[Jeremy69A]

Quote

We have met in RL you know...

Do you look like your profile picture?

[Vampyr]

Jeremy69A, on 2012-February-06, 18:04, said:

Do you look like your profile picture?

I look like mine.

[Cascade]

dburn, on 2012-February-06, 17:52, said:

I should like to see an example (absent reverse hesitations). Not that I doubt you, but I have been giving the problem five minutes' consideration (which is 4'45" more than I give most bridge problems) and I cannot picture a "clear" case in my mind. Sure, the BIT may be accompanied by body language or vocal intonation that suggests passing, but that is not the same thing at all.

Not sure what you mean by reverse hestitations.

I didn't say hesitations i quoted "BIT" which may be slow or fast.

Fast actions (BIT) can show a lack of desire to bid on. For example a fast pass.

Pairs playing "optional doubles" in similar situations may double quicker with a penalty stack and slower with a more takeout oriented hand.

But even slow bids I am unconvinced that a slow middle road bid is more likely to be heavy than weak. I am sure that many times in my partnership I have seen slow invites that were stretches rather than nearly bidding game.

Fast correction to a different suit than partner bid. I had one last year where there had been a mistaken bid and a very quick correction.

[barmar]

dburn, on 2012-February-05, 16:05, said:

as the philosopher remarked "Consistency is all I ask".

But as another learned man said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

[pran]

dburn, on 2012-February-06, 17:52, said:

I should like to see an example (absent reverse hesitations). Not that I doubt you, but I have been giving the problem five minutes' consideration (which is 4'45" more than I give most bridge problems) and I cannot picture a "clear" case in my mind. Sure, the BIT may be accompanied by body language or vocal intonation that suggests passing, but that is not the same thing at all.

I no longer remember the details but I once adjusted a five-level contract making five to a small slam one down because of a BIT (hesitation) that suggested pass rather than go for slam.

[Cascade]

Another situation that occurred tonight in a competitive auction like:

1♣ (1♠) 2♣ (2♠)
3♣*

if this 3♣ bid is slow I would think that it more often suggests minimum competitive values rather than nearly invitational values and if there is a subsequent 3♠ bid then it does not suggest competing to 4♣.

[phil_20686]

dburn, on 2012-February-06, 17:52, said:

I should like to see an example (absent reverse hesitations). Not that I doubt you, but I have been giving the problem five minutes' consideration (which is 4'45" more than I give most bridge problems) and I cannot picture a "clear" case in my mind. Sure, the BIT may be accompanied by body language or vocal intonation that suggests passing, but that is not the same thing at all.

I had this one, at MP, you are NV vs Vul, the auction goes

(1c) x p 1d
(2c) P* p ?

The pass over 2c was slow, and you hold JTxx T9xx JTxxx -, so I thought its obvious to a blind many that partner holds a strong hand with plenty of clubs. I think the slow pass suggested that passing would pick up 200 or 300, a huge score on a nothing board at MP, so I bid 2d. Partner jumped to 3N that had no play, but was absurdly let through after they managed to establish partners clubs. They were unhappy, and called the director, who ruled it back to 2c -4 for the same 400. On the traveller 200 was already a big score, and 300 would have been a top. The 2c bid was pretty bad.

It seemed to me in the pass out seat that this was a clear case where pass was suggested and would lead to the best possible result. If youdont like this one, its easy to think of similar ones in a MP setting, where partner's hesitiation likely bars you from bidding, but he will know that defending is the right thing to do.

[gnasher]

dburn, on 2012-February-06, 17:52, said:

I should like to see an example (absent reverse hesitations). Not that I doubt you, but I have been giving the problem five minutes' consideration (which is 4'45" more than I give most bridge problems) and I cannot picture a "clear" case in my mind. Sure, the BIT may be accompanied by body language or vocal intonation that suggests passing, but that is not the same thing at all.

1♣-1♠
2♠-2NT (asking)
4♠ (slow, shows a better hand than 3♠)

or, less clearly
1♠-2♠
3♦-4♠ (slow)
In this second case, responder was probably choosing between 3♠ and 4♠, rather than between 4♠ and a cue-bid.

or
1NT-2♥
3♠ (slow, shows a maximum with four trumps)

In fact, any sequence where the hesitator is limited and makes the stronger of two calls.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-February-07, 05:09

[bluejak]

A ruling several years ago from Brighton, actual hands long forgotten:

---

Despite the Stop card being used correctly, the pass over 3♥ was done very fast by a player looking bored. East failed to bid over 4♥ with an eight playing trick hand with good spades, thus avoiding the 800s and 1100s that much of the field suffered.

The ruling was to a weighted score of 800 and 1100 whcih got a continous and very long grumble from the player who did not bid 4♠. When it was pointed out his partner had not paused over the Stop Bid he said something like "Why should he pause? He had nothing to think about."

[mycroft]

The one that came up last weekend was:

---

It turned out that she did have a full double-and-raise, and my quacky 6 with ♦Txxxx still made only 9 tricks. Yes, I did pass, even though I thought it was demonstrably suggested. I mentioned this to the opponents as well, in case they thought there were other alternatives.

[axman]

bluejak, on 2012-February-07, 10:34, said:

A ruling several years ago from Brighton, actual hands long forgotten:

---

Despite the Stop card being used correctly, the pass over 3♥ was done very fast by a player looking bored. East failed to bid over 4♥ with an eight playing trick hand with good spades, thus avoiding the 800s and 1100s that much of the field suffered.

The ruling was to a weighted score of 800 and 1100 whcih got a continous and very long grumble from the player who did not bid 4♠. When it was pointed out his partner had not paused over the Stop Bid he said something like "Why should he pause? He had nothing to think about."

My arithmetic must be off. If 4SE goes down 3 & 4 tricks, I would think that he has a 6.5 playing trick hand.

[bluejak]

No, it is your understanding of bridge evaluation or bridge language that is off. Playing tricks is a hand evaluation method based on likelihoods. So KQTxxx is worth 4.5 playing tricks: on a very bad day it might make one trick.

[jallerton]

MickyB, on 2012-February-03, 14:35, said:

The player may have reached for the stop card without having decided whether she was bidding 3S or 4S. This isn't true of 2S vs 3S. Also, if she was intending to bid 3S and then had second thoughts, she is more likely to have put the stop card away before considering the matter further if her alternative bid was 2S.

I agree with this; your last sentence is particularly pertinent. The sequence of ['stop', hesitation, bid] strongly suggests that the player thought it was obvious to make a jump bid, but was unsure which jump bid to make.

If anyone wants to argue that "strongly suggests" does not necessarily imply "demonstrably suggested", they should consider that:

1. The wording within Law 16 is in fact "could demonstrably have been suggested".
2. The partner is also obliged to comply with Law 73C, so must carefully avoid taking any advantage from the UI arising from the timing of 'stop' card.
3. The use of the 'stop' card in this way is a breach of Law 73B1 (illegal communication between partners). The TD should warn the player and be prepared to issue a procedural penalty for any repeat offence.