[Walddk]

Jlall, on Oct 18 2005, 10:26 PM, said:

2S decent hand, 3S good hand, 4S really good hand. Sorry to be so detailed

Fair enough, so in which category do you place the West hand? It is neither! Not even for a leaping Michaels.

Roland

[Walddk]

Jlall, on Oct 18 2005, 10:56 PM, said:

I would bid 2S with this hand, admittedly way too light on defense for that bid... With a weaker hand but similar I would pass and bid later (can't preempt over a preempt...)

And you would feel sick if the bidding proceeds 4♥, double to you.

Roland

[junyi_zhu]

Jlall, on Oct 18 2005, 08:56 PM, said:

I would bid 2S with this hand, admittedly way too light on defense for that bid... With a weaker hand but similar I would pass and bid later (can't preempt over a preempt...)

Bridge is a game of spades, gotta bid 2S over 2H I believe. 2S is from a good weak 2 or weak 3 to a normal opener.

[mikeh]

I am with Justin: I would bid 2♠here. It is an overbid in terms of high card but it delivers appropriate playing strength. I would never sit for a double, because I lack the suggested defensive tricks and partner promised some high cards: in fact on, such an auction, I would not be the least surprised to see both games make.

As to whether the hesitation suggested bidding: any pass by partner, slow or in tempo, would signal that 4♥ was making. No matter what 3♠ showed, he had the minimum defence imaginable and partner did not think that he had 4 tricks: no double.

So any speed of pass suggests bidding, except for two points.

One: the opps might have misjudged the 3♠ bid and thus be about to miss a good slam. the chances of their bidding it after you bid 4♠ may be low, but it is not negligible: your bid will show that something was odd about your first bid.

Two: and more importantly in my view, on a bad day, 4♠ doubled might turn out to be an error: on a bad day, partner is 1=4=6=2 or or the like and you go 800 or more.

The hesitation suggests that this latter risk is negligible. Partner was thinking of doing something. If it was doubling, well, you were pulling anyway, and his hcp will stand you in good stead in 4♠. If he was thinking of biddng 4♠, then of course you are delighted.

So I think the committee is wrong.

Having said that, as someone who once won a major event based in part on a controversial committee ruling and as someone who often sits on committees, this kind of problem is by far the toughest issue to regularly come up. The committee members are often tired (if they have been playing), they are under time pressure, players tempers are on edge, and the committee rarely meets with any sense of peace for its deliberations. The result that committees often make 'wrong' decisions is inevitable... but I have yet to see a workable alternative (and, yes, I have read of a number of suggestions including those made a few years ago by Fred G... whose opinion merits more respect than mine, but with whom I then and now disagree on this point)

[Walddk]

Although I agree with almost everything MikeH says, I am not entirely convinced that the hesitation made it demonstrably safer to bid. What Mike does not mention among his two points is the possibility that advancer might have been thinking of introducing diamonds, or even both minors.

If he had diamonds, he discarded the idea after some thought, and that goes for both minors as well (4NT one would assume). Sometimes it's not that obvious to make a decision in tempo. But I do realise, of course, that by hesitating, then passing, you may prevent your partner from bidding.

That's how it is at present, and one has to accept that. If one doesn't like the rules as they are, one's got to change them first.

Roland

[luke warm]

i disagree that east had nothing to think about... i doubt i could have passed quickly while trying to figure out what 3S meant... i'd probably have bid 4S as east (after thinking), because it wouldn't occur to me that 3S is weak

[mikeh]

I had thought about the possibility that east was thinking of a minor or both, but my post was already (too) long

And it is a minor (no pun) issue: on a frequency basis partner is relatively unlikely on this auction to be saving with no fit for you and a guess as to what hand you are showing. It seems far more likely that he is thinking of doubling or bidding 4♠: and I understand the test to be whether the hesitation 'suggested' (not demonstrated) that bidding was the correct choice. So the odds that the hesitiation suggested certain hands is relevant.

[Chamaco]

I pass over 4H.
The 3S bid was already a gross distortion of the hand, and it seems to me that rebidding 4S after a gross distortion is too much of a 1-sided decision.

Both passing and bidding can be wrong of couse but I believe that pass is the "partnership bid", if I rebid twice with such a lousy hand, pard might feel (not unreasonably, IMO) unrespected.

I might lose some IMPS, I won't lose a partner :-) (and yes, I am among those who prefer a partner who is "in tune"- even losing the match - rather than a pard that makes the winning bid on his own).

[FrancesHinden]

I agree with everything Mikeh said.

By the way, I don't get 4H+1 by the original TD. I would rule 4H+2 on a spade lead.

[Walddk]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 19 2005, 01:58 PM, said:

By the way, I don't get 4H+1 by the original TD. I would rule 4H+2 on a spade lead.

Agreed. If I had been the TD, I wouldn't have allowed a diamond lead ("worst possible result for the offending side" = 4♥+2).

Roland

[42]

I am with the committee in this case. A committee should of course decide according to the rules and the law, but the circumstances play also a role. Not all murderers go into jail for the same time although they all killed somebody. So:
- It was no regular partnership.
- The 3♠-bid is "unusual", which no-regular partnership has an agreement here? So for me the reasoning of the hesitation (just to try to work out what 3♠ meant) sounds honest and is more or less prooved after a look at the hand. It happens all the time that players just think about what is going on even when they could easily pass. Experienced players know the rules and what trouble can be caused by that and try to avoid such situation (pass first, think then).
- A hesitation does not always mean that this player thinks about bidding, he could also try to prevent partner from bidding (unethical, of course, but I've seen that before!!) It is more likely that a player can make use of the UI when he knows his partner well. And a hesitation could just mean nothing as well.
- An unauthorized information is not what is punished, it is the utilization of the UI. That means that if the partner of the (here) hesitator bids on, he has no logical alternatives and can proove it, he does exactly do the same what he had done without an UI; otherwise the score will be adjusted. Let 3♠ be as bad as you want: how many defensive tricks does this player have? It is risky to bid on, sure. Since the hesitation can mean: I would like to bid but I have no clearcut bid, partner, I would rather defend 4♥ than our side to play 4♠ or I am wondering what is going on here, which is the information that "influenced" the 3♠-bidder? It is a pure guess. If 4♠ would have been down for a million, nobody had said a word.

Now hit me
Caren

[mycroft]

mikeh, on Oct 18 2005, 06:16 PM, said:

and I understand the test to be whether the hesitation 'suggested' (not demonstrated) that bidding was the correct choice. So the odds that the hesitiation suggested certain hands is relevant.

Here's the Law (16A): "[After UI from partner] partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could *demonstrably have been suggested* over another by the extraneous information." (my emphasis)

This changed in the 1997 Laws. In 1987, the emphasized phrase was "reasonably have been suggested". According to Rich Colker in the late 90's era Appeals Casebooks, this change in wording was deliberate and intended to move findings from "yeah, that makes sense" (reasonable) to "with these hands partner wouldn't [provide UI]. With these hands it's much more likely. Knowing that partner has this kind of hand suggests [action or group of actions]' (demonstrable).

That information is ACBL-centric, but other countries have similar interpretations. Frankly, the problem was - and is - that pretty much anything is "reasonable" - you can make an argument that almost anything "makes sense" - thus promoting "if it hesitates, shoot it" (or "if they hesitate, we get a good score").

Michael.