[jillybean]

---

After W broke tempo, fiddled with the bidding box and paused some more before passing, South asked, and East agreed there had been a BIT.

As East, do you, can you bid now?

[mcphee]

tje break in tempo does not prevent you from making a normaL BID

[jillybean]

mcphee, on 2024-March-18, 00:58, said:

tje break in tempo does not prevent you from making a normaL BID

I believe the bar is higher, you can't choose a bid that may have been suggested by the BIT when there is a logical alternative.

[sfi]

Pass has to be a logical alternative with partner not acting. We have poor heart values and poor shape, so I'm happy enough to stay out of the auction if partner doesn't want to get me involved. And the UI clearly leans to doing something that gives partner another chance to bid, so pass it is.

To answer your question, sure you can bid. But I wouldn't be surprised if the score is adjusted to 1HS making a normal number of tricks unless the table result is better for N-S.

[sanst]

Yes, you can bid. It's usually not good bridge to let the opponents play at the one level, so it's the question what comparable players would have done. A poll is asked for.

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2024-March-18, 02:34, said:

Yes, you can bid. It's usually not good bridge to let the opponents play at the one level, so it's the question what comparable players would have done. A poll is asked for.

the poll should be "What do comparable players seriously consider doing" as you're looking to see whether pass is a LA. Also you would need to know what the partnership does with a big hand and a whopping penalty double, some pairs will pass, some won't, and that needs to be in the poll.

You also have to consider what partner's hesitation suggests, values clearly, so bidding is suggested, it might be that partner is offshape for a takeout double and the opps have a better spade fit than heart fit, it might be he has a big penalty double.

I would be sympathetic to "with only 2 hearts and no great values I'm never passing" if they do trap pass, in which case I would allow 2♣ but not x.

[mycroft]

As said, you can always bid. There is nothing in the Laws saying you can't make any legal call at any time.

Sure, there's a Law that says that if you make a call that is demonstrably suggested by UI from partner, and there is an Alternative call that is Logical, the Director will adjust the score to that which would happen had you taken the Logical Alternative, but that's not the same thing.

Sure, there's a Law that says you must "carefully avoid" using UI from partner, but again, that's not the same thing.

Is 2♣ obvious enough that you are "carefully avoiding" the information that partner wanted to do something other than pass? I'm not sure. I certainly wouldn't be arguing violation of L73 if someone did. It's a L16 situation, but like back in the "70% action" days, I don't think that players at the table need try to work out if L16 will apply. I think that if they follow L73 honestly, and the director rules it back, they can accept that in good faith and go on.

(Conversely, of course, I think that if people "bid what they 'always would have'" (it isn't) and 'if the opponents have a problem, and the director thinks it's wrong, it'll get ruled back, oh well. better than conceding a bad score in advance' (it's their responsibility, not mine, to apply 'careful')", I'm going to be unHappy, even if it turns out that there is no LA in this case. How do I know that that happens? Usually from bar conversations, not at the table. But still.)

Remember also that AI from "40-4-8" means that unless South opened a hand eligible for 2♣ (but bad for whatever reason), partner is booked for 7-8 points minimum. The UI protection of "yeah, it's probably a 12, 13 that doesn't have a call" - is that enough to swing it?

I'd also want to know the class of West, as well as East. Is West the kind of inexperienced that would have to work out that they have to pass a good 15 without a heart stopper - or one who really wants to double with any 13, but has been told by East/another partner that you can't do that, but not yet what to do? My problem is that this is a common enough auction that most people have their "yeah, have to pass this even though I really don't want to" training - frequently from not doing it and getting the director called, or from not doing it and having partner explain "I would have X, but your hesitation made it difficult to do anything that isn't obvious. You really have to know to pass these 'points, but nothing to bid' hands automatically, and let your partner do their thing." And newer players - that would tank-pass here - are also those who don't really understand consciously what the tank-pass means. (Of course, they're also the type who would pass out this auction, not realizing that partner probably has 10-ish of the best (or better) and no call from simple "count to 40" math.) So it's likely that the more experienced N-S will call the director on this auction, the director will poll and get "I'm not strong enough" passes, and rule Law 16 into "but it's obvious to balance, I have a good suit, partner has cards, I know where everything is, and they're certainly making 1♥, even with a dummy full of blanks". And that will require a fair bit of explanation to keep the novice happy and coming back.

