[jules101]

NS play some sort of precision club.

1♦ is 11-15, denies a 5-card major, could be short in diamonds. It is often - but not always - a weak NTish sort of hand.

1N for NS is 13-15 balanced.

---

* East asked North if he noticed his partner's significant hesitation.

North "No, I didn't notice and anyway I've got my bid."

West "There was a long hestitation."

North "I didn't notice."

South "Yes, I did hesitate - I was thinking of bidding." [!!!]

North "I didn't notice and anyway I've got my bid. My partner opened the bidding."

East "I would expect you to have your bid, but I'd like to call director to reserve our rights."

Director comes, notes auction and what was said, and offers to return at end if EW feel inclined once the hand is concluded.


RESULT 3♠-1.

EW ask to see North's hand - see diagram above.

They say they aren't convinced North has a 3♥ vulnerable after his partner after his partner's hesitation.

Director is recalled.


MORE CONTEXT (just in case relevant)

*This is Club match pointed pairs event.

* Most director calls are for LOOT, insufficient bids, and the like. Very director calls, if any, are called for this type of scenario.

* NS are a husband and wife partnership in their seventies how have probably been playing bridge together for 30-40 or maybe more years. One suspects they don't really notice one another's hesitations, so North may indeed not have noticed his partner's long pause.


HOW DO YOU RULE?

[RMB1]

The TD did the right things at the table: agree the facts.
In a club, the best way to handle these cases is to decide it at the end of the evening.
In a judgement ruling, any TD should consult: the TD could talk to knowledgable players at the club or contact another TD.

To decide an unauthorised information ruling the TD should consider:
1. Was there unauthorised information.
2. What action is being questioned.
3. Did the action damage the opponents.
4. Where there logical alternatives to the action.
5. Was the action chosed suggested by the unauthorised information.

If there is a positive answer to all questions then adjust to the outcome without the action that was suggested by the unauthorised information.

1. There was a hesitation
2. 3H
3. Yes, 2S= is better than 3S-1
4. I am sure that Pass is a logical alternative for North.
Many would bid 3H but some of those would seriously consider Pass, and some would Pass.
5. Hesitation in this sort of auction usually suggests any action over Pass.

It is may not be completely clear-cut. But the TD should adjust to the result with 3H replaced by Pass: 2S=.

[Mbodell]

I agree.

I would want a poll to make sure pass is a LA. I think 3♥, at MP, is clearly better than pass. But it is clearly indicated by the UI, so if pass is an LA then it must be chosen.

[the hog]

North clearly has his bid, and I would have bid a non forcing, (for me) 2H at the first opportunity. East West are resulting.

[barmar]

Whether North "has his bid" is not the criteria; what matters is whether there are logical alternatives. Nor is it relevant whether North noticed the hesitation, as long as the TD determines that the hesitation did occur.

[the hog]

Ok passing is not logical for anyone who has played more than 2 weeks.

[paulg]

the hog, on 2011-December-31, 01:54, said:

Ok passing is not logical for anyone who has played more than 2 weeks.

Your standards are way too high for the average (Scottish) club, where people have played for decades and are very capable of illogical actions.

In this case, once North has failed to make a negative double of one spade, bidding at the three level at unfavourable vulnerability is just never happening unless their partner has shown additional values in some way.

[Cyberyeti]

Largely agree with Robin's logic unless the 3♠ bid is ludicrous.

3♥ deserves to catch QJx, x, QJxxxx, AKx or similar.

The only issue is that if S is thinking, is it any more likely that he was thinking of doubling rather than bidding 3♣/♦ ? as if he was thinking of bidding rather than doubling, 3♥ is not suggested and likely to be very bad.

[RMB1]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-December-31, 03:08, said:

Largely agree with Robin's logic unless the 3♠ bid is ludicrous.

Yes. I hesitated to mention consideration of 3♠ and left it out.

If 3♠ is "ludicrous" (which here stands for "serious error, wild or gambling") then further adjustment is required: Law 12C1b. I have never heard of this being applied in a club ruling.

It is very unlikely that bidding one more in a competitive auction is a serious error. I did rule that competing to 3♥ was wild/gambling, but the player had previously bid 2♥ and had inadequate ♥ support to compete at the two level.

[Cyberyeti]

RMB1, on 2011-December-31, 04:14, said:

If 3♠ is "ludicrous" (which here stands for "serious error, wild or gambling") then further adjustment is required: Law 12C1b. I have never heard of this being applied in a club ruling.

I applied one of these in a club game a few months ago, when somebody bid one more on a heap of filth, but this was the case I posted where they were blowing some of their IMPs off a +1100 adjustment subsequent to a UI situation by the opps.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-December-31, 03:08, said:

The only issue is that if S is thinking, is it any more likely that he was thinking of doubling rather than bidding 3♣/♦ ? as if he was thinking of bidding rather than doubling, 3♥ is not suggested and likely to be very bad.

I think the general idea is that if he's thinking of doing anything, he should have a max. And that suggests bidding rather than passing. And once you've decided to bid, 3♥ is the bid. Also, the fact that he finally decided NOT to bid suggests that his hand is balanced -- a shapely hand probably would have bid. So he probably has ♥ tolerance, which further suggests that 3♥ will be more successful than passing.

