[Stephen Tu]

---

Edit: IMP scoring

[HardVector]

So, my bid is reflective of the idea that if my partner had both minors and preemptive/strong values, they would have bid either 1n (sandwich) or 2n. If they had both suits and competitive, they would have doubled. So, partner has diamonds, does NOT have clubs, so I went for defense because I'm not sure my club values are working for offense.

[rmnka447]

Who has what? There's just no way to know.

RHO has likely bid 4 ♥ on a long broken suit as a shutout. With a big hand with ♥, a slower forcing approach might be taken because LHO's hand hasn't been limited as yet.

It looks like all the firepower to take tricks has to come from partner except for your ability to ruff ♠. That seems like a lot to ask, so I'm just going to stay fixed and pass.

[cherdano]

I think you got to bid 5♦ here. If partner has xxx x AKxxxx Kxx that's a double game swing with a trick to spare. Obviously that's a perfect fit but we are usually just 500 down and they'll almost always be making.

[Stephen Tu]

cherdano, on 2019-March-19, 02:49, said:

I think you got to bid 5♦ here. If partner has xxx x AKxxxx Kxx that's a double game swing with a trick to spare.

Uh, bidding 5d being a good idea is something I can get on board with, on the grounds that usually profitable sacrifice, rare double game swing, very rarely phantom; but I don't understand the "double game swing with a trick to spare" comment along with this example. Isn't "double game swing with trick to spare" = we make slam, not = we go down at least 1?

[Tramticket]

What is the form of scoring?

I don't doubt that they will make 4♥, but one worry about bidding is that we might help them into a making slam.

[Stephen Tu]

Sorry, forgot to specify IMP scoring.

[Cyberyeti]

What's your overcalling style ? Does partner do this on AKQJx possibly and a little more mainly for the lead ? Is it always a serious hand ? There is a danger you're about to dial an absolute telephone number here.

[Stephen Tu]

Overcalling style pretty sound at the 2 level (1 level much less so). Partner has made comment to effect that he thinks "lead direction is overrated" so is unlikely to have done so solely for that purpose on this auction, vs auction like 1M-p-2nt (gf raise) - 3x, where he has taken liberties for the lead believing most opps unable to effectively penalize on the latter auction.

[Cyberyeti]

Stephen Tu, on 2019-March-19, 10:33, said:

Overcalling style pretty sound at the 2 level (1 level much less so). Partner has made comment to effect that he thinks "lead direction is overrated" so is unlikely to have done so solely for that purpose on this auction, vs auction like 1M-p-2nt (gf raise) - 3x, where he has taken liberties for the lead believing most opps unable to effectively penalize on the latter auction.

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but I see potential disasters looming:

a) partner has ♠A and ♦A and you're beating 4♥ either with 2 ruffs or a ruff and a trump promotion.

b) They have a misfit, and they're cashing 2 hearts, 1 spade, 2 clubs and a club ruff or trump promotion, it can be even worse than that if W really has a lot of spades

[mikeh]

I think it is too dangerous to pass. We have a stiff spade. RHO probably has 7 hearts for his jump to game with no support. Wouldn't surprise me to learn that he has diamond shortage, and one of the reasons he blasted was to stop us from raising at a more comfortable level.

Yes, we can go for a number and, no, I don't expect to be making this (tho Axx x AKxxxx Kxx would be nice), but not only do we rate not to go for a number, but the opps may not realistically be able to score that number up anyway. After all, RHO has preempted his side as well, and it just seems unlikely (but not impossible) that LHO has the goods to double us here.

In a perfect world I'd know if my 5D sets up a forcing pass for them. It would not, for me, because Opener could have announced ownership of the hand rather than blast. However, I am not asking either opp If this is no fp situation, I've seen these auctions end up all pass and the opps score up an embarrassed 200.

I very much doubt that we both go for a number and could have set 4H. If so, then 800 (which would be a bad day) is lose 5: hardly disastrous.

