[nekthen]

What were your partner's options?
If you can make 4♠ I would think he should have doubled.

[eagles123]

I'd bid 4s without a seconds thought even with the BIT

[ArtK78]

The OP did not mention that partner did anything out of the ordinary over 4♥. Other posters are assuming that there was some hitch or other mannerism or there would not be a problem.

My answer to the question assumed no hitch or other problem. I would bid over 4♥ regardless, but I can certainly understand if the opps objected if partner did hitch over 4♥ (other than the customary delay over a skip bid).

[jodepp]

Since the replies run the gamut of '4♠ is obvious' to 'Pass is clear', it appears as if the thread author is under some ethical pressure here. I applaud the thread author for not taking an action that may have been suggested by the hesitation (particularly the quick 'reach and stop' into the bid box). I also think the 4♥ opener wasn't being particularly sportsmanlike when 4♥ hit the table without the stop card first.

Under normal conditions (meaning 'no side ethical issues') I think I'd bid 4♠, but in all honesty I can't say for sure.

[kenberg]

As Art says, my OP did not mention the hitch. I was having trouble deciding what I would or would not do w/o the hitch and so I wanted to see what others would do if seeing it just as a straight decision. I still thinkk of the Mr.Ace evaluation, neither suicidal nor obvious, as about right. Of course that leaves a lot of open space between the extremes.

Fwiw, I will give you the full hand, and then I will give you the full hand with my partner's hand and my RHO's hand interchanged (as they might have been, on the same auction).

Hands as they were:

---

Exchanging N and E.

---

This seems to lend support to those who choose 4S. As the cards actually were, 4S cannot be beaten. With the N and E cards switched, 4S could go down if the oppoents start with their three club tricks but that isn't likely. If a red card is led, say the King of hearts, then a club is pitched on the ace of hearts, declarer plays Ace and another diamond, and eventually he ruffs diamonds twice and then picks up the doubleton king of spades. A trump lead at trick 1 should beat it also. But most likely, I think, is that the opening lead is the heart K or the stiff diamond and so it makes.

I think many people, including me, would open the W hand with 1H. But then NS easily find either 5D or 4S. Interestingly, if the defense to 4H begiins with the King of spades and another spade then South needs to shift to a club or else this will make. Partner started with the diamond King, and declarer, perhaps lazily, put her faith in running the club finesse twice. If instead she wins the first diamond and plays a spade from the board, I might well have hopped up with the Ace and tried another diamond. Now she makes it: Ruff, draw the trump spade to partner's King and partner is stuck. There were a couple of 420s for EW so maybe that's what happened.


All in all, it's an interesting hand. I still don't feel that I can bid after the hitch.

While writing this I see that jodepp approves of my choice on the reasons given. Thanks. Some things are close calls, I felt that this, after the hitch, was not. I like to think that in a disputed call that a committee that overrules my choice will at least trust that I reasonably thought I was entitled to my call, even if they disagree with my choice.

Btw: I would not swear to it that there was no stop card presented. It was a week plus ago and I am just not sure.. She is intense and aggressive, but I trust her general intentions. This was an afternoon game at a sectional, standards are sometimes a little loose. If pard had just thought for a modest bit of time, that's all, and then if I had bid 4S, I would expect to win any battle about the legitimacy of that call.

[WesleyC]

kenberg, on 2015-June-12, 14:24, said:

Ok, some for 4S some for pass, which of course means that I can't bit it after the hitch. My feeling was that 4S wasn't crazy but I certainly wouldn't relish explaining to some skeptical audience why it was of course a clear cut call.

I'll never be sure what I would have done w/o the hitch, but anyway having some votes for and some against matches pretty well with the way I thought of it.

Firstly, well done for choosing to pass on this hand given the UI - it was definitely the ethical action. However, the way you've justified the pass feels slightly inconsistent with the rules.

From your comments above, it sounds like at the table you had a legitimate decision between passing out 4H and balancing with 4S. In your own words "you'll never be sure what you would've done without the hitch". So in your mind, pass IS a logical alternative.

Now, if we can also assume that partner's hesitation suggests bidding 4S rather than passing, then you are ethically obligated to pass. That's it - end of story.

Even if every respondent to this thread had described 4S as 100% clear, you would still not ethically be allowed to bid 4S, because (in your mind) pass was a logical alternative. Instead you would simply have proved that you could've cheated by bidding 4S and gotten away with it!

On a related note, if you're interested in improving your competitive bidding in situations that are similar to this you should definitely check out PhilKing's 1H P 4H MEGAQUIZ:

http://www.bridgebas...s-4h-mega-quiz/

[kenberg]

WesleyC, on 2015-June-13, 08:21, said:

On a related note, if you're interested in improving your competitive bidding in situations that are similar to this you should definitely check out PhilKing's 1H P 4H MEGAQUIZ:

http://www.bridgebas...s-4h-mega-quiz/

I'll do that, thanks.

These UI situations can lead to strange results. Long ago I was in a situation where I had to make a similar decision under similar circumstance but with the following added feature: Maybe a couple of weeks earlier I had bid on and had my call reversed by wiser (?) heads. I had thought the reversal wrong but we must accept authority. So there I was again, and I did not want to get a bad reputation, so I passed it out. The winning choice, as it happened. No, partner was not gaming the system by hesitating to bar me from the auction, sometimes (a little know fact) it is just right to pass.

[MrAce]

I have a question, it's been long time so I forgot.

IF this hand went to committee and they polled among peers. What % would convince the committee that it is a clear 4♠ with or without hesitation?

[zillahandp]

4s unless vul agin nv, then it would depend on scoring. and how we doing only unlikely to bid at imps and if winning well cos ups will bid it if behind

[ArtK78]

What UI?

