There are some little old ladies who you will never be able to educate about hesitations and the fact that bidding after partner hesitates to clearly show values is unethical. This incident last night is also why bridge games should have non-playing directors. But in a fairly small club with games of normally 6-8 tables such as Warner Robins.
Last night, I picked up xx, xx, AKQJxxxx, x and opened 3NT, alerted and later explained, in 2nd seat both vul. I know this alert might require a little extra time for a beginner and this lady was probably only slightly past the novice stage, but she took close to 1 minute.. much too long. Partner passed and, whether you know the Gambling 3NT convention or not, based on the alert that I have a solid suit with no A or K outside the suit, common sense should tell you that my partner has a decent hand, else he would "correct" to 4 of my minor. Anyway, passed hand RHO chimed in with 4S. Her hand: xxxxx, AKxx, x, Jxx.
Now, a director should have been called after the tank pass over 3NT to protect our side from RHO making a borderline bid, which would likely be based on the fact that the hesitation indicates LHO has a good hand. But I was the only director at the club that night and my partner and I were probably the only 2 people that have any significant knowledge about hesitations and the ramifications thereof. Anyway, dummy wasn't as good as it should have been for the tank but did include 3 spades. Fortunately the contract went down 3 doubled against our non-making 3NT (we could lose 4 hearts and a spade if they lead them immediately).
Showing posts with label hesitations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hesitations. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
More Hesitation Problems
You hold: void, KQ8542, J3, AT972. None vul, you open 1H. The auction continues 1S-2H-2S; 4H-4S-X-P to you? I think so. It's close but it sounds like 4S will be making. I have less defense than partner is expecting (only 10hcp, extra heart and club length) so unless partner has a really good trump stack, which also seems unlikely, 4S will be making. I mean, he only raised to 2H so he couldn't have too much. Double by partner should be based on spade honors and a clear interest in defending because with a typical hand with nothing in spades, he could pass and it would be forcing. We've bid game, presumably to make so we aren't going to let the opponents play 4S undoubled.
If partner takes 25 seconds to double, does that change things? Yeah, sure. It makes bidding on look more attractive. The slow double in this case clearly indicated that partner is unsure of the double, probably based on something like 4 spades to the QT instead of 4 to the KQT which would be an easy double. No director was called on the hesitation and my opponents at the time would probably have been clueless as to the many inferences and unauthorized information I could have obtained from partner's hesitation. And I did not bid 5H even though I knew well that it must be the winning call in this case. Partner's hand: JT9x, AJxx, Txx, QJ Result: 4SX made while at the other table 5H was set 1 trick.
If partner takes 25 seconds to double, does that change things? Yeah, sure. It makes bidding on look more attractive. The slow double in this case clearly indicated that partner is unsure of the double, probably based on something like 4 spades to the QT instead of 4 to the KQT which would be an easy double. No director was called on the hesitation and my opponents at the time would probably have been clueless as to the many inferences and unauthorized information I could have obtained from partner's hesitation. And I did not bid 5H even though I knew well that it must be the winning call in this case. Partner's hand: JT9x, AJxx, Txx, QJ Result: 4SX made while at the other table 5H was set 1 trick.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
What does a Hesitation Suggest
I was involved in more director calls about hesitations last week than I think I ever have been. I was never the hesitator. According to the director's handbook, there should only be an adjusted score due to a hesitation when: 1) a call was made with undue hesitation (typically more than 10 seconds), 2) could the innocent side have suffered damage? 3) were there logical alternatives to the call chosen by hesitator's partner, AND 4) could the hesitation demonstrably suggest the call chosen would be more successful than the logical alternatives?
I seem to have not brought back hand records but in one case, my LHO held: x, AKQxxx, Kx, AQxx at unfavorable vulnerability. I opened 3S, he bid 4H, partner bid 4S, long hesitation-pass by RHO, and then this guy bids 5H. I think the hesitation certainly suggests that he has values. Is pass a logical alternative in this case? If so, he should be required to pass. I would say pass is a logical alternative, despite the huge hand. 4S could easily be making 5 on this auction (sans hesitation) with the DK and CQ finessable and bidding again opposite an partner with virtually nothing could garner -800 or -1100. Anyway, the director ruled that pass was not a logical alternative and the hesitation did not suggest 5H instead of double or 5C. Eh. They made 5 and we got a really bad score. But then again, partner should have bid 5S with 4 spades and a stiff and only the A of diamonds for defense.
