[CamHenry]

Easter Swiss Pairs; an agreed hesitation around halfway down the field. No director call, in the event, but what if there was?

---

It's obvious that partner's considering *something*, but what? Does his slow pass suggest doubling, bidding 5♣, bidding 5♦, or something else?

Secondly, is pass likely to be an LA here, at matchpoints?

Thirdly, does the answer to "what is suggested" change if partner's 3♦ bid establishes a game-force here (obviously it makes pass definitely NOT an LA)?

[Cyberyeti]

How regular a partnership are the EW pair ?

It could easily be "is pass forcing" or "is double full on penalty" or "was my 3♦ GF combined with the first question" in an irregular partnership.

If double would have been penalties and pass is forcing, I think you bid as what is suggested is that he has somewhere between a double and a FP, and chose the FP, so X is suggested, I would bid 4N anyway to show 6 good♣/3♦.

[paulg]

I think pass is a logical alternative if 3♦ is not game forcing. I think the hesitation suggests doing something other than pass.

If 3♦ is game forcing, then I don't think anything is particularly suggested since double looks clear.

[jallerton]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-April-25, 07:33, said:

How regular a partnership are the EW pair ?

It could easily be "is pass forcing" or "is double full on penalty" or "was my 3♦ GF combined with the first question" in an irregular partnership.

If double would have been penalties and pass is forcing, I think you bid as what is suggested is that he has somewhere between a double and a FP, and chose the FP, so X is suggested, I would bid 4N anyway to show 6 good♣/3♦.

If double would have been penalties and pass is forcing, why can't partner have somewhere between a bid and a FP? When partner chooses the middle action after a hesitation, and it's not clear what alternative action he was considering, then usually no LA is demonstrably suggested by the hesitation.

[aguahombre]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-April-25, 07:33, said:

If double would have been penalties and pass is forcing, I think you bid as what is suggested is that he has somewhere between a double and a FP, and chose the FP, so X is suggested, I would bid 4N anyway to show 6 good♣/3♦.

This is the correct view, IMO. If 3D created a FP, then I must do something other than pass, and Double is the LA I shouldn't take.

If, however, 3D did not create a G.F./FP, then something other than Passing is suggested by the BIT, and I should pass.

It is irrelevant that on my planet 3D did create a G.F. Maybe not so irrelevant is this: That 2S overcall most certainly showed something like a weak-2 in Spades --3S was most certainly just a Law raise ---and that 4S bid would make me hesitate no matter what I held, merely from shock.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2014-April-25, 09:26

[jallerton]

CamHenry, on 2014-April-25, 06:51, said:

Easter Swiss Pairs; an agreed hesitation around halfway down the field. No director call, in the event, but what if there was?

---

It's obvious that partner's considering *something*, but what? Does his slow pass suggest doubling, bidding 5♣, bidding 5♦, or something else?

Secondly, is pass likely to be an LA here, at matchpoints?

Thirdly, does the answer to "what is suggested" change if partner's 3♦ bid establishes a game-force here (obviously it makes pass definitely NOT an LA)?

How strong was 2♠? The UI suggesting not passing, However, I'd be very surprised if pass were a logical alternative, even if partner's pass was not forcing.

[barmar]

Even if 3♦ isn't GF, unless it's a negative free bid doesn't it establish that we have the majority of the points? How could we allow the opponents to play at the 4 level undoubled? So it seems like it has to be a FP. I'm not sure what it suggests we should bid, though.

[mycroft]

Assuming 2♠ is a WJO opposite a passed hand; I can't imagine even if 3♦ was not GF, that this auction is passable. Were North not a passed hand, we might be (absent agreements) simply competing with 20-20ish; but not here.

My guess at the hesitation was "is pass forcing here?", and West was thinking "what's my best call if partner is going to pass out 4♠?" and "partner really can't pass, can she?"

Flight C and many B pairs don't count to 40 at the table, however; and more to my "could be passed" arguement, my "WJO" opposite a passed hand can be KQJxxx and an outside A, so not exactly weak...

[MrAce]

CamHenry, on 2014-April-25, 06:51, said:

Easter Swiss Pairs; an agreed hesitation around halfway down the field. No director call, in the event, but what if there was?

---

It's obvious that partner's considering *something*, but what? Does his slow pass suggest doubling, bidding 5♣, bidding 5♦, or something else?

Secondly, is pass likely to be an LA here, at matchpoints?

Thirdly, does the answer to "what is suggested" change if partner's 3♦ bid establishes a game-force here (obviously it makes pass definitely NOT an LA)?