If we were defending, are we leading the spade? I think we have to: I don't see how a minor suit lead accomplishes anything, and a trump is simply giving up. Since the odds are against partner holding the spade Ace, the odds are that they are making. On a bad (good?) day, a spade lead lets them make 13 tricks, and 800 would only be 3 imps

Edit: I think it important to make these decisions in tempo. Fortunately we are supposed to take a few seconds over the jump (I always pause, and think it essential that one develop this habit if one wants to be an ethical player....and to avoid ugly director call situations). Having been apparently considering my call for 5-10 secs, I bid 5D. If I feel so uncertain that I am still in the tank after 15+ seconds, I pass. As I say to some partners: if you're going to make a mistake, at least make it quickly!

[Stephen Tu]

mikeh, on 2019-March-19, 11:51, said:

Edit: I think it important to make these decisions in tempo. Fortunately we are supposed to take a few seconds over the jump (I always pause, and think it essential that one develop this habit if one wants to be an ethical player....and to avoid ugly director call situations). Having been apparently considering my call for 5-10 secs, I bid 5D. If I feel so uncertain that I am still in the tank after 15+ seconds, I pass. As I say to some partners: if you're going to make a mistake, at least make it quickly!

Rule say supposed to take 10 seconds after jump bids consistently. I hate opps who normally only take a few seconds. Then when they actually do take 10 seconds that is a break against their normal tempo, but you can never get a ruling since now they are taking the legally required tempo.

Don't understand the pass if prolonged tank and uncertain. Since either action could be a mistake at this point, the time for "if make a mistake do it quickly" has already passed. So if you have taken this long and decide it's a tossup, you might as well bid IMO, because your extra tank has now barred partner from acting with many of his borderline better hands that he might have chosen to double with if the pass had been in tempo. Better to tank then act then tank then pass, unless your tank makes you decide that pass is super-clear, when you are not in last position and partner can still potentially act.

[hrothgar]

I want to bid, but I am too chicken to do so at equal vul...
I think I would do so at favorable

[mikeh]

Stephen Tu, on 2019-March-19, 13:59, said:

Rule say supposed to take 10 seconds after jump bids consistently. I hate opps who normally only take a few seconds. Then when they actually do take 10 seconds that is a break against their normal tempo, but you can never get a ruling since now they are taking the legally required tempo.

Don't understand the pass if prolonged tank and uncertain. Since either action could be a mistake at this point, the time for "if make a mistake do it quickly" has already passed. So if you have taken this long and decide it's a tossup, you might as well bid IMO, because your extra tank has now barred partner from acting with many of his borderline better hands that he might have chosen to double with if the pass had been in tempo. Better to tank then act then tank then pass, unless your tank makes you decide that pass is super-clear, when you are not in last position and partner can still potentially act.

I don't 'count' 10 secs. Anytime an opponent is obviously counting the seconds, and then passes, everyone at the table knows he probably had an automatic pass. So I spend a 'few seconds', which is an entirely subjective but fairly consistent period, and I pay attention to my hand, and otherwise, as best as I know how, act exactly the same way with a problem or an easy decision.

Having said that, there are problems that I can't solve, to my satisfaction, in that period of time. I will take whatever time is needed, but in doing so I know that I am depriving my partner of an opportunity to use his judgement. Here, I am not the least bit worried about partner. The chances of his having a hand that could take action after an intempo pass by me are so low as to be irrelevant. There is zero chance that he has a penalty double...if he does, I'd love to play these opponents for money. And I'd hate to play with this partner any more if he has a 5D call over 4H: one always, always bids the limit of any hand on which you think you may be saving: you don't overcall 2D and then take the save in 5D.

So here, unlike many possible BIT situations, my concern is about the opps. If I had extras for my bid, I almost surely wouldn't be breaking tempo. If I was close to a penalty double, I almost surely wouldn't be saving. So if I struggle then bid 5D, that is a sign that my choice was borderline, and borderline because I fear going for a number. That will tip the scales towards double for either opp for whom the decision was otherwise close.

[Stephen Tu]

mikeh, on 2019-March-19, 14:51, said:

I don't 'count' 10 secs. Anytime an opponent is obviously counting the seconds, and then passes, everyone at the table knows he probably had an automatic pass.