One or two other hesitation calls turned out to be nothing and then this one in the final session of the Red Ribbons, which was possibly the most miserable session of bridge followed by the most miserable night I've had in a long long time. I held approximately xxxxxx, xx, Qxx, xx. None vul., partner opens a strong NT, RHO bids 2NT, I pass, LHO bids 3C, partner checks the CC finding a slew of other information about their defense against NT openings but no information about the 2NT bid, then asks and is told it shows the minors. For some reason, she then takes another 15 seconds to pass. What could the NT opener have to think about in this situation? Bidding a 5 card major, doubling (which I guess would be penalty), or just general confusion? Anyway, director is called on the hesitation and when 3C gets back to me, I bid 3S anyway. I think it is a normal action. Maybe if we were vulnerable this wouldn't be a good bid but white, it seems normal to compete to 3S. However, I wouldn't argue much about pass being a logical alternative. I did argue that the hesitation suggested bidding 3S would be better than the logical alternative of pass. If anything, I think the hesitation might suggest good clubs and therefore indicate that bidding again would not be better than passing. The director said that it doesn't matter what the hesitation suggests as long as it could suggest something, so he supposedly polled 3 peers (yeah, nice sample size), two of whom passed and 1 bid 3S. Therefore he decided both are logical alternatives that could have been suggested by the hesitation and the result we get should be the worse of the two. So, he adjusted it from 3S down 1 to 3C making 5, which was still a good score because they were cold for 5H, but I don't like the ruling.
Your thoughts, please?
I seem to have not brought back hand records but in one case, my LHO held: x, AKQxxx, Kx, AQxx at unfavorable vulnerability. I opened 3S, he bid 4H, partner bid 4S, long hesitation-pass by RHO, and then this guy bids 5H. I think the hesitation certainly suggests that he has values. Is pass a logical alternative in this case? If so, he should be required to pass. I would say pass is a logical alternative, despite the huge hand. 4S could easily be making 5 on this auction (sans hesitation) with the DK and CQ finessable and bidding again opposite an partner with virtually nothing could garner -800 or -1100. Anyway, the director ruled that pass was not a logical alternative and the hesitation did not suggest 5H instead of double or 5C. Eh. They made 5 and we got a really bad score. But then again, partner should have bid 5S with 4 spades and a stiff and only the A of diamonds for defense.
One or two other hesitation calls turned out to be nothing and then this one in the final session of the Red Ribbons, which was possibly the most miserable session of bridge followed by the most miserable night I've had in a long long time. I held approximately xxxxxx, xx, Qxx, xx. None vul., partner opens a strong NT, RHO bids 2NT, I pass, LHO bids 3C, partner checks the CC finding a slew of other information about their defense against NT openings but no information about the 2NT bid, then asks and is told it shows the minors. For some reason, she then takes another 15 seconds to pass. What could the NT opener have to think about in this situation? Bidding a 5 card major, doubling (which I guess would be penalty), or just general confusion? Anyway, director is called on the hesitation and when 3C gets back to me, I bid 3S anyway. I think it is a normal action. Maybe if we were vulnerable this wouldn't be a good bid but white, it seems normal to compete to 3S. However, I wouldn't argue much about pass being a logical alternative. I did argue that the hesitation suggested bidding 3S would be better than the logical alternative of pass. If anything, I think the hesitation might suggest good clubs and therefore indicate that bidding again would not be better than passing. The director said that it doesn't matter what the hesitation suggests as long as it could suggest something, so he supposedly polled 3 peers (yeah, nice sample size), two of whom passed and 1 bid 3S. Therefore he decided both are logical alternatives that could have been suggested by the hesitation and the result we get should be the worse of the two. So, he adjusted it from 3S down 1 to 3C making 5, which was still a good score because they were cold for 5H, but I don't like the ruling.
Your thoughts, please?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)