[bluejak]

Scoring: IMP

---

 W   N   E    S
            P    P
1♥  P  1♠   2♦
2♥ 3♦ P#1  P
3♠ 4♦ Dbl   P
  P  P

Result: 4♦ dbld/S -1, NS -100

#1 Short agreed hesitation

Note: Players in the B flight are generally quite poor, though each team is allowed one player who does not qualify, but few availed themselves of this. I was pleased at being given an event to myself - a ten table Swiss Teams. It was fun trying to persuade the assigning program to assign as I wished on rounds 5 and 7!

I did not expect any judgement rulings, and here was one in the first match! However it was also the last - all other rulings given will be A flight.

E/W were playing SAYC. Any adjustment?

[bluejak]

I have never had a case before where no-one could think of anything to say!

I allowed 3♠ since West seemed to have so much extra it was difficult to believe Pass was an LA. While 3♠ looks horrible it does not seem suggested over other positive actions.



After I had given my ruling, South made a comment.

He said said:

I would not have asked for a ruling, but I thought they were playing Acol.  You see their convention card is confusing.  Now I see they are playing 5-card majors I agree with your ruling.

The SC said said:

Standard ACBL Yellow Card

This system is not much known and the player had misread "ACBL" as "ACOL".

Mind you, I did not see the relevance but I did not pursue the matter!

[iviehoff]

Given the lower standard of the flight, I confess I was surprised that the pair thought it worth troubling the TD on this one and on no others, given that slight hesitations in competitive auctions are hardly uncommon. At least we now have some kind of explanation as to why the TD was troubled with it, even if it makes little sense. It is not even clear that a small hesitation could be seen as a BIT in this type of auction given the participants.

[jdonn]

I didn't comment because who ever knows what weaker players are thinking or what their LAs are? On an expert level I don't believe a 3♠ bid even exists since east might have to preference back to 4♥ when he didn't even raise to 3♥.

I mean if we are talking about the bridge judgments to make the correct ruling it's quite clear pass is an LA, as not counting for the singleton king of diamonds west doesn't have anything extra at all, just a nice looking hand for what he has already shown. I further believe any positive action by west is suggested over pass. But as you have said before about lots of us, and in my case you are right, I'm not good at making these determinations with weak players.

[helene_t]

It should make no difference whether they play SAYC or Acol, but maybe South thought that in Acol, the 2♥ bid could be on a 5-card suit. That would then give West more reason to bid a 3rd time, but maybe South though that 3♥ would be a LA if playing Acol while 3♠ is suggested by the BIT

Anyway, I would let result stand. A short hesitation may not be a BIT here, besides East might have been thinking of doubling.

[axman]

bluejak, on Jan 14 2010, 11:04 AM, said:

I have never had a case before where no-one could think of anything to say!

I allowed 3♠ since West seemed to have so much extra it was difficult to believe Pass was an LA. While 3♠ looks horrible it does not seem suggested over other positive actions.



After I had given my ruling, South made a comment.

He said said:

I would not have asked for a ruling, but I thought they were playing Acol.  You see their convention card is confusing.  Now I see they are playing 5-card majors I agree with your ruling.

The SC said said:

Standard ACBL Yellow Card

This system is not much known and the player had misread "ACBL" as "ACOL".

Mind you, I did not see the relevance but I did not pursue the matter!

In my mind, while the remedy provided has a sense of fair minded justice, if trying to satisfy the 2008FLB the ruling given was unfair to NS.

When viewing situations as given one of the things I do is to visualize a reasonable minimum holding for E and then consider whether the action W took would likely be embarrassing, such as 3SX when E might have held 8762-KJ-987-J764. in fact, I would expect W to still be embarrassed if one of the E cards were turned to a Q. so, at the risk of such embarrassment why would W choose 3S if not for some little bit that pushes the risk significantly to his favor.

As much a players are loathe to admit, a seemingly innocuous variation can emit immense inferences. A brief hitch is quite sufficient to[for instance] convey I have too much to just pass, but my holdings make it too risky to tell the story I would like. And as described, this is precisely what happened at the table.

[bluejak]

When deciding what is an LA for a poor player, we do not tend to consider what holding partner might have, because that is not what the peers of the player will think, so it does not affect what is an LA.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Jan 16 2010, 05:29 PM, said:

When deciding what is an LA for a poor player, we do not tend to consider what holding partner might have, because that is not what the peers of the player will think, so it does not affect what is an LA.

What do you consider? Do you consider what might happen without considering what partner might hold?

For example, not
"if I bid 3♠ partner might have such and such hand and it would be a disaster"
but instead
"if I bid 3♠ partner might have to bid 4♥ and that must be bad if he couldn't raise to 3♥ before"
?

[bluejak]

Are you seriously suggesting a poor player thinks either of these things?

What he thinks is "Have I shown this hand?"

[FrancesHinden]

jdonn, on Jan 16 2010, 11:49 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jan 16 2010, 05:29 PM, said:

When deciding what is an LA for a poor player, we do not tend to consider what holding partner might have, because that is not what the peers of the player will think, so it does not affect what is an LA.

What do you consider? Do you consider what might happen without considering what partner might hold?

These rulings are very difficult.

I generally use my (considerable) experience of what poor players do at the table, where total high card points held tends to have a much bigger impact on the choice of call than minor considerations such as fit for partner or distribution.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Jan 16 2010, 07:01 PM, said:

Are you seriously suggesting a poor player thinks either of these things?

I was asking a question, not suggesting anything. It was an error I'm unlikely to repeat.

[Mbodell]

iviehoff, on Jan 16 2010, 04:14 AM, said:

It is not even clear that a small hesitation could be seen as a BIT in this type of auction given the participants.

Isn't "short agreed hesitation" kind of similar to "only a little bit pregnant"? I mean, if there's an agreed hesitation surely it is a BIT, no? I mean not withstanding the surprising appeals panel from SD.

[helene_t]

Well it's possible that a short hesitation is normal tempo while no hesitation would be a BIT.

But yeah, either there is a BIT or there isn't.