Obviously people aren't supposed to put their hands down on the table then silently mouth the numbers 1 through 10 then pass. That's against the rules also. But are you seriously saying that it's impossible to poker face for 10 seconds and act like you might have a problem when you have an auto-pass? I do it all the time. I see it all the time from ethical opponents who follow the rules as written, and watching poker on TV. Haven't you ever seen the poker players hollywood for 10 seconds before their obvious fold when an opp moves all-in after their bet, in an attempt to mask their bluffing with air frequency? We as viewers know they are going to fold, because we see their hole cards, but the opps at the table don't.

Quote

So I spend a 'few seconds', which is an entirely subjective but fairly consistent period, and I pay attention to my hand, and otherwise, as best as I know how, act exactly the same way with a problem or an easy decision.

So you think it's OK to pause 3 seconds for your auto-passes, then take 10 seconds when you actually have a problem? To me that's BS, this is exactly what the rule is meant to counter. And depriving me of calling cops for break in tempo because now you can just claim that you waited the mandatory 10 so there was no actual break.

To me, just force yourself to play-act for 10 seconds (if you can act for 3 seconds, IMO you can act for triple that), don't count with your mouth moving, just internal clock, just pause for what feels like an eternity, because 10 secs is a very long time and feels like an eternity when there is nothing to think about. For both easy and hard passes and non-passes.

Quote

Having said that, there are problems that I can't solve, to my satisfaction, in that period of time. I will take whatever time is needed, but in doing so I know that I am depriving my partner of an opportunity to use his judgement. Here, I am not the least bit worried about partner. The chances of his having a hand that could take action after an intempo pass by me are so low as to be irrelevant. There is zero chance that he has a penalty double...if he does, I'd love to play these opponents for money. And I'd hate to play with this partner any more if he has a 5D call over 4H: one always, always bids the limit of any hand on which you think you may be saving: you don't overcall 2D and then take the save in 5D.

Why should partner's double be for penalty here? Shouldn't it just be good cards, DSIP? Is it impossible to hold a hand good enough to suggest maybe bidding on but also willing to defend, strong enough that 4h-rdbl making is unlikely, willing to give up 5-8 if turn -620/650 into -790/990 occasionally, but also picking up some doubled penalties and finding some good 5m contracts (whether making or good sac) in exchange?
2D then 5D admittedly should be awfully rare, but perhaps there are a few hands that wanted to keep 3nt as a possibility initially that could justify 5d as a two-way shot.

Quote

So here, unlike many possible BIT situations, my concern is about the opps. If I had extras for my bid, I almost surely wouldn't be breaking tempo. If I was close to a penalty double, I almost surely wouldn't be saving. So if I struggle then bid 5D, that is a sign that my choice was borderline, and borderline because I fear going for a number. That will tip the scales towards double for either opp for whom the decision was otherwise close.

So protect yourself by taking the full 10 seconds struggling on all your actions, then the opps won't know you are struggling!

[mikeh]

Stephen Tu, on 2019-March-19, 15:58, said:

Obviously people aren't supposed to put their hands down on the table then silently mouth the numbers 1 through 10 then pass. That's against the rules also. But are you seriously saying that it's impossible to poker face for 10 seconds and act like you might have a problem when you have an auto-pass? I do it all the time. I see it all the time from ethical opponents who follow the rules as written, and watching poker on TV. Haven't you ever seen the poker players hollywood for 10 seconds before their obvious fold when an opp moves all-in after their bet, in an attempt to mask their bluffing with air frequency? We as viewers know they are going to fold, because we see their hole cards, but the opps at the table don't.


So you think it's OK to pause 3 seconds for your auto-passes, then take 10 seconds when you actually have a problem? To me that's BS, this is exactly what the rule is meant to counter. And depriving me of calling cops for break in tempo because now you can just claim that you waited the mandatory 10 so there was no actual break.

To me, just force yourself to play-act for 10 seconds (if you can act for 3 seconds, IMO you can act for triple that), don't count with your mouth moving, just internal clock, just pause for what feels like an eternity, because 10 secs is a very long time and feels like an eternity when there is nothing to think about. For both easy and hard passes and non-passes.

