[Cyberyeti]

---

This was the auction at the table, 3♣ was slow.

Is 3N suggested by the hesitation, or is it equally likely that the 3♣ bidder was thinking about pass/3♣ as 3♣/something bigger.

His hand was void, Axx, Axx, AQ10xxxx and with ♣KJ tight onside, 3N was cold.

Adjust to 3♠-1 (it is quite clearly always -1) or leave the table score ? MPs if it matters.

[blackshoe]

I would say score stands. it seems to me the slow 3♣ suggests partner is not full values for the bid - particularly given he passed on his next turn.

[mink]

The most likely reason for the BIT is that he considered pass, given that he passed over 3♠. In this case, pass is the suggested action, and 3nt is allowed. But even if it was possible that he thought about double, 3♠, 3nt or pass, there would be no suggested action and 3nt would be allowed. There is no indication from the bidding that he did not consider pass.

Karl

[ggwhiz]

To me this one is a mess.

I agree with the above but the pass of 3♠ seems to confirm that the nature of the bit is a pass as an alterative once 3♠ is passed.

That makes 3nt a huge overbid having bid 1nt freely on a 7 count already. Punishing pard for the bit? The 3nt bid is contra indicated by the UI that has been clarified and an attempted bottom so I guess you have to allow it.

[Cyberyeti]

I was consulted on this one by the director but not otherwise involved. I agreed with your comments that score stands for the same reasons, and the only thing that would get me to change my mind would be if there was some thought from the 3♣ bidder over 3♠ as well.

[axman]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-June-22, 02:52, said:

---

This was the auction at the table, 3♣ was slow.

Is 3N suggested by the hesitation, or is it equally likely that the 3♣ bidder was thinking about pass/3♣ as 3♣/something bigger.

His hand was void, Axx, Axx, AQ10xxxx and with ♣KJ tight onside, 3N was cold.

Adjust to 3♠-1 (it is quite clearly always -1) or leave the table score ? MPs if it matters.

With better particulars of the BIT a more confident judgment might be made as to the available inferences. As such the inferences generally fall into two classes:

[1] opener has minimum holdings/ subminimum holdings for a contemplated action such as [a] shorter anchor suit which is stout [b] a flimsey anchor suit [c] it is dangerous to mention a side suit

When opener has no problem passing 3S it infers that the previous tempo suggests 3C was aggressive rather than conservative

[2] opener sees possibilities for game and is deciding whether to risk a unilateral action when there is no satisfactory systemic action to elicit responder’s opinion- the basis of which could be [a] a long, strong, but broken suit plus stoppers and winners [b] very long but not solid enough suit needing sufficient spade stoppers [c] undisclosable honors and worried about the quality of spade stopper [d] contemplating the risk of penalizing 2S


My view is that 3S breaks the connection between the UI and possible damage thereby; reasoned as follows:

If the tempo suggested that opener had significant extras then by reopening the auction they would give the opportunity to punish 3S/ improve the contract. Therefore, to reopen risks having your head handed to you. Conversely, reopening implies the tempo suggests the weaker view that opener was contemplating a very aggressive action [weaker hand]. Thus, the UI suggests that 3N is more likely to fare worse than alternatives and as such is not demonstrably suggested.

[Vampyr]

axman, on 2013-June-22, 16:22, said:

My view is that 3S breaks the connection between the UI and possible damage thereby; reasoned as follows:

If the tempo suggested that opener had significant extras then by reopening the auction they would give the opportunity to punish 3S/ improve the contract. Therefore, to reopen risks having your head handed to you. Conversely, reopening implies the tempo suggests the weaker view that opener was contemplating a very aggressive action [weaker hand]. Thus, the UI suggests that 3N is more likely to fare worse than alternatives and as such is not demonstrably suggested.

Interesting, but not supported by the Laws of Contract Bridge.

[aguahombre]

I don't know their agreements, but I know if a pair had the tools and broke tempo prior to 3C, it would suggest an in-betweener (good/bad vs. 3C).

It sounds like partner was in between as well (passed 3C, then chose 3NT when given another shot).

So, does that mean the further competition didn't break the connection and was a free shot (ruling if it doesn't work out vs. good result if it does) or does it constitute "Sewage"? I think Axman is right, but dunno.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2013-June-22, 21:35, said:

So, does that mean the further competition didn't break the connection and was a free shot (ruling if it doesn't work out vs. good result if it does) or does it constitute "Sewage"? I think Axman is right, but dunno.

