[eagles123]

so no director was called here, but just suppose one was.

---

scoring is MP

Partner hesitated slightly over 1N

just suppose director was called, would my 2c bid be allowed?

many thanks,

Eagles

[lamford]

I would bid routinely with 5-4 in the majors - the strength is not relevant. You know from the authorised auction that partner has values. It is possible that partner has diamonds but could not bid them naturally, so it is not clear that the BIT suggests 2C is likely to be more successful than pass. But one should poll some peers, ideally 10, to check out my view.

[mycroft]

If I'm your peer, "The only people that play 1NT white at MP is us". Were it a strong NT opener, it's a mindless overcall; here I'm hoping partner doesn't have the unbiddable 13 and hangs me. Probably not, though, and probably even if she does, it might make with only a card on my right.

I'd have to ask your peers, though...

[Vampyr]

It may help to ask yourself, "did I carefully try to avoid taking advantage of the BIT?" If you did, you have done your duty, even if you get ruled against. If you did not, you will feel guilty even if you get a ruling in your favour. Of course, these things often operate subconsciously, and some players, recognising this, try to super-compensate by "bending over backwards".

Having said all that, I think that bidding is clear, even over a weak NT.

[blackshoe]

I have watched gymnasts bend over backwards. I even tried it once. I failed miserably.

[mgoetze]

To be a bit more explicit about the legal aspects:

* The first question a director must ask himself is whether your partner's BIT demonstrably suggests a particular course of action. In this case it seems clear that partner's BIT suggests bidding over passing.

* The second question a director must ask himself is whether you had a "logical alternative" to your bid. This is where your peers come into play - it doesn't matter if every pro on the planet considers it clear to bid, the question is whether any players similar to you (in strength, experience, style, whatever - this is somewhat vague) would choose to pass.

* If the director were to determine that pass was a logical alternative for you (I don't think he should, but who knows), then he must consider whether your opponents were actually damaged. If, for instance, it so happens that the table result was 2M-1 for you, but you could have set 1NT comfortably, then the result will stand anyway.

The score can be adjusted only if all of these factors point towards doing so.

[whereagles]

blackshoe, on 2015-January-30, 21:03, said:

I have watched gymnasts bend over backwards. I even tried it once. I failed miserably.

Be careful. You can get *really* hurt if you do it wrong

As to the problem, the bid stands. I wouldn't even poll it because

(1) It seems really obvious to bid 2♣ on the given hand
(2) I don't think the hesitation suggested 2♣ over pass.. if pard was thinking of bidding e.g. diamonds, reopening this auction might be risky.

[blackshoe]

I said "once". That was about half a century ago. I wouldn't be foolish enough to try it now. I have enough trouble bending over frontwards.

[Vampyr]

whereagles, on 2015-January-31, 08:28, said:

(2) I don't think the hesitation suggested 2♣ over pass.. if pard was thinking of bidding e.g. diamonds, reopening this auction might be risky.

The hesitation suggested doing something, though. If bidding were a close call, I would consider adjusting.

[helene_t]

The hesitation could suggest that p has a good hand and that he is going to hang you if you bid. Alternatively, it could suggest that he has good shape (most likely with one or both minor suits), i.e. the hands misfit. If anything, I think pass is suggested by the BIT.

Which type of partner hand would make it most attractive for Eagles to bid with a marginal hand? A balanced 11-count which has a reasonable fit but won't hang you. And that is exactly the type of hand which the BIT suggests that partner does not have.

One could argue that Eagles' hand is not marginal so he is not afraid of being hanged. But in that case it is hard to argue, at the same time, that pass is an LA.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2015-January-31, 15:29, said:

The hesitation could suggest that p has a good hand and that he is going to hang you if you bid. Alternatively, it could suggest that he has good shape (most likely with one or both minor suits), i.e. the hands misfit. If anything, I think pass is suggested by the BIT.

Which type of partner hand would make it most attractive for Eagles to bid with a marginal hand? A balanced 11-count which has a reasonable fit but won't hang you. And that is exactly the type of hand which the BIT suggests that partner does not have.

This is a very persuasive argument.

[jallerton]

eagles123, on 2015-January-30, 16:57, said:

so no director was called here, but just suppose one was.

---

scoring is MP

Partner hesitated slightly over 1N

just suppose director was called, would my 2c bid be allowed?

many thanks,

Eagles

It depends on the director!