Why should partner's double be for penalty here? Shouldn't it just be good cards, DSIP? Is it impossible to hold a hand good enough to suggest maybe bidding on but also willing to defend, strong enough that 4h-rdbl making is unlikely, willing to give up 5-8 if turn -620/650 into -790/990 occasionally, but also picking up some doubled penalties and finding some good 5m contracts (whether making or good sac) in exchange?
2D then 5D admittedly should be awfully rare, but perhaps there are a few hands that wanted to keep 3nt as a possibility initially that could justify 5d as a two-way shot.




So protect yourself by taking the full 10 seconds struggling on all your actions, then the opps won't know you are struggling!

Wow.

Never having played against me, you infer that I vary my pauses in accordance with whether I have a problem?

What gives you the right to lecture me on how to act in tempo at the table?

As for obviously counting, I defy most players to actually think about a difficult problem and always know when 10 seconds is up. If an opp consistently waits precisely, or very close to precisely, the same length of time in every jump-bid pause situation the odds are very high that he is not actually spending a lot of mental energy on the 'problem'. That is why I write that I try to be consistent and estimate my range as between 5-10 seconds. Now, if the bidding has made it clear that I am unlikely to have a problem....perhaps my partner and I have passed twice or more already and RHO jumps to keycard...I am almost always going to tend to pause towards the short end of the range, but I will always pause. If the jump is towards the unexpected end of the continuum, I will tend to pause to the longer side of the spectrum, if only because I am more likely, in that scenario, to have a problem than in the first (and this is so whether or not I have a problem). In neither case am I counting.

I am pretty sure that I have played a lot more high-level bridge than you have, and almost surely a lot more vugraph bridge as well (and I don't count BBO as vugraph). I have literally never....never....had anyone ever express a concern about my table presence or tempo in such events.

Subject to my earlier comments above, I pause for anywhere between 5 and 10 seconds precisely because I do not time myself. I don't playact having a problem, and think it unethical to do so. Instead, if possible, I try to appear the same whether I have a problem or not: I am looking at my hand, but not staring at it. I am presenting, I hope, as focused, as I am almost always in an important match.

Faking a problem when one has none is, imo, cheating.

As I noted, there are times when I can't solve the problem in that 5-10 second estimate, and then I take as long as I like, knowing that all...ALL....of my regular partners will act ethically, just as I do when they have a similar problem and just as, in my experience, WC opponents always do when the shoe is on the other foot...although true WC opponents do have an edge on me in that they are more likely to solve the problem within the normal range for a pause.

Btw, suggesting that I would lie to the TD about the length of my pause is a further gratuitous insult.

Now, I have often found myself agreeing with your posts, so was surprised and disappointed to read the one to which I am replying, and I trust that you will apologize for your accusations, implied and expressed.

As for the bridge logic issues, we will have to agree to disagree. I cannot imagine having a 2D overcall and then, with partner passing 4H in tempo, taking another call...with the possible exception of showing an asymmetrical minor 2-suiter (5C with equal or 1 card discrepancy, 4N with 2 card discrepancy....say 6-5 unwilling to bid 2N initially or some 7-5 hand). I definitely disagree with the notion that double exists in the real world.

[smerriman]

Mike, "a few seconds" is commonly interpreted as meaning "3 or 4", vs the legal requirement of "about 10".

If you pause for "a few seconds" after a jump when you don't have a problem, then you're basically allowing your partner to use UI and get away scot-free in the causes where you do pause for 10 seconds (because you truthfully tell the TD you paused for 10; nobody ever suggested lying).

So Stephen's point is valid about players who regularly pause for far less than they should. And it was just your own wording which suggested you were one, even though I'm sure you aren't.

[Stephen Tu]

mikeh, on 2019-March-19, 17:23, said:

Never having played against me, you infer that I vary my pauses in accordance with whether I have a problem?

My inference comes from believing your posts literally here. If you don't vary your pauses, then you shouldn't write statements that imply that you do. You said you wait "a few seconds". "A few" to me implies about 3 seconds. This is much shorter than the laws state is appropriate. I don't think it is enough to make the tougher decisions in that amount of time consistently. I don't think 5 is quite enough either for most though a few might be capable of it. Even if one is a super fast thinker capable of resolving even tough decisions in 5 seconds, in my view one should still comply with the law and wait an extra 5, what does it hurt?

