[Cascade]

Nil Vul

♠ AQJT7
♥ 32
♦ J82
♣ JT6

(2♥) Pass* (Pass) ?

2♥ is weak but an aggressive style - frequently a five-card suit, neither promising nor denying a second suit.

What action do you take?

What other actions do you consider?

If partner, breaks tempo, asks about the the unalerted 2♥ and passes do you feel constrained here.

Note this is a real hand the break in tempo and questions occurred but there was no damage. I am using the partner's hand as an example of when not to ask questions as you are just giving away information and may constrain partner. I am interested though in presenting whether or not there is an opinion about whether or not this hand would be constrained in this auction.

Quick answers will be good as the lesson starts in about two hours.

Thanks

[aguahombre]

It seems pass might be an alternative which could have been suggested. Since, IMO, it isn't a logical one, I would vote both pass and double to be subject to adverse ruling.

[blackshoe]

Absent UI, I bid 2♠. I consider pass, briefly. I consider double. I don't think this is a good hand for double or pass - after all, I have the spades, and that's where most of my strength lies.

If partner asks, tanks, and passes, I pass, because I think the UI demonstrably could suggest bidding on.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-17, 22:54, said:

Absent UI, I bid 2♠. I consider pass, briefly. I consider double. I don't think this is a good hand for double or pass - after all, I have the spades, and that's where most of my strength lies.

If partner asks, tanks, and passes, I pass, because I think the UI demonstrably could suggest bidding on.

Have you really seen anyone ask, tank, and pass without their suit behind them? If I were to guess, pard (not my pard, cause she wouldn't do this) has heart length and not the right hand to bid 2NT. Double by partner would suggest bidding on, not the gyrations followed by a pass.

[barmar]

I think most players will consider passing. How many of them would actually choose it depends on the class of player, I think.

[Zelandakh]

Partner's BIT may well suggest that they have a penalty double too, no? I think Double is the call suggested and do not think 2♠ should be ruled against.

[helene_t]

I don't think there is a logical alternative to 2♠.

[the hog]

I think pass is certainly a logical alternative to 2S. Change a J to a K and you have an obvious 2S bid.

[Cascade]

At the club I went to tonight for a lesson. I put this hand up as a bidding problem at the beginning just to do a poll. Later in the lesson I talked about the main issue which was the inane questions from partner who had an auto pass but with 13 hcp. In the poll 3/20 passed, 1/20 doubled and 16/20 bid 2♠.

I think this makes it pretty close to the threshold for pass being or not being a logical alternative for that group of players.

[hrothgar]

Mark me down as a 2♠ bidder

I also considered double, but it looks to have too many ways to go wrong

[CamHenry]

I'm bidding 2♠ but I think pass is an LA for me.

[aguahombre]

Cascade, on 2013-March-18, 04:22, said:

In the poll 3/20 passed, 1/20 doubled and 16/20 bid 2♠.

I think this makes it pretty close to the threshold for pass being or not being a logical alternative for that group of players.

Yes, your poll suggests that pass or double are probably not logical alternatives ---and further suggests that if we did pass or double it would border on flagrant use of the UI warranting an adjustment and a PP.

[Codo]

IF 4/20 of the peers did use pass or double, why should I give a PP?

Anyway, for me this is a clear 2 ♠ bid too with double worth a second thought.

[helene_t]

aguahombre, on 2013-March-18, 06:33, said:

Yes, your poll suggests that pass or double are probably not logical alternatives ---and further suggests that if we did pass or double it would border on flagrant use of the UI warranting an adjustment and a PP.

It would be very wrong to give an adjustment and/or a PP to a player who passes. He might have thought that the BIT suggested bidding so that pass was the ethical thing to do.

[billw55]

I think 2♠ is 100% auto at matchpoints. At IMPs, I might briefly consider pass before bidding 2♠, but never double.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-March-17, 23:17, said:

Have you really seen anyone ask, tank, and pass without their suit behind them? If I were to guess, pard (not my pard, cause she wouldn't do this) has heart length and not the right hand to bid 2NT. Double by partner would suggest bidding on, not the gyrations followed by a pass.

Where I play people ask, tank, and pass because they aren't sure their hand is worth action. They're not sure because they're (often perpetual) beginners. So IMO, the UI demonstrably could suggest that partner has values, although precisely what kind of values is not apparent (he might or might not have spades, for example - or hearts, for that matter). If partner has spades, or minor suit values, that suggests doubling or bidding spades (if he takes spades out to a minor, I'm not unhappy). If he has hearts, that suggests doubling. Clearly doubling covers all the bases, so that's out. Because he might have spades or minor suit values, I think bidding is also out.

[Zelandakh]

Ed, that ruling comes straight out of the "if it hesitates, shoot it" school. Partner is most likely to have heart values and our passing a perfectly normal 2♠ bid, which "just happens" to work out better than bidding into the misfit seems to me to be a much more likely result of the UI than finding partner with the outside values that you think are suggested.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2013-March-18, 06:56, said:

It would be very wrong to give an adjustment and/or a PP to a player who passes. He might have thought that the BIT suggested bidding so that pass was the ethical thing to do.

This might mean he shouldn't be given a PP, but not that he shouldn't be adjusted against.

[CamHenry]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-18, 10:45, said:

This might mean he shouldn't be given a PP, but not that he shouldn't be adjusted against.

Exactly. I've adjusted in the past when someone's called me after a hesitation-then-pass; I felt the hesitation strongly suggested passing (can't remember the exact auction) and the explanation given by the hesitator's partner was "but she hesitated for a long time, and I thought that meant I wasn't allowed to bid". This was a misguided (!) attempt to be as ethical as possible. No PP, just an explanation of why I'm adjusting and what they should do next time.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2013-March-18, 10:16, said:

Ed, that ruling comes straight out of the "if it hesitates, shoot it" school. Partner is most likely to have heart values and our passing a perfectly normal 2♠ bid, which "just happens" to work out better than bidding into the misfit seems to me to be a much more likely result of the UI than finding partner with the outside values that you think are suggested.

What ruling? I was describing what I would do as a player, and why I would do it. "Partner is most likely to have heart values"? I don't buy this. Why should it be so?

If a director can demonstrate to me why passing could demonstrably be suggested by the UI, then I will happily accept a score adjustment, assuming the demonstration makes sense. The problem is many TDs don't do that - they just adjust the score. At best they just assert, as you have, that it's so. As for "if it hesitates, shoot it" you've been here long enough to know I don't subscribe to that idea.