This type of sequence (a protection after 1NT-slow pass-pass) featured in an EBU Appeals Booklet a few years ago. My view was (and still is) that the hesitation did not demonstrably suggest bidding over passing: if partner was thinking of bidding another suit that might make protecting less likely to be a good idea. However, other commentators felt that an assigned score of 1NT making the requisite number of tricks should be awarded unless Pass was not a logical alternative.

[blackshoe]

Opener has roughly 13 points. Responder has at most 10. That means that between us, we have at least 17. We have the majors. On this information alone, We should probably be competing. So I don't think pass is an LA for anyone who thinks about the auction.

[Vampyr]

jallerton, on 2015-February-02, 15:56, said:

It depends on the director!

This type of sequence (a protection after 1NT-slow pass-pass) featured in an EBU Appeals Booklet a few years ago. My view was (and still is) that the hesitation did not demonstrably suggest bidding over passing: if partner was thinking of bidding another suit that might make protecting less likely to be a good idea. However, other commentators felt that an assigned score of 1NT making the requisite number of tricks should be awarded unless Pass was not a logical alternative.

It also depends on how clear it is to bid. Was Pass a LA in the case in the booklet? Is Pass a LA in the OP case?

What I find really interesting is Helene's suggestion above that Pass is the call that is actually suggested. perhaps not in this case, but in similar ones. Blackshoe' splayed who "thinks about the auction" may draw a variety of conclusions.

But I don't like rulings along the lines of "The UI could have suggested a number of actions, therefore nothing is suggested and everything is allowed".
.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2015-February-02, 17:28, said:

But I don't like rulings along the lines of "The UI could have suggested a number of actions, therefore nothing is suggested and everything is allowed".
.

What is there not to like about that?

The law says that -for an infraction- an action must be chosen that could be demonstrated to be suggested by the UI over a logical alternative,

If the UI could equally well suggest a number of actions then only those LAs that could not be suggested are allowed. If that means that there are no LAs left over, then that simply means all LAs are allowed since no LA could be suggested over another.

In this particular case, IMO, there is no LA. If you don't bid 2♣ on this hand in this situation, you should write on your CC that you don't play it red against white (or whatever reason you come up with for not bidding 2♣).
You have a maximum passed hand.
Partner can't possibly hang you, since you are a passed hand. (So I don't agree with Helene.)
You have the required distribution.
You don't even have a 5422.

The only flaw is the disparity in the strength of the suits, but it is your longer suit that is weaker, so that is ok.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2015-February-02, 17:28, said:

But I don't like rulings along the lines of "The UI could have suggested a number of actions, therefore nothing is suggested and everything is allowed".
.

How do you feel about rulings along the lines of "The UI could have suggested a number of actions, therefore any successful action is disallowed"?

[mgoetze]

Trinidad, on 2015-February-02, 21:27, said:

What is there not to like about that?

The law says that -for an infraction- an action must be chosen that could be demonstrated to be suggested by the UI over a logical alternative,

If the UI could equally well suggest a number of actions then only those LAs that could not be suggested are allowed. If that means that there are no LAs left over, then that simply means all LAs are allowed since no LA could be suggested over another.

I guess what you could dislike about this is that partner will almost always have a better feel for what your hesitation suggests than the TD.

[Trinidad]

mgoetze, on 2015-February-02, 22:01, said:

I guess what you could dislike about this is that partner will almost always have a better feel for what your hesitation suggests than the TD.

Perhaps. But I myself have always seen that argument as a little paranoid.

I have played bridge with my wife for years, and I would say that we know each other pretty well. I can tell how she is feeling when nobody else can and she knows the same about me. But that doesn't make me (or her) psychic. If she hesitates before making an invitational bid, I have no clue whether she was thinking of settling for a partscore or thinking of shooting game, no matter what some people claim I should be able to infer from the length of the BIT or any other tells. I just really don't know. And I don't think I will be more psychic in any additional years of marriage.

There are certainly situations where I can figure out what she is thinking about that the TD might not be able to figure out. But those arise because I know the system that we are playing and the TD doesn't. A TD might think that she could have been thinking with hand xyz, where I would know that she can't possibly have hand xyz since she would have bid differently earlier on in the auction or since hand xyz would actually not be a problem at all given the follow ups that she has available. But this is only an argument for a proper investigation by the TD of what the UI suggests. He will have to "quiz" us properly on our system and the alternative paths for certain hand types.

Rik