Quote

What gives you the right to lecture me on how to act in tempo at the table?

The laws of bridge, which specify about 10 seconds as more appropriate? Your statements that if read literally imply you think it's OK to violate the laws?

Quote

As for obviously counting, I defy most players to actually think about a difficult problem and always know when 10 seconds is up. If an opp consistently waits precisely, or very close to precisely, the same length of time in every jump-bid pause situation the odds are very high that he is not actually spending a lot of mental energy on the 'problem'.

I don't think it's so hard to think about the bridge decision while simultaneously counting to ten seconds. At least it isn't that hard for me to think about two things at once when one of the things is simply counting to ten which isn't consuming but a miniscule percentage of mental energy. I am aware about when I am approaching the ten seconds and about to run out of time to make an in tempo (for me) bid. Past that time I know I am putting UI constraints on partner particularly if I pass. If I have a particularly tough problem I will take longer then ten seconds, so be it. But by taking the full ten seconds on my auto-passes, that gives me twice as much time to think about the problem hands without transmitting UI. If you are habitually falling towards the short end with no problem, partner is getting UI when you pass after 10 instead of 5.

Quote

That is why I write that I try to be consistent and estimate my range as between 5-10 seconds. Now, if the bidding has made it clear that I am unlikely to have a problem....perhaps my partner and I have passed twice or more already and RHO jumps to keycard...I am almost always going to tend to pause towards the short end of the range, but I will always pause. If the jump is towards the unexpected end of the continuum, I will tend to pause to the longer side of the spectrum, if only because I am more likely, in that scenario, to have a problem than in the first (and this is so whether or not I have a problem). In neither case am I counting.

What's wrong with making an effort to simply make the 5 sec auto-passes longer and law compliant to give you additional time for the minority of times you actually do have a problem? And avoid transmitting UI to partner since you are almost always going to be at the short end of the range? Now in a non-contested auction where the opps jump to RKC, I am not adamant about the pause, who cares about those situations where you will pass 100% of the time. But in potentially competitive situations where you might bid, I don't see why it's permissible to vary between 5 and 10 seconds. 5 is very short IMO. Would it kill you to pause to the longer side of the spectrum always?

I don't care how super-expert you are. I am still going to be super-annoyed if you take 5 seconds on some hands and 10 seconds on others, on the competitive skip-bid auctions. You've probably played a lot more high level bridge, sure, but it's not like I've played zero. I've played world open pairs, Vanderbilt/Spingold, Blue ribbon pair/LM-pair final days, etc., against the best (who usually clobber me, but still I get to observe tendencies up close). Many/most of the experts actually follow the rules in my experience and noticeably consistently come close enough to the 10 seconds in these situations, much more frequently than a typical club opponent who doesn't understand skip bid procedure at all. But some pause like 2-3 seconds tops and claim they paused an appropriate length of time when you complain about it. Like they are incapable of timing themselves, or maybe they convince themselves that they actually are capable of always making a decision in 3 seconds and never breaking tempo. But I do not think the vast majority of these habitual fast-passers actually never stretch to ten on the tough ones. And probably the vast majority of their partners try to be ethical and don't take advantage, but we have all seen the various cheating scandals blow up in the past few years, so I think it's naive to not think that at least a few are taking advantage of these 10 second pauses when normal for partner is 3-5. Some might be doing it unconsciously/not deliberately, they might convince themselves that their borderline decision is actually clear-cut and justified.

As for Vu-graph bridge, isn't that normally when screens are in use? When screens are in use, that makes these skip bid pauses largely moot since as the opponent I can simply hold up the tray if I feel you have fast-passed or fast-acted, I have a mechanism to protect myself, so why would I have need to complain about tempo? Sadly ACBL only uses screens for latter rounds of the top events.

Quote

Subject to my earlier comments above, I pause for anywhere between 5 and 10 seconds precisely because I do not time myself. I don't playact having a[ problem, and think it unethical to do so. Instead, if possible, I try to appear the same whether I have a problem or not: I am looking at my hand, but not staring at it. I am presenting, I hope, as focused, as I am almost always in an important match.