I do not think NS is in FP auction. Our side seems to have slightly more points than other side (17-23 or 18-22 or 19-21)Obviously from the bidding, looking at the actions of passed hands, everyone's hand improved a lot.
It is hard to construct hands for pd where he could not open any number of diamonds when he had the opportunity to, and then came in with 3♦ bid without some ♣ length. Otoh it will not surprise anyone if they are cold for 4♠

I am guessing pd has xx ♠ and having a struggle with bidding at 5 level, and he is not even sure if they make 4♠. He thinks he already told his story. For example for me this 3♦ is forcing to 4♣, not to game. If pd improved so much that indeed he started with the intention of making a GF, he should act accordingly instead of pass.


Imho, the auction does not take NS off the hook with the excuse that they are in FP or GF auction. And in another hand S may hold, pass could be a LA. But with this hand he has, I would never pass 4♠ with or without UI. I would bid 4 NT, believing that what takes our side off the hook is the shape of my hand and having zero defense outside our own long suits. Not the FP or GF claims which are debatable.

EDIT: Never mind this nonsense, for some reason i see pd is coming from pass. Probably because usually I see N as my pd.

[Cascade]

CamHenry, on 2014-April-25, 06:51, said:

Easter Swiss Pairs; an agreed hesitation around halfway down the field. No director call, in the event, but what if there was?

---

It's obvious that partner's considering *something*, but what? Does his slow pass suggest doubling, bidding 5♣, bidding 5♦, or something else?

Secondly, is pass likely to be an LA here, at matchpoints?

Thirdly, does the answer to "what is suggested" change if partner's 3♦ bid establishes a game-force here (obviously it makes pass definitely NOT an LA)?

Even if 3♦ is only a one round force I think 4♦ is game force. I don't go past 3nt on this auction unless I have something extra. Partner has to be able to bid 3♦ intending to bid 3nt so going past 3nt says my hand is at least suitable for 5♦.

Partner might be

1. Confused about the auction so far
2. Unsure what double would mean
3. Close to some other action
4. Wishing that pass was not forcing
5. Maybe something else

Without more information I can't see that slow suggests any particular action. However it's possible in a particular partnership especially a regular one that slow does suggest some action.

Here I would never double, never pass, only bid 4nt if I had some special partnership agreement not Blackwood, so my choices are between 5♣ and 5 ♦ with the choice being almost automatic depending on whether partner will think a cue shows extra values.

[jeffford76]

MrAce, on 2014-April-25, 13:45, said:

It is hard to construct hands for pd where he could not open any number of diamonds when he had the opportunity to, and then came in with 3♦ bid without some ♣ length.

I think you misread the auction. Partner isn't a passed hand.

[MrAce]

jeffford76, on 2014-April-25, 14:25, said:

I think you misread the auction. Partner isn't a passed hand.

True, I just edited at the bottom just before you quoted me.

[FrancesHinden]

This is all slightly strange.
For most people in a 'without discussion' partnership, 3D would set up a game force.
If 3D was not game forcing, then (unless it was weak) East's 4D is a horrible underbid.

So the first thing I would do is ask East what he thought 3D showed. That is a more neutral question than 'was it game forcing'

If 3D was game forcing, I don't think any action is demonstrably suggested.
If 3D as not game forcing, and East thought 4D was not forcing, then clearly a slow pass suggests acting. Given East's "non-forcing" 4D bid, pass becomes a LA by definition.

[MrAce]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-April-25, 15:44, said:

This is all slightly strange.
For most people in a 'without discussion' partnership, 3D would set up a game force.
If 3D was not game forcing, then (unless it was weak) East's 4D is a horrible underbid.

So the first thing I would do is ask East what he thought 3D showed. That is a more neutral question than 'was it game forcing'

If 3D was game forcing, I don't think any action is demonstrably suggested.
If 3D as not game forcing, and East thought 4D was not forcing, then clearly a slow pass suggests acting. Given East's "non-forcing" 4D bid, pass becomes a LA by definition.

I totally agree with this. I also think 4♦ did not create a GF, IF 3♦ was not GF.

[ggwhiz]

I just don't think pass is a logical alternative for non vegetarians at mp's with these cards.

I also think that the weak 2 bidder bidding on is unusual enough to cause a significant pause for thought that doesn't carry the same level of UI implications.

That said anything but double puts us at a very defendable and fair risk of a poor score and I would have sympathy for that bid too.

[mr1303]

Pass isn't an LA for those of us who are vegetarians either.....

[CamHenry]

OK; some answers to questions raised.
- EW are a former regular partnership who now manage one or two games per year.
- 3♦ was fully agreed (and documented) to be GF.
- E chose to bid 5♣, which made +1 for about 75% (5SX-3 can't be achieved without help from oppo).

Post-hand discussion indicated that W was considering 4NT, to show his 6-3 minors (with the ♥A). He passed instead because he was afraid of 4N being misinterpreted. E's remark was "if you bid 4N that slowly I'd definitely have understood it!"

I'm glad that my action (I was E) was ethical under the circumstances; I felt confident enough that we didn't call the director. NS saw my hand afterwards and agreed that passing didn't look viable.