[schulken]

1D by E alerted as Walsh. P by N over 1NT followed a significant hesitation.

---

Sorry, I've been away for a while but I'm still getting these tough calls.

ACBL. A players.

N disagrees there was a significant hesitation. He says he waited six second for both his first and second pass. W especially disagrees and states that the second pass was preceded by a significant hesitation. S states that he knows his partner has values as opener has limited his hand and he believes E is weak with a long ♦ suit based on the auction. Further, he believes that both E and W have denied majors. The hand was played at 2♥ by S making 3.

Is pass a logical alternative for S? N has shown no interest in bidding even after S made a two-suited takeout double.

As always, I appreciate your input.

[barmar]

Walsh isn't alertable in ACBL, but I don't think that's relevant to this case.

[mink]

Yes, pass is LA. E/W may have up to 23 HCP. They problably have a ♦-Fit, but this does not mean that we have a ♥-fit, it could also be a ♣-fit or no fit at all. The hesitation makes it more likely that we have the HCP-majority, and therefore suggest bidding.

Karl

[Cyberyeti]

S's 2♥ must be disallowed I think but it's close, opps could have 14 opposite 9 easily without the hesitation, although N will have at least a 9 count and is very unlikely to have a 4 card major for his pass. He could easily be 3244 with your side having no 8 card fit. The hesitation suggests values but no fit, so the call clearly suggested is X, 2♥ is a gamble and I'm not sure if it's suggested.

N has 13 points opposite his (admittedly passed hand) partner's X, if S passes I'd be very surprised if he let the auction go. N knows he has HCP majority. Is X from N pens or T/O on the end of this auction ? If pens, 2♦X makes on a top spade lead, but goes for 200 on a heart lead. I believe the ACBL doesn't split scores so there's a case for -180.

[Zelandakh]

mink, on 2013-April-19, 02:19, said:

Yes, pass is LA.

I assume you wanted to add "at any form of scoring" at the end of this.

Cyberyeti, on 2013-April-19, 03:09, said:

N knows he has HCP majority.

Presumably N knew this when RHO bid 1NT too.

schulken, on 2013-April-18, 22:31, said:

N disagrees there was a significant hesitation. He says he waited six second for both his first and second pass.

6 seconds is an age for most players. Is N claiming that they always wait 6 seconds before bidding? You can find out by asking opps from a previous round. More likely, North has made the BIT twice, doubly showing values. From a personal standpoint, I would often bid 2♥ here since I think it basically shows this hand type. But I would feel constrained after a BIT.

[Cascade]

mink, on 2013-April-19, 02:19, said:

The hesitation makes it more likely that we have the HCP-majority, and therefore suggest bidding.

This isn't logical. That is the conclusion does not follow from your premise any more than "and therefore suggests passing" would. More hcp means more hcp on offense and more hcp on defense. We need an additional assumption, for example we might have game, before bidding is suggested over passing than simply we have a HCP-majority. It is hard to believe that with a relatively unremarkable 8 count that we are likely to be missing a game when partner couldn't find a bid with or without a hesitation. We need something from the hestitation that suggests partner's hand is more suited to offense than defense.

As it happens partner was 2=3 in the majors and is unlikely to have been thinking of bidding a major. I imagine he could have been 3=2 and we would have had no fit and potentially in trouble and rescuing the opponents from a bad contract. I can't see what in the hestitation suggested he would have a fitting a hand.

[chrism]

Whether Pass is an LA is only one of the questions that needs to be answered before adjusting a score. In this instance it seems clear that it is.
Was there damage to the opponents? Not clear, since as noted above, even if a Pass is imposed on South, the auction isn't over at that point.
Was there UI? Yes, provided it is determined that there was an unmistakable hesitation.

Did the UI suggest a more advantageous course of action that South adopted? I didn't think so at first sight; I am less sure on reflection.

If you decide to make South pass, you must project results, determine possible damage, and assign a score according to local regulations (possibly split, since this happened in the ACBL world).

[wank]

expecting north to act over 2♦ when he declined to take a much easier action over 1NT, i.e. double, is a little odd.

as for not suggesting bidding on, the hesitation implies points or a fit. in either case, that improves the chances of making/avoiding getting massacred.