Faking a problem when one has none is, imo, cheating.

Yes, one should try to appear the same whether there is a problem or not. But I fail to see why it's OK to act after 5 seconds sometimes but 10 seconds others. It's going to be super hard IMO to not have your easy passes cluster towards the short end of the spectrum while your tougher ones cluster towards the end.
IMO just force yourself to pause extra long when it's easy. This is absolutely not cheating IMO. It's law compliant, and avoids any appearance of impropriety even when you are the most ethical pair in the world and partner isn't taking advantage. I don't see why you insist on not counting, not timing yourself. We are counting (usu to 13) all day long, is it that hard to count to ten without showing outward appearance that you are counting? Or even if one does look like one is counting, to me it's OK if you always look like you are counting in these situations when you are simultaneously are either thinking about the bridge problem or have already finished thinking about the bid.

Consistency of mannerisms + timing is the key.

Quote

Btw, suggesting that I would lie to the TD about the length of my pause is a further gratuitous insult.

I didn't say you would lie. I'd say it'd be useless calling the director after a 10 second pause because you'd truthfully say you paused 10 seconds. The director then would say "well that's proper tempo, his partner can do whatever, there's no UI".

And some experts I've encountered actually did lie about fast passes when my partner called the director on them.
I never claimed you specifically would lie.

Quote

Now, I have often found myself agreeing with your posts, so was surprised and disappointed to read the one to which I am replying, and I trust that you will apologize for your accusations, implied and expressed.

Well, I agree with your posts probably ~95%. I am surprised you think it's OK to pause only a few seconds. Or that it's OK to act after 5 seconds and are advocating not timing oneself to try and be more consistent. I don't think having 5-10 second range is OK, a 2x spread with the low end being half of what ACBL specifies. If it was more like 9-12 or 10-13 seconds, to me that is much better, it gives more time to think, less possibility of UI, less appearance of possibility of impropriety.
I am not implying that you are lying or cheating. I am saying that in my opinion it's improper to think 5-10 seconds after skip bid is appropriate, and that one should force yourself to be closer to 10 seconds and try to not have a 2x variance between the length of your pauses. Absolute consistency is impossible, we are not computers, but I think one should make an attempt, and count, and try to be close to the mark as much as possible. Not refuse to count, or at the very least try to take extra long on the easy ones.

Quote

As for the bridge logic issues, we will have to agree to disagree. I cannot imagine having a 2D overcall and then, with partner passing 4H in tempo, taking another call...with the possible exception of showing an asymmetrical minor 2-suiter (5C with equal or 1 card discrepancy, 4N with 2 card discrepancy....say 6-5 unwilling to bid 2N initially or some 7-5 hand). I definitely disagree with the notion that double exists in the real world.

OK. So AQxx - AKJTxx KTx is supposed to give up? Or was supposed to bid what over 1s?

[mikeh]

Ok, maybe I created the argument by using the word ‘few’, which appears to be construed as 3 or perhaps 3-4. I tend to use words with some degree of precision, in that I tend to use words that convey the sense of what I am trying to say. Obviously I get this wrong on occasion. To me ‘few’ implies an unspecified number, the likely range of which would be determined in context. Had I meant ‘3’ or ‘3-4’, I would have used those numbers. I was attempting to convey that I don’t count my pauses, but that they are reasonably consistent, do not drag on beyond a reasonable time and are never unduly short. I do tend to shorten, but never eliminate the pause in circumstance where it would be obvious to the janitor that I would never need to pause (as in we are silent, they bid strongly white v red, and one of them bids keycard. Am I going to bid at the 5-level, after passing 3 times? No. So....probably a 5 second pause. In any situation in which my hand could have a problem, I’d guess that I average about 9 seconds, but I don’t time myself.

The internet is responsible for much misunderstanding and that appears to be case here. I had no idea whence came the reference to a 3 second pause, which I found insulting.

In any event, it appears that I misconstrued your response to a post that I now think you misconstrued. Sorry.

[PhantomSac]

personally I'd definitely pass r/w and I'd definitely bid w/r. Don't ask me what id do at equal