[wank]

hesitation

---

7♣ went for 1400 against 6♠ making. east-west called the fuzz at the end of the board to complain about south bidding on after his partner's hesitant sign off. it's pretty obvious the hesitation suggests bidding on, so is pass an LA?

South would claim his hand guarantees slam opposite the right number of keycards.

east-west would claim that south bidding on with keycard is obviously dirty, as he didn't make another try, and that he could have keycarded over 3S [knowing the pair in question, i would go 100-1 about a direct 4NT being anything other than keycard]. Cueing implies a culsultative role for partner, who he subsequently overruled.

FWIW I wasn't involved. Slam makes on the diamond finesse. Partner's hand is Aktxx x Qjxxx Qx.

Edit: The committee ruled it back to 4S. As this was in the Balkans all sorts of hyperbole ensued.

[Codo]

A n unpassed partner bid 3 ♠ - obviously gameforcing- at this vul. and I look at this hand and should pass 4 ♠??????????????
Must I care for the possibility that he bids 3 Spade with T9xxxxx,x,KQxx,x? Come on.

I agree that 4 ♣ makes no sense, but maybe a direct 4 NT had been something different?
But no matter what, there is no hand, where passing 4 ♠ is possible.

[WellSpyder]

I think pass is unlikely to be a LA. It doesn't take much for slam to be making opposite 2 key cards, and it is easy enough to see partner not going past 4♠ with no red aces, even if he has 2 key cards. (Do we know whether NS's cue-bidding style generally bids first round controls before second round controls?) Equally, it is hard to see 5♠ going off unless partner has no key cards at all, which is surely extremely unlikely for the 3♠ bid.

It might be possible to construct a case around other bids being LAs rather than 4NT - maybe 5♦? However, it is not clear to me that the UI suggests 4N over 5♦. More likely, S just realised he wasn't likely to learn anything useful given that he himself had all the controls needed. It is true that in that case he might have bid 4N a round earlier, but I think it is more likely to be the case that he didn't think he needed to look that far ahead at the time he chose 4♣ than that he learnt something useful from the UI.

[helene_t]

4♣ makes some sense if South thought that he needs a diamond control in order to be interested in grand. FWIW I would have bid 4nt as 4♣ doesn't agree spades IMO.

Anyway, pass is not an LA.

[Cyberyeti]

I can't see a slam is going off opposite 2 keycards very often, partner would need to have a stiff club too AKxxx, Jxx(x), Jxx(x), Q would be particularly horrible. I really don't think pass is a LA.

[nige1]

wank writes "7♣ went for 1400 against 6♠ making. east-west called the fuzz at the end of the board to complain about south bidding on after his partner's hesitant sign off. it's pretty obvious the hesitation suggests bidding on, so is pass an LA? South would claim his hand guarantees slam opposite the right number of keycards. east-west would claim that south bidding on with keycard is obviously dirty, as he didn't make another try, and that he could have keycarded over 3S [knowing the pair in question, i would go 100-1 about a direct 4NT being anything other than keycard]. Cueing implies a culsultative role for partner, who he subsequently overruled. FWIW I wasn't involved. Slam makes on the diamond finesse. Partner's hand is Aktxx x Qjxxx Qx"

Even if the director feels it's 100-1 that a direct 4N would be Keycard, he should try to confirm that belief. IMO, Pass is an LA for a player for whom 4N would have been key-card but who made a 4♣ slam try instead. If in doubt the director might poll peers of the player, assuming that he can find others who consider 4♣ to be a good idea. IMO, if this is a pairs event, the director could investigate what happened at other tables if and when similar auctions occurred. For some peculiar reason authorities seem to frown on that sensible procedure.

---

[Zelandakh]

For a question about LAs, you need to tell us the class of the players involved. For low club players that get a nosebleed bidding higher then 4♠ pass is a LA. For advanced players not (I am assuming not expert despite the forum choice). Presumably your pair fall somewhere between these stools. I am interested what North was thinking about - how much worse could their hand be in the methods of the partnership?

[Fluffy]

IMO pass is no LA, I know I would bid on if partner instabid 4♠, 3♠ is suposed to announce a hand that would open 1♠, and opposite a 1♠ opener I can see no danger on 5♠, I would never suspect that partner has only 7 black cards, it looks like 9 or 10 to me (Shame to east for not raising)

What is perhaps subject to interpretation is if a slam driving 4NT is suggested over an invitional 5m one. IMO it is suggested althou its close. So we should look to what would north do over a 5m bid by south. Given that he has struggled to sing off over 4♣ it could be argued that he won't give any more negatives and slam will be reached at least 80% of the time. But gotta ask them.

Also, not sure if it is allowed on the rules, but I would love to ask separatelly north and south about the difference between south now bidding 5♣, 5♦ and 5♥, to see if they truly are on the same wavelength, if they are not adjusting a bit of missunderstanding reaching 5♠, 5♥ or 7♠ should be given.

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2013-April-15, 07:26, said:

IMO, if this is a pairs event, the director could investigate what happened at other tables if and when similar auctions occurred. For some peculiar reason authorities seem to frown on that sensible procedure.[/hv]

The reason it's frowned upon is because it would have no value unless they had an identical auction (or identical until the crucial moment), using the same methods. What practical route would we have of discovering that? Very occasionally something like that does come to light when we poll players, and if so then of course it will play a part in our decision-making.