[schulken]

After having a chance to sleep on this, I had a few other thoughts. N showed (assuming both of his passes are in tempo) no interest in bidding over opener's 1♣ and no interest in bidding over opener's rebid of 1NT, despite partner's double of 1♦. He must be thinking that he would rather defend against 1NT, which I think is reasonable with his holding. Now, E has corrected to 2♦. I think S has told his partner everything he can about his hand. N still has a call and may choose to balance against 2♦, likely 2♥ if he believes his partner's double, but that should be his call rather than S's, especially considering the tank.

Sidebar - how would you feel about N balancing if S went into the tank before passing 2♦? IMO, the only thing S would convey with a hesitation and pass is that his hand may be weaker that he might have first presented. He was willing to play either major at his first call but now he's not willing to name either suit. If N decides to jump into the auction at that time, it would likely be because of my comments in the first paragraph.

[barmar]

Cascade, on 2013-April-19, 06:28, said:

This isn't logical. That is the conclusion does not follow from your premise any more than "and therefore suggests passing" would. More hcp means more hcp on offense and more hcp on defense.

But the shortness in diamonds suggests offense rather than defense. Although it looks to me like 2♦X does better than 2♥ (looks like +2 on this layout).

previous pass implies that 2♠ will be at best a 4-3 fit, with the long hand taking the forces, so that doesn't seem like an LA. So the LAs are Pass, Double, and 2♥. The hesitation suggests action over passing, but I don't think it implies any particular preference between Double and 2♥.

[mycroft]

Assuming there was a break in tempo - big assumption based on the discussion in the OP, but not that big based on North's hand - then abolutely Pass is a LA to 2♥ on a moth-eaten suit partner didn't bid. South's argument, for an A player, that West has more than "probably" denied majors, seems specious to me - some of my B players that might believe this because *they'd* never have a major have 1200 MPs (and so have to play in A), but not a real A player.

Bidding with the hand he's shown, just because they've found his short suit rather than his 3-card minor, amuses me. I'd wait a month and have your regular partner give this hand to South as a bidding problem. Double (bringing clubs back into the picture) seems better than 2♥, but it's still a max-defence 8-count.

Having said all that, North isn't going to let 2♦ go at MPs. If he doubles, does South pass? If he bids 2♥, how does that play the other way up (and with the opponents having a better idea of declarer's strength-and-distribution than when South bids it)?

All very interesting questions. But 2♦ undoubled is not a possible ruling, at least in my mind.

[nige1]

Shulken writes "Sorry, I've been away for a while but I'm still getting these tough calls. ACBL. A players. 1D by E alerted as Walsh. P by N over 1NT followed a significant hesitation. N disagrees there was a significant hesitation. He says he waited six second for both his first and second pass. W especially disagrees and states that the second pass was preceded by a significant hesitation. S states that he knows his partner has values as opener has limited his hand and he believes E is weak with a long ♦ suit based on the auction. Further, he believes that both E and W have denied majors. The hand was played at 2♥ by S making 3. Is pass a logical alternative for S? N has shown no interest in bidding even after S made a two-suited takeout double.

IMO Pass and 2♥ are LAs for South and North's hesitations suggest 2♥. South passed initially but then doubled and bid again opposite a partner who had passed twice. The director might ask North why he passed a third time in case North felt that his hesitations had already expressed his values

---

[Cascade]

barmar, on 2013-April-19, 10:11, said:

But the shortness in diamonds suggests offense rather than defense.

This of course is authorised and therefore does not constrain the player.

barmar, on 2013-April-19, 10:11, said:

The hesitation suggests action over passing, but I don't think it implies any particular preference between Double and 2♥.

Why does the hesitation suggest bidding a bad suit over passing? It could easily be, if partner has values and no fit, that both double and pass are better than 2♥.

[barmar]

Cascade, on 2013-April-20, 01:57, said:

Why does the hesitation suggest bidding a bad suit over passing? It could easily be, if partner has values and no fit, that both double and pass are better than 2♥.

I didn't say it suggested bidding a bad suit over passing. I said it suggests action, i.e. either bidding or doubling. The hesitation suggests that our side has values, and allowing them to play at the 2 level undoubled is not consistent with that.

The hesitation is irrelevant, IMHO, when then choosing between the bad suit and doubling, that's a regular judgement call.

[Cascade]

barmar, on 2013-April-20, 10:43, said:

I didn't say it suggested bidding a bad suit over passing. I said it suggests action, i.e. either bidding or doubling. The hesitation suggests that our side has values, and allowing them to play at the 2 level undoubled is not consistent with that.

