Hesitation-then bid by partner

[Double !]

This hand occurred close to 30 years ago in a sectional. Not a big deal, but it was the only time I ever protested a ruling, and I still disagree with the committee decision. I can't recall the exact hand that I held, but can get it pretty close. Match points, Red vs. white.

 

Something like ♠xxxx, ♥AJ9, ♦Kxxx, ♣Kx.

 

The bidding was as follows: 1S on my right, pass by me, pass by lho, and my partner thought for a while before re-opening with 3 diamonds which we played as intermediate (opening hand, probably 6+diamonds).

 

RHO/1S opener now bid 4C. Right or wrong, I bid 4D, lho bid 4S, partner passed, rho passed, and i started to think (always a bad sign). I bid 5 diamonds on the reasoning that my partner, despite the hesitation, had made a descriptive if not semi-limited bid of 3D, the bidding suggested that she had spade shortness, and I started wondering where the losers were given this bidding and partner showing some cards (the club king rated to be good). After the 4S bid on my left ( i had been in the dark regarding how many potential spade losers i might have), I felt I now had additional information to visualize a reasonable play for 5D opposite a minimum 3D bid by partner, that the hesitation did not affect anything other than the fact that it occurred, and that the additional information gleaned came from the 4S bid on my left.

 

I bid 5D. DIRECTOR! both opps screamed. The director and, later, the AC ruled that "pass" was a reasonable option over 4S, and ruled the result should be 4S by the opps, whatever the score, for a poor result for us. My argument, perhaps specious, was that the intermediate jump re-opening was similar to an opening bid of 1NT in terms of be relatively limited in strength and scope, and that any hesitation didn't change the basic meaning of the bid. (Partner had her bid, nothing more, nothing less.) There was no UI in the hesitation and I based my bid on the agreed meaning of partner's bid. 5 diamonds was cold.

 

Please, help me understand where the argument breaks down. Just because some expurts suggested that a pass was a possibility, does that make "pass" a reasonable bid and, therefore, a mandatory bid? I understand the need the bend over backwards to avoid taking advantage of potential UI, but where is it written that you must stop using visualization and reasoning just because there was a break in tempo? (There were no issues regarding alerts or failure to alert in this case.)

 

Comments, please. Especially from those knowledgable in acbl tourney rules and regs.

 

 

Thanks!

[awm]

As in many cases, some experts might pass, some might bid 5♦, some might even double. There are many logical actions. The rule isn't that "you must take the logical action most favorable to your opponents" although some directors do seem to interpret it that way. Instead, the rule is that you are barred from taking any action suggested by partner's hesitation.

 

So what does partner's hesitation indicate? It could be that partner's hand is either stronger or weaker than the normal 3♦ bid, or that partner's diamonds are poor for the jump to the three level, or that some other call was being considered (maybe an off-shape double, or 1nt bid). Perhaps partner was worried about missing a fit in hearts (holding 4-6 in the reds). Seems pretty clear that some of these possibilities would make the 5♦ bid more appealing, and others less.

 

I disagree with the ruling here, but an awful lot of directors do seem to have the "if it hesitates, shoot it" mentality.

[Double !]

to awm:

 

Thanks for the support- I appreciate it.

 

(BTW: given the bidding, after the 4S bid, I felt i could almost play the hand out in my head, making 5, giving P anything that closely resembled a 3D bid. Would this argument and reasoning hold any more water today vs 1972ish?)

[Guest Jlall]

there are 3 steps in UI cases.

 

1) Was there UI?

2) Was your action suggested by the UI?

3) Was there a logical alternative to your action.

 

If all are answered yes, then there must be an adjustment.

 

So:

 

1) yes there was a BIT

2) Well the slow 3D bid didn't suggest anything. He may have been too weak for it. Too strong for it. Had a suit too weak for it. Had a side suit. Who knows. Nothing is suggested by a slow 3D bid, so you're free to do as you like.

[Double !]

Justin:

 

Thanks for your response. It's truly appreciated.

 

That was my reasoning for the most part. But, because I was a junior albeit with over 200 mps at the time, (and my P was considerably less experienced, a factor that might have influenced the hesitation: just thinking about the bid might have taken time) the argument or defense didn't fly at that time. And the AC was comprised of a couple of players who are now well known & world class. Handling UIs probably should be a thread in its own because of some nuances involved.

 

DHL

[Walddk]

there are 3 steps in UI cases.

 

1) Was there UI?

2) Was your action suggested by the UI?

3) Was there a logical alternative to your action.

 

If all are answered yes, then there must be an adjustment.

There are actually 4 steps. Justin forgot the last one:

 

4) Were the opponents damaged by your action?

 

This must be answered "yes" too. Like Justin, I would also stop after 2). I don't see that your action was suggested by the UI. Your partner could have had anything on her mind before she eventually decided to bid 3♦. So the answer to 2) is "no". Then we won't have to look any further.

 

It's obviously much more appealing to bid 5♦ now, but this is not suggested by partner's hesitation. Once LHO supported spades your hand became so much better that 5♦ was clearcut.