We don't know the spade bidder's hand, but I don't think that there is really any hand with which competing in a suit that has been supported can be considered SEWoG. In order to qualify, an action has to be absurd, the kind of error that defies reasoning.

So should a player be hamstrung by his opponents' irregularities? Should he refrain from making the bid that he feels is correct in the context of the auction because his opponent has hesitated? Will he receive protection after the hand if he passes on this basis (when he would have otherwise competed?) The player is in terrible trouble; he not only has to work out what is the right bid on his hand, but also what the opponent's hesitation meant, and how they might gain from his reopening. Besides, what are the odds that the player who was just passing out 3♣ is suddenly going to come to life with a bid of 3NT?

I think that a 3♣ bid in competition is pretty easy with any opener containing 6+ clubs, so I would most likely rule that the hesitation implied something extra, and roll the contract back to 3♠.

[aguahombre]

Quote from Vamp:
"I think that a 3♣ bid in competition is pretty easy with any opener containing 6+ clubs, so I would most likely rule that the hesitation implied something extra, and roll the contract back to 3♠."

This is counter to what we know and have expressed many times. Slow pass=extras; slow bid shows doubt about how much strength the bid will show, doubt about one's evaluation, etc., one way or the other. Competing with a long suit is easy, true; hesitation before doing so implies doubt about how to show it without overstating or understating the hand strength. Here, we would need to know if the opponents have a method to show weaker competitive values before we get our directorial opinion into it.

And, East's 3S bid might occur with a low-level club player -- a player higher than that would have chosen his level of competition on the previous round, having 2S, 2C, 3C (mixed), or 3S available to choose from. So, in order to decide if 3S was SeWog (whatever), we probably need to know that pair's methods and skill level as well.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2013-June-23, 09:34

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2013-June-22, 23:27, said:

Quote from Vamp:
"I think that a 3♣ bid in competition is pretty easy with any opener containing 6+ clubs, so I would most likely rule that the hesitation implied something extra, and roll the contract back to 3♠."

This is counter to what we know and have expressed many times. Slow pass=extras; slow bid shows doubt about how much strength the bid will show, doubt about one's evaluation, etc., one way or the other. Competing with a long suit is easy, true; hesitation before doing so implies doubt about how to show it without overstating or understating the hand strength. Here, we would need to know if the opponents have a method to show weaker competitive values before we get our directorial opinion into it.

Just because a slow pass generally shows extras, it doesn't follow that a slow bid can't be overwhelmingly likely to show extras. Less likely, true, if the pair have a weaker way to compete.

Quote

And, East's 3S bid might occur with a low-level club player -- a player higher than that would have chosen his level of competition on the previous round, having 2S, 2C, 3C (mixed), or 3S available to choose from. So, in order to decide if 3S was SeWog (whatever), we probably need to know that pair's methods and skill level as well.

The bar defining a SEWoG bid is much too high for competing to the three level to ever qualify.

[mycroft]

3♠-1, white (even doubled, white) with 3♣ on and no attempt to find game is almost the definition of good matchpoint bridge. Especially with a known 9-card (actually 10-card) fit.

How can it possibly be a serious error?

Having said that, it *does* allow opener to resolve which slow bid she has - possibly. This may not be a bad thing - after all, it's not like they're getting to - oops. And it makes on a freak lie. Double oops.

I'd love to know what North will say to "why did you bid 3NT, having passed the last time?", though. I have a guess that at least one of his calls was affected by the UI - which one, though, is a question. 3NT is a crazy bid that deserved to lose 5-spades-and-a-club, but I don't think it's demonstrably suggested by the slow 3♣ call; like the rest, I think it contraindicated, in fact.

[Fluffy]

You have to be careful with this ones, the slow bid doesn't suggest anything in particular, bu it suggests the bid is not clear at least, and the hand is so terrible that it is indeed quite possible that without the UI it would not had been bid.

There is also the possibility that the player in question has enough experience to know that the hesitation is based on strength and not on weakness since the player in question only thinks when he is strong...

So barring more data I agree that the slow bid doesn't suggest anything, but inquiring a bit cannot be bad.