The hesitation is irrelevant, IMHO, when then choosing between the bad suit and doubling, that's a regular judgement call.

1. The law requires more than "suggests action over pass". One action is double a completely different action is bidding a suit. The ordering could be 2♥ is more suggested than Pass which is more suggested than Double or the reverse (or other possible orderings). In those two cases, action, the combined weight of bidding and Pass, may well be suggested over Pass but one of the particular actions, 2♥ or Double, is not suggested over Pass. The law requires that the selected action "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" action.

2. "The hesitation suggests that our side has values" is flawed. We have an eight count. Partner can have a twelve count and we still do not have a clear majority of the values. Partner may have been hesitant about bidding with a suit and considerably less than this.
Even if the choice was ours it is easy to construct examples with our sides "values" but with no fit where neither 2♥ makes nor 2♦ goes down which illustrates that "allowing them to play at the 2 level is not consistent with that" is false.

3. In a live auction, that is not in the pass out seat, the alternative to our decision to bid or double is not to play 2♦ undoubled. Partner has another bid. Partner could easily and demonstrably have five diamonds and be wanting to hit 2♦. This does not suggest bidding 2♥ over pass. Opposite a competent partner, I think quite strongly that values and diamond length is a much more likely hand than values and a major suit. Since values and a major suit are hands which would have a very easy action of bidding the major over 1NT. Perhaps I am swayed somewhat in this position in that personally I like to make a free 'raise' when we have a known fit but I am conservative when doubling 1NT. Nevertheless, I think that one could easily make a case that Pass is suggested over 2♥ by the slow Pass of 1NT.

[bluejak]

schulken, on 2013-April-18, 22:31, said:

N disagrees there was a significant hesitation. He says he waited six second for both his first and second pass. W especially disagrees and states that the second pass was preceded by a significant hesitation. S states that he knows his partner has values as opener has limited his hand and he believes E is weak with a long ♦ suit based on the auction. Further, he believes that both E and W have denied majors. The hand was played at 2♥ by S making 3.

Is pass a logical alternative for S? N has shown no interest in bidding even after S made a two-suited takeout double.

If North hesitated for six seconds before both his passes then South has twice as much UI that North has a decent hand.

South is correct that the auction shows that North has values: in any protective position you can fairly safely assume you have at least 17 points between you, so North can be assumed to have at least nine points. But his two hesitations show he has more, pretty certainly an opening bid.

"South believes that East and West have denied the majors." Does he indeed: presumably he has no idea of Walsh? Since East has denied a major unless he has game forcing values, there is no need for West to show one, so he could easily have one or even two majors.

Is pass an LA for South? Obviously: it is not difficult to find people who do not show their hand twice with eight points opposite a passing partner and two bidding opponents.

North has admitted to giving UI to his partner twice.

So, UI is proved, pass is an LA is demonstrated, the only question is whether the UI suggests 2♥ over pass. In my view, it does, and furthermore, I bet South knows it. Thus I adjust, and worry about South's ethical stance.

Cascade, on 2013-April-20, 14:58, said:

1. The law requires more than "suggests action over pass".

The Law does not: it is a sufficient condition but not a necessary one. If any action is suggested over pass then 2♥ is suggested over pass and we adjust.

[Cyberyeti]

Quote

N knows he has HCP majority

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-19, 05:57, said:

Presumably N knew this when RHO bid 1NT too.

Yes he did, but probably fancied his chances of 200 out of 1N, might fancy that less over 2♦.

[blackshoe]

North said he "waited six seconds" before both calls. West says the second pass was preceded by a significant hesitation. Which one is right? David seems to think not only that West is right, but that North has admitted West is right not only on the second call but on the first as well. There is, however, another possibility - that North's normal tempo is six seconds, or that he is trying to establish six seconds as his normal tempo. While on balance I would agree it's likely that North did break tempo, and his statement simply attempts to justify or mitigate that fact, IMO it is something that the TD at the table needs to consider before leaping on the "he hesitated!" bandwagon.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-23, 09:37, said:

IMO it is something that the TD at the table needs to consider before leaping on the "he hesitated!" bandwagon.

The point was already made Ed.

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-19, 05:57, said:

6 seconds is an age for most players. Is N claiming that they always wait 6 seconds before bidding? You can find out by asking opps from a previous round.