 

This is bridge logic and has nothing to do with a huddle or no huddle. If the facts are as described I would let the table result stand.

 

Roland

[Guest Jlall]

Yes that's true Roland. But I just assumed the opponents wouldn't call the director if they weren't damaged :-)

[Walddk]

Yes that's true Roland. But I just assumed the opponents wouldn't call the director if they weren't damaged :-)

Opps always think they are damaged :-) Fortunately they won't have to decide. We have TDs, and perhaps later an AC, to make the rulings.

 

Roland

[Guest Jlall]

Yes that's true Roland. But I just assumed the opponents wouldn't call the director if they weren't damaged :-)

Opps always think they are damaged :-)

LOL, unfortunately this is true too often. It is probably my biggest pet peeve in bridge.

[Double !]

This one happened during a stratified pairs event at a recent NABC as told to me by my brother, a superb player but still not flight A at that time (due to non-attendance, not lack of bridge skills, trust me! He like me, "retired" from tourneys at a relatively younger age due to other priorities.)

 

Anyway, the hands themselves are not important. However the bidding, the partnership agreements, whether or not UI was obtained, the method by which it was obtained, and, especially, how to manage the situation correctly are the issues. In addition, I believe it was all red.

 

As told to me: rho opener 1M, you bid 2M (Michael's), lho turns to partner and asks (requests) an explanation of the meaning of the 2M bid. Partner (correctly to your dismay) states that the partnership agreement is that it shows the other major and clubs. Uh-oh, you forgot the agreement and had the other major and diamonds---what to do?) Partner bids 3C. rho thinks briefly and then passes. Realizing your mistake, you attempt to correct the situation by bidding 3 diamonds. DIRECTOR!!!!!!!

 

It worked out that lho had a sound double of 3 clubs. The result after all was said and done was an adjusted contract and score, very favorable for the opps so I was told. I really don't know the final outcome of this hand, but it cost my brother and his P the overall event (i.e. Flight A/ they still won their flight).

 

Here's the issue: realizing that there's been a partnership misunderstanding and, therefore, UI due to partner's response to lho's question [no UI had been volunteered (such as an alert) prior to the question], what is the correct procedure for the Michael's hand to resolve the partnership misunderstanding?

 

The TD ruling (upheld, I believe by an AC) was that the Michael's hand should have passed 3Clubs as partner didn't bid 2NT to ask for which minor the Michael's bidder had - per standard Michaels'), and to then pull 3 clubs doubled to 3 diamonds after lho doubled. Is this the correct procedure for handling the UI? The pair lost winning the event due to procedure, not bridge acumen (or lack of). And no one said "Oh, S--t".

 

Would greatly appreciate comments, references, and any other of the vast expertise that you people collectively have about this situation/ ruling, and about what constitutes UI and how to handle other various UI situations. This is getting to be a bigger and bigger issue, or so it seems. Everyone's a litigious secretary bird these days.

 

again, thanks in advance.

[Double !]

again:

 

thank you Roland and Justin for your valued responses.

 

On the hand in question, My guess is that the opps (both LMs) felt "done-in" by not being permitted to play 4S, especially given the unfavorable vulnerability that existed for the 5D bid.......I will never know...am much older, hair much greyer, and quality of bridge game is...............well................. I can sometimes count to 13 when awake....sometimes can count all of the way to 15 or 16, too.

[Walddk]

Yes that's true Roland. But I just assumed the opponents wouldn't call the director if they weren't damaged :-)

Opps always think they are damaged :-)

LOL, unfortunately this is true too often. It is probably my biggest pet peeve in bridge.

Well, in a way they were, but that damage was self-inflicted! LHO could have passed 4♦, but he might have thought that he had some kind of safety net when he decided to bid 4♠:

 

"My RHO can't bid again after his partner's hesitation", he might have said to himself.

 

He can indeed, and if lefty is not happy, he is obviously entitled to call the director and claim damage. But, that is not the same as saying that there actually has been damage to the opponents.

 

Roland

[Double !]

Regarding the 5 diamond hand:

 

Many bids in bridge have theoretical templates or what one might call a "typical" hand for a bid. One of the issues raised in this hesitation - bid or BIT hand is whether or not partner of the BIT bidder may base any further action on the partnership's agreed template or typical hand for a bid despite the BIT? I always thought that the additional information obtained from lho's 4S was gravy, but the young whipper-snapper (or "smart-a__") was put in his place by the establishment back in the early 70's, I guess. Such is life.

[Walddk]

In your second case I agree with the director's, and subsequently the AC's ruling. You got UI and are not allowed to take advantage of it. You must bid as if there has been no UI. If your agreement is that 2M showed the other major and clubs, you must pass 3♣ because that's a preference between the 2 suits you have shown according to your agreement.

 

The fact that you had forgotten your agreement does not give you the right to correct to 3♦ once partner gave you a wake-up call.

 

The reason for it is this: If LHO hadn't asked, you would have assumed that 3♣ was a wish to play there (own suit), although you thought that you had shown the other major and any minor. Your partner's explanation is UI for you, and consequently you will have to pass - provided that 3♣ is non forcing of course.

