.

 

No reason to think 5♠ is making and opposite "cards" that are not in the spade suit, no reason to think that 5♥ is making.

Yep. That is the short version of the step-by-step lengthy post I was about to make. Think I will save it.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

the X of 5H simply says, that 4S was bid with the intention of making.

A slow X is making bidding on more attractive, indicating a more unbal.

hand, the North hand would be flat with regards to the other 3 suits,

with lots of side loosers, a X will come faster.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[gszes]

Hi,

 

the X of 5H simply says, that 4S was bid with the intention of making.

A slow X is making bidding on more attractive, indicating a more unbal.

hand, the North hand would be flat with regards to the other 3 suits,

with lots of side loosers, a X will come faster.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

sigh when I first started playing bridge I read many comments like this (a long neck eliminates the need to guess many queens). Even when made in jest, newer players can be unduly influenced in many undesirable ways by reading such commentary. It is totally illegal to intentionally bid more slowly to convey the concept of more distribution vs a quick x to show more balanced distribution.

[P_Marlowe]

sigh when I first started playing bridge I read many comments like this (a long neck eliminates the need to guess many queens). Even when made in jest, newer players can be unduly influenced in many undesirable ways by reading such commentary. It is totally illegal to intentionally bid more slowly to convey the concept of more distribution vs a quick x to show more balanced distribution.

I play in an environment, when a skip bid requies the usage of the stop card,

to reduce this kind of stuff.

Now 5H was not a skip bid, but there were still to passes, giving North some

time to think.

I was making the comment, what a slow X may convey, and according to the original

poster, it was a slow X. i.e. he had a difficult decision, and if I am looking

at lots of side loosers, I dont have a difficult decision.

If we are talking about an unexperienced player all bets are off.

[aguahombre]

Yeh, I didn't read Marlowe's post as a snide remark (like I might make) or a recommendation; but I can see how some would take it that way.

 

He did make a good point that the Doubler in question here was not directly behind the 5♥ bidder, and thus had a bit of time to think while two Passes came back around to him.

[ggwhiz]

 

He did make a good point that the Doubler in question here was not directly behind the 5♥ bidder, and thus had a bit of time to think while two Passes came back around to him.

 

and although the hitch was agreed upon here, south and west owe it to the table (and especially north) to take a bit of a pause before passing even if it's just to feign interest. I fail to do that from time to time as I'm sure others do and am less likely to call on a hesitation at the 5 level as a result. Once in a while I'm sharp enough to lengthen my pause as west to give north a break, especially if the south pass was fast.

[aguahombre]

and although the hitch was agreed upon here, south and west owe it to the table (and especially north) to take a bit of a pause before passing even if it's just to feign interest. I fail to do that from time to time as I'm sure others do and am less likely to call on a hesitation at the 5 level as a result. Once in a while I'm sharp enough to lengthen my pause as west to give north a break, especially if the south pass was fast.

Yes. Both South and West should hesitate a little bit, here. It is unlikely either of you would be giving your respective partners any UI by doing so, and you give North more time.

 

Why do I get the feeling, that you (we) are more likely to fail to hesitate when we have more respect for the opponents and/or partner?

[Fluffy]

As Marlow said the hessitation is way more likely to be between 5♠ and double than between double and pass. So even assuming NS didn't make this agreement on the fly to justify their action (they remind me of Fischer-Swartz support pass), there is some ground for adjusting depending on south's hand.

[nige1]

Yes. Both South and West should hesitate a little bit, here. It is unlikely either of you would be giving your respective partners any UI by doing so, and you give North more time. Why do I get the feeling, that you (we) are more likely to fail to hesitate when we have more respect for the opponents and/or partner?

Some jurisdictions mandate pauses in high-level auctions. Otherwise, IMO, you should bid in tempo. You should not deliberately hesitate. For instance, partner who was contemplating action might be inhibited from doing so.

[aguahombre]

Some jurisdictions mandate pauses in high-level auctions. Otherwise, IMO, you should bid in tempo. You should not deliberately hesitate. For instance, partner who was contemplating action might be inhibited from doing so.

I guess you, therefore disagree with: "It is unlikely either of you would be giving your respective partners any UI by doing so"

[nige1]

I guess you, therefore disagree with: "It is unlikely either of you would be giving your respective partners any UI by doing so"

If the law stipulates that you try to bid in tempo, in this context, then It's not your prerogative to break it.