[bluejak]

the hog, on 2011-December-30, 19:44, said:

North clearly has his bid, and I would have bid a non forcing, (for me) 2H at the first opportunity. East West are resulting.

What do you mean by this? East/West have got a bad result, and believe it is because their opponents broke the Laws of bridge. So they called the TD. Do you have some objection to this? If so, what? Do you believe that if law-breakers get a good result their opponents should never call the TD because that is resulting?

the hog, on 2011-December-31, 01:54, said:

Ok passing is not logical for anyone who has played more than 2 weeks.

Nor is passing over 1♠ – you said, yourself, you would have bid 2♥. But people do lots of things that are not logical. 3♥ now is one of two things: either it is an attempt to make up for one’s earlier foolishness, or it is taking advantage of partner's hesitation. Admittedly, the first seems more likely.



Why does MultiQuote work with Google Chrome?

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2011-December-31, 13:42, said:

Why does MultiQuote work with Google Chrome?

What does it not work with?

[ahydra]

Whether pass is an LA or not is pretty close for me - being an optimistic kind of guy, I'd bid it, but then again I would have doubled 1S as well. I think a poll is best.

Depending on the club, it's normally best to leave hesitations alone, for the simple reason of having a friendly game if not for the problems caused by wild differences in skill level of the players and hence differences in what would, or would not be, an LA (not to mention the varying levels of competency of the TDs, as unfortunately I have discovered in the past).

ahydra

[bluejak]

Cascade, on 2011-December-31, 17:31, said:

What does it not work with?

Internet Explorer

[bluejak]

ahydra, on 2011-December-31, 18:15, said:

Depending on the club, it's normally best to leave hesitations alone, for the simple reason of having a friendly game if not for the problems caused by wild differences in skill level of the players and hence differences in what would, or would not be, an LA (not to mention the varying levels of competency of the TDs, as unfortunately I have discovered in the past).

What do you mean by "leave hesitations alone"? If you mean you do not call the TD as a player, fine: I don't myself usually.

But we are interested in what happens to a TD who is called. Surely you do not mean he should deliberately rule wrong because it is a club?

There seems to be a view in some places [on RGB it has been argued it is common in American clubs apart from the best] that you make a club more friendly by ruling so as not to give adjustments. This is total rubbish, of course, the bad feeling engendered by ruling wrong in obvious cases will certainly not make a club friendly.

[aguahombre]

Multiquote works fine for me with I.E; as long as I make sure it changes color for each quote, and then use the Add Reply button at the bottom ---not the button for any particular quote.

[the hog]

bluejak, on 2011-December-31, 13:42, said:

What do you mean by this? East/West have got a bad result, and believe it is because their opponents broke the Laws of bridge. So they called the TD. Do you have some objection to this? If so, what? Do you believe that if law-breakers get a good result their opponents should never call the TD because that is resulting?


Nor is passing over 1♠ – you said, yourself, you would have bid 2♥. But people do lots of things that are not logical. 3♥ now is one of two things: either it is an attempt to make up for one's earlier foolishness, or it is taking advantage of partner's hesitation. Admittedly, the first seems more likely.



Why does MultiQuote work with Google Chrome?

They have every right to call the director as you well know, however the apparent bleating afterwards is pathetic. Show this hand to anyone who can lay bridge and at MP I think you will find 100% of experts saying "bid".

[barmar]

ahydra, on 2011-December-31, 18:15, said:

Whether pass is an LA or not is pretty close for me - being an optimistic kind of guy, I'd bid it, but then again I would have doubled 1S as well. I think a poll is best.

Did you mean that whether it's an LA is close, or the decision to bid or pass is close? Remember, the definition of LA is not based on any single player's opinion, it's what a significant number of players would consider and some would take. So you're apparently in the group that would consider it but not take it.

the hog, on 2011-December-31, 21:38, said:

They have every right to call the director as you well know, however the apparent bleating afterwards is pathetic. Show this hand to anyone who can lay bridge and at MP I think you will find 100% of experts saying "bid".

But the definition of LA isn't based on what experts would do, it's what players of the same calibre as the player in question would consider and do. So unless he's an expert, experts are irrelevant.

Has anyone yet mentioned that the pair is playing a limited opening system? Doesn't that generally make reopening on the 3 level more dangerous with a subminimum? But the hesitation compensates for this concern.

[ahydra]

bluejak, on 2011-December-31, 19:12, said:

What do you mean by "leave hesitations alone"? If you mean you do not call the TD as a player, fine: I don't myself usually.

But we are interested in what happens to a TD who is called. Surely you do not mean he should deliberately rule wrong because it is a club?

There seems to be a view in some places [on RGB it has been argued it is common in American clubs apart from the best] that you make a club more friendly by ruling so as not to give adjustments. This is total rubbish, of course, the bad feeling engendered by ruling wrong in obvious cases will certainly not make a club friendly.

Yes, I meant not calling the TD. Certainly when the TD is called he should rule properly.

ahydra