 

Roland

[Echognome]

Your partner's explanation is UI for you, and consequently you will have to pass - provided that 3♣ is non forcing of course.

That was the key point I think which hasn't been answered. The question is one of what would partner's 3♣ bid mean if playing Michael's as spades and a minor. If 3♣ means pass or correct, then not a problem to bid 3♦. If 3♣ is natural and forcing, then not a problem to bid 3♦. Only if 3♣ is natural and non-forcing must you pass.

[Double !]

To Roland and Echognome:

 

Again, thank you for your responses.

 

I thought that this was the correct ruling, too. My point for posting the hand is my suspicion that there might be many devout and experienced bridge players who might be quite familiar with the concept of UIs including what does and does not constitute UI, but who might be less than sufficiently informed about the proper procedures for handling various UI situations. I was actually hoping that this discussion might trigger some other posts related to UI experiences, and how they were and/or should be handled. Most of you are much more accomplished bridge players than I, and likely play live infinitely more often that I currently do. That is one reason why I value your feedback (all of you) and information. I personally don't currently have the time to review all of the rules and regs. I suspect that many BBO players (forum participants or not) are quite under-informed about such UI matters (and various alert issues), and that this might come up and bite them at an inconvenient time such as in a BBO event or a live game. Just thought this (handling UIs) might be a useful general topic for discussion.

 

thanks: Don

[Guest Jlall]

Correcting to 3D is grossly taking advantage of the UI. You cannot do this. I would go one step farther than the commitee and say that you would have to pass 3C if they cracked it.

[Double !]

Justin: thank you for your response...

 

Just 1 clarification and one question: First of all, "I didn't do it"--the hand and accompanying UI story were told to me.

 

But, I am unclear about why one should be proscribed from bidding 3 diamonds after 3CX is passed back to him/her? It seems illogical that this would suggest investigation for a higher-level club contract: one would pass 3 club/3cX. I am not clear where it is written that one is not permitted to try to correct a partnership error (or at least try to) during the course of the bidding provided that it is done in a procedurally correct manner? Or, are you saying that there is no way for a partnership to escape such an error situation once it has been disclosed, even if the attempt to correct the situation is clearly indicative of a natural bid correction.

 

Suppose someone (T.Reese's "The Joker") decides to open/ psyche 1NT with a solid, running 7 card heart suit. If partner now raises unaware to 3NT, are you saying that opener is now not permitted to correct to 4H assuming that opener chooses to do so?

 

This issue of correcting a partnership misunderstanding or error happens so frequently with less than expert and/or established partnerships when it comes to transfer bids, especially in competitive situations. Please advise how, if at all, a partnership can escape from a silly contract due to partnership error within the guidelines and procedures without creating UI turmoil.

 

 

and I suspect that most players have experienced similar situations at one time or another.......

 

Thanks, Don

[LH2650]

But, I am unclear about why one should be proscribed from bidding 3 diamonds after 3CX is passed back to him/her?

Suppose your agreement was that the cuebid showed the other major and diamonds, and that partner properly alerted and explained it, and then bid 3 clubs. If the opponents then doubled, would you pull? I hope not. Partner knows much more about your hand than you do about his. That is the logic that you must use in your actual situation, since you are not entitled to use the knowledge that he thinks you have clubs.

 

Are you aware that if this case went to an NABC appeals committee, you can find it on the ACBL website in an Appeals Casebook, and read an expert analysis of the director's and committee's decisions?

[Guest Jlall]

Right, LH2650 hit it on the head. If you had already shown hearts and a minor, and partner said i dont care i have clubs then you wont overrule that. He should have 7 or 8 clubs.

[Double !]

Makes sense to me. Sorry, sometimes can't see the forest through the trees.

Thank you again, Justin, and thank you LH.....sincerely appreciate the discussion, the feedback, your time, and your effort.

 

MORAL: never forget your agreements.

 

Still wondering whether some others have had situations involving and coping with UIs, and how they were resolved.

[keylime]

I don't mind the hesitation rulings nearly as much as I do the "played card" rulings - many TD's are just ignorant about Law 45.

[Double !]

will have to look up rule 45

like I said, it's been a while since I've played live tourneys

 

Please don't tell me that, if partner selects a card, starts to pull it out of his/her hand, replaces it and selects a different lead, even if there was no way that anyone could have seen the card, that this constitutes UI in terms of leader's partner now knowing that the opening lead wasn't "relatively" automatic or clear, i.e. that opening leader had a problem and partner better not "take advantage of" this lead "UI". I knew a fine player eons ago who sometimes spent considerable time sitting at a table playing cards over and over at the same pace in order to automate or maintain as much play and bid tempo as possible via repetition and more repetition.

[whereagles]

30 years ago tournament directors weren't as well prepared as they are nowadays. I'm sure if it were today you'd get a ruling "result stands". You have a pretty good case to bid 5D if you ask me...

 

By the way, if you disagree with a ruling, you can always appeal.

[Fluffy]

It seems to me there was a missinterpretation of the tempos, the ruling has been taken as if partner had thought over 4♠, not 1♠.