What hesitation?

Whether or not West used the stop card or announced "skip bid, please wait," or did nothing other than make her bid, North is required to wait approximately 10 seconds over a skip bid. So are you saying that North hesitated well in excess of 10 seconds before passing?

I am assuming ACBL regulations in effect here, although I believe that the rules on skip bids are not significantly different elsewhere.

[kenberg]

Art,

I explained, maybe not clearly, that there was some hand motion toward the bidding box that pretty clearly indicated a change of mind. The pause for thought indeed was not constraining since it was not pronounced, not longer than what is normally expected over a 4H opening whether second hand has values or not. . But the motion was such that I was aware that partner had considered something other than pass, or at least I thought he had, and as you can see from the hands that was correct. He mentioned after the hand he had considered coming in with a 5D call.

Whatever happened exactly, assume for discussion that it was such that it was clear to me that N had considered acting over the 4H call. After which:

I thought 4S w/o UI was touch and go.
I am happy with Mr.Ace's description of 4S as neither suicidal nor obvious,
and with UI it could not be bid.


As mentioned, we will never know, even I will never know, what I would have done w/o the UI.

[WesleyC]

MrAce, on 2015-June-13, 10:07, said:

IF this hand went to committee and they polled among peers. What % would convince the committee that it is a clear 4♠ with or without hesitation?

I'm not sure if there is a definitive answer to this - you might be better to ask on the director's forum.

Maybe one reason that such an abstract definition exists is that practical considerations can take precedence. From my experience (in Australia), when making a LA ruling the director tries to present the problem to 4 or 5 players that are considered to be "peers". Among those peers if multiple players would consider an action and at least one of them would actually choose it then it becomes a LA.

I received this director's ruling earlier in the year, near the end of an Australian National.

IMPs NV vs VUL

(2C*) - P - (P) - ???
*10-14 HCP, (5)6+C

You hold: [JT9532 QJ6 75 K3], what are the logical alternatives?

The player with the decision was world class. The director polled 4 peers and although (i'm guessing here) they must've considered passing, all of them chose to bid 2S so pass was not deemed to be a logical alternative.

I was the 2C bidder on the hand and LHO had moved to open out of turn and been stopped. I felt a bit hard done by the ruling, but according to the laws what more could the director do?

[kenberg]

I would also feel abused by that 2S call. Surely passing it out isn't crazy. For one thing, if partner has something, which he probably does, so that I can make 2S he might take me seriously and put me in more spades. We sometimes get these hands where we would like to say "I bid 2S and I want to play 2S, not 3S" but we are not allowed to do that. Of course in this case the 2S bidder has already shown his values so he can take it easy.

As mentioned before, I see a different level of responsibility when we have brought it on ourselves. In my case partner, inadvertently but avoidably, indicated strength when he, to my mind, changed his mind while reaching for a bid card. In your case, your left hand opponent clearly, and of course again inadvertently, indicated strength. As far as I know, no distinction is made between this situation and the cases where a player simply has to take a bit of time in a complex auction. Of course taking this time shows that he has the values to do something, and that constrains his partner. But I think it should constrain him less than when the UI was a result of carelessness. I would like something such as: In a complex auction, after some pause, partner can make a call if it is a highly reasonable call even if there are in fact "logical alternatives" in the sense that someone somewhere would have opted for this other choice.


At any rate, I would have felt embarrassed explaining why my 4S call was clearly the only logical choice.

[gabrielf]

When in doubt BID 4spades o ver 4hearts.
And tris time I am not even in doubt.

A friénd of mine would add: if You never go for 800 then you don't know how to play bridge.

[ArtK78]

kenberg, on 2015-June-13, 13:40, said:

Art,

I explained, maybe not clearly, that there was some hand motion toward the bidding box that pretty clearly indicated a change of mind. The pause for thought indeed was not constraining since it was not pronounced, not longer than what is normally expected over a 4H opening whether second hand has values or not. . But the motion was such that I was aware that partner had considered something other than pass, or at least I thought he had, and as you can see from the hands that was correct. He mentioned after the hand he had considered coming in with a 5D call.

Whatever happened exactly, assume for discussion that it was such that it was clear to me that N had considered acting over the 4H call. After which:

I thought 4S w/o UI was touch and go.
I am happy with Mr.Ace's description of 4S as neither suicidal nor obvious,
and with UI it could not be bid.


As mentioned, we will never know, even I will never know, what I would have done w/o the UI.

Sorry. I did not see your post about the supposed "hitch" in reaching for bidding box cards.

[blackshoe]

A "hitch" in reaching for the bidding box may not demonstrably suggest one thing or another, depending on when it happened. One thing I've seen is a thought process that goes reach for the bidding box, "oh, wait a skip bid I have to pause". That doesn't demonstrably suggest much of anything either. If he was clearly reaching for a bid, though, that does suggest he has something. So I'm with Ken here - I think South is constrained.

Absent any constraint, I think 4♠ is clear at these colors and scoring.

[billw55]

For me there are two ways to think about this situation, two ways to handle it ethically.

One is to pass, as Ken did.

The other is to consider the AI, and make the bid I think is right - in this case, 4♠ - and then invite the opponents to consult the director. I have done this in tournaments a few times. I consider that, whatever else one might say about my hand evaluation and bidding skills, they are still substantially more developed than my self-director skills. If the director rules that 4♠ is permissible, then that is correct, and I am entitled to have bid it. One could also argue that the other pairs playing the same direction as my opponents are entitled to have me bid it.

Of course, I gladly accept whatever ruling director gives. But if I only pass, I will not really know what the correct ruling is. One could even consider that passing amounts to making a ruling, which players are not supposed to do.