Spoiler

Of course, I'd love to see that partner's tank was on "do I preempt with this ugly 7-8 count and a bad suit?" and shortness in clubs means that 4♥ is cold with 20 opposite K. How likely that is, vs the "13 I've been criticized for doubling with" is debatable.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-March-18, 04:48, said:

I would be sympathetic to "with only 2 hearts and no great values I'm never passing" if they do trap pass, in which case I would allow 2♣ but not x.

Double hardly seems like a logical alternative in the first place. The only reasonable choice seem to be between Pass and 2♣.

[jillybean]

8 players polled
4 would bid 2C
3 would pass
1 considers both 2C and pass

So there is clearly a Logical Alternative to a 2C bid.

More to come when I can post the entire hand from my Mac.

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2024-March-18, 10:26, said:

Double hardly seems like a logical alternative in the first place. The only reasonable choice seem to be between Pass and 2♣.

It isn't really, unless you think partner has a 17 count with 5 good hearts and will pass rather than bid 1N

[jillybean]

---

2♥ - 2

West is a new player, playing for less than a year in the club.
East is Intermediate +

How do you rule?

[thepossum]

If someone bumbles around and thinks and looks indecisive for a while is not that information available to everyone - unless there was a secret code lol

A while back I watched a professional level bridge match on video - there was a lot of fiddling around at every bid by everyone - who knows what information was flying round the table

[sfi]

jillybean, on 2024-March-18, 16:39, said:

West is a new player, playing for less than a year in the club.
East is Intermediate +

How do you rule?

If you're comfortable that your poll represents peers of East, it shows pass is a LA. I don't think anyone is arguing the agreed hesitation doesn't suggest 2C over pass, so I would adjust the table score to 1H making 6 tricks (maybe there's an argument declarer would make 7 in 1H, but I don't see it right now).

The director needs to consider whether South contributed to their poor score by bidding a fairly strange 2H. It looks like E-W were getting at least 110 in 2C, so 2H didn't result in any damage anyway. Even if it did result in damage, South's experience level would need to be considered - I would likely look more seriously at self-inflicted damage from an international (2H over pass or double is kind of weird); not so much from an intermediate.

So final ruling is an adjustment to 1H-1 for both sides.

Given that West is a new player, the director should take a bit of time to help E-W understand the ruling, particularly the bit about UI and that the law is trying to restore equity rather than punish E-W.

[TylerE]

sfi, I think the thing you haven't considered is that given the hesitation, and the 2c bid, are we letting W off the hook that easy? Isn't W not allowed to essentially field the UI? Sort of like how after 1N-2H-2S-3H, 1N opener has to proceed as if partner *really* has a strong two suiter. (No, 3H can't be weak there, weak hands go through garbage stayman, xfer and pass, or even straight up pass). Even if partner says OOPS! really really really loudly.

[sfi]

West doesn't have any UI though, do they? Even if you do want to go down the train of thought that West "knows" 2C is a max passed hand due to restrictions on East, this would suggest bidding rather than passing.

Or am I missing where you are going?

P.S. I think it's also worth giving West leeway as a relative beginner, but that's just me.

This post has been edited by sfi: 2024-March-18, 19:54

[TylerE]

What I'm saying is W has to assume E has full values for this 2c balance. Surely a reasonable W has to at least investigate game holding a strong NT and no less than 5 quick tricks. Turn E's J of clubs into the Q and it's gonna make 3N a lot of the time.

[sfi]

So you're saying West has UI that East has full values. Fine, but they demonstrably didn't act on this information (by passing). So there's no reason to adjust.

[jillybean]

There's no mention of addressing East's use of UI.
Meanwhile South, the NOS, has their action scrutinized.
West's pass of 2H is inexperience, not use of UI

[blackshoe]

That East has the values shown by his bid is UI? Since when? Have we arrived at "anything the putative offending side does in the presence of UI is illegal"?

[blackshoe]

I swear if I were still directing I'd be tempted to rule in every UI case that the score shall be adjusted to A+ for both sides.

<wanders off grumbling about how bridge is a terribly lousy game>