[aguahombre]

TD's and AC's are willing in many cases to discount a player's contention that "I was always going to......" when he could have taken control earlier but didn't ---and then does so after partner's break in tempo.

Even though the pass is illogical to us, would it be illogical to the person who bid 4C instead of 4N last time?

TD's, AC's, and posters are human. Could our opinions have possibly been prejudiced in part by:

Fluffy, on 2013-April-15, 08:49, said:

(Shame to east for not raising)

and a subconscious or outward desire not to give E/W anything?

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-15, 11:00, said:

TD's and AC's are willing in many cases to discount a player's contention that "I was always going to......" when he could have taken control earlier but didn't ---and then does so after partner's break in tempo.

Even though the pass is illogical to us, would it be illogical to the person who bid 4C instead of 4N last time?

TD's, AC's, and posters are human. Could our opinions have possibly been prejudiced in part by:

and a subconscious or outward desire not to give E/W anything?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to bid 4♣ as a freebie to find out about the diamond K before Blackwood, in this situation I would be inclined to believe him.

[CSGibson]

I don't think it hurts to bid 4♣ depending on your agreements; in one of my partnerships, an immediate 4N would be a quantitative NT hand, where we would need to cue first to establish 4N as keycard for spades.

As it is, I see no LA to making another move with this monster - and I don't necessarily think that the break in tempo suggests extra values, as partner could be wondering what the cue-bid meant, and what his follow-up bids might mean, not just thinking about whether he has enough to suggest slam.

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2013-April-15, 10:18, said:

The reason it's frowned upon is because it would have no value unless they had an identical auction (or identical until the crucial moment), using the same methods. What practical route would we have of discovering that? Very occasionally something like that does come to light when we poll players, and if so then of course it will play a part in our decision-making.

It's hard to establish a pair's detailed understandings, when they're trying to justify a hesitation auction. Assuming similar methods, If another pair bid the same way to 4♠ and the auction ended there, then that is evidence that pass is an LA. If another pair ended in 4♠ after a closely similar auction, that evidence seems of similar value to polling a player. If any pair ended in 4♠, but the director is unable to find out the auction at their table, that is still better evidence than nothing. IMO, actual results are potentially useful objective data that are worth evaluation but are routinely ignored.

[Free]

The best way to figure out if pass is a LA is to show the auction until 4♠ and ask if people would make another move or not (not mentioning the hesitation). Too late now, but imo pass would be extremely conservative!

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2013-April-15, 13:37, said:

If any pair ended in 4♠, but the director is unable to find out the auction at that table, that is still better evidence than nothing.

I think it would be worse than nothing.

[sfi]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-April-15, 06:34, said:

I can't see a slam is going off opposite 2 keycards very often, partner would need to have a stiff club too AKxxx, Jxx(x), Jxx(x), Q would be particularly horrible. I really don't think pass is a LA.

Spot on. If the only construction is one very specific hand where North is required to make a dubious call and the opponents to not raise the preempt in an 11 card fit, then pass cannot be a serious consideration.

On a similar theme, North could have a more reasonable 3S bid with

AKxxx
Jx
Jxxxx
Q

where they can't raise hearts. Still not worth catering to.

[blackshoe]

It hesitated. The Director shot it. What else is new?

[EricK]

I think it is clear to bid on. Also, I think it is clear that a partnership needs a way of setting either ♥ or ♠ as trumps before keycarding. And 4♣ followed by 4NT should do one (probably ♠), and a direct 4NT the other.

[aguahombre]

CSGibson, on 2013-April-15, 13:15, said:

As it is, I see no LA to making another move with this monster - and I don't necessarily think that the break in tempo suggests extra values, as partner could be wondering what the cue-bid meant, and what his follow-up bids might mean, not just thinking about whether he has enough to suggest slam.

And, if we look at the hand held by the hesitating player, we find exactly what you said. He has extra shape and might well have been trying to sort things out...finally coming to the conclusion that red suit bids would be cues for spades.

blackshoe, on 2013-April-15, 18:26, said:

It hesitated. The Director shot it. What else is new?

My earlier posts about what this particular player was intending to do, and the questions about attitude of the TD and posters, were just questions.

However, we don't know from Wank whether the TD shot it or not. We do know that the Balkan A/C rolled back to 4S. Since this is contrary to what we here think is right, is it possible the A/C had more or different information to go on?

[nige1]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-16, 10:17, said:

And, if we look at the hand held by the hesitating player, we find exactly what you said. He has extra shape and might well have been trying to sort things out...finally coming to the conclusion that red suit bids would be cues for spades.

The hesitater eventually signed off in 4♠.

aguahombre, on 2013-April-16, 10:17, said:

My earlier posts about what this particular player was intending to do, and the questions about attitude of the TD and posters, were just questions. However, we don't know from Wank whether the TD shot it or not. We do know that the Balkan A/C rolled back to 4S. Since this is contrary to what we here think is right, is it possible the A/C had more or different information to go on?

IMO: on the given facts, the decision is close. The OP implies that South could check on key-cards with an immediate 4N. Instead, he made a 4♣ slam-try. South may well have intended to go on, whatever North bid. That's uncertain but North's hesitant sign-off made slam an even better bet. So maybe the committee decision was reasonable.

Edit: 4♦ corrected to 4♣ (after reading aquahombre's reply -- Thank you).

This post has been edited by nige1: 2013-April-16, 20:47