[schulken]

---

ACBL regional tournament open pairs. NS (me and my partner) C pairs. EW serious world class established partnership.

Following my partner's pass, E asked if I agreed that my partner had hesitated. I did not agree. The TD dutifully went through the rule. Obviously, it was unnecessary to call the TD back as there is no way to defeat 5♥. We had lots of company with that result.

Here's what happened - yeah, I'm somewhat biased but I try to be objective. Following the 4♥ overcall, I would not have disagreed with a claim by my opponents that my partner shotgunned his 5♦ bid. Did it affect my subsequent call? I don't think so, While I have a good hand, my ♦ are pretty ragged (although with my partner bidding them at the 5 level, I could expect those gaps to fill in), I see two quick losers in ♥ but three quick winners in side suits. E's hand is stronger than I think his bid would indicate (who am I to disagree with someone who plays at that level?), so I'm thinking 5♥X off 1 is a good result. I think I have my double irrespective of whether my partner shotgunned his bid or had a slow pass on his second turn.

Then, what happens if my partner bids 6♦? He's thinking that we have at least a 10 card ♦ fit with no losers, we have no ♥ losers, since I can't have more than the K in ♦ I have to have values in the side suits, 5♥ is probably cold, even if we don't make 6♦, off 1 is a better score. With the one or two claimed BITs, both of which were made by him, does EW have any argument against the 6♦ bid? I think not. My partner is (arguably) the offender, so he can't be taking advantage of UI. Is my X of 5♥ following the claimed slow pass UI for him? As I elaborated about my decision-making process, I think have my X. I don't think pass is LA for me. So I think 6♦ making, assuming we get there and he bids it, should stand. Despite the quality of the players in the room, no one found 6♦. Thoughts appreciated.

[FrancesHinden]

I'm lost. You have presented an auction which ended in 5Hx. Why should there be any adjustment to 6D when no-one bid it and there is no suggestion that NS had any MI or that EW had UI? What exactly is the problem?

[barmar]

I don't think he's asking about the auction that occurred. He's wondering what the ruling would have been had they bid 6♦ (which makes 7) -- would this be adjusted back to 5♥X because of BIT before 5♦?

[mycroft]

I don't have an answer, I just think I'm clarifying. I hope I'm close.

Quote

"I" (the OP) am North. 5♦ by partner was very fast ("shotgunned"), especially given the 10 seconds it should take. Conversely, the pass over 5♥ was slow in retrospect, but disputed by N-S as to whether it was in tempo (I'm thinking that the "shotgunned" 5♦ may have an impact on whether it looks like a "normal" call is out of tempo, but I digress).

I believe I have a double no matter what's going on, UI from at least one, and possibly both calls notwithstanding.

I'm interested in whether, had 5♥X gone down instead of going +650, the forums think E-W have a case for adjustment. Also, I'm interested whether, had partner pulled the double to 6♦, and it made 7, E-W would have any cause for adjustment, assuming that my calls were all in tempo and South (but not North) was unencumbered by UI from partner.

Let me (mycroft) know if this is wrong.

[sanst]

schulken, on 2015-July-24, 10:27, said:

My partner is (arguably) the offender, so he can't be taking advantage of UI. Is my X of 5♥ following the claimed slow pass UI for him? As I elaborated about my decision-making process, I think have my X. I don't think pass is LA for me. So I think 6♦ making, assuming we get there and he bids it, should stand. Despite the quality of the players in the room, no one found 6♦. Thoughts appreciated.

It looks like there was a BIT, otherwise there's nothing to argue about. If so, it's not your partner who shouldn't take advantage of the UI, but you. That leaves the questions which LA's you have and which are more attractive because of the UI. I think that the LA's are, pass, X and 6♦. The BIT indicates that your partner was thinking of bidding on and that must have been either X or 6♦. That means that you can't choose one of these, so pass is the only option you legally have.
Actually, what the LA's are, should be established by having a poll.

[schulken]

mycroft, on 2015-July-24, 17:31, said:

I don't have an answer, I just think I'm clarifying. I hope I'm close.



Let me (mycroft) know if this is wrong.

Well done. If only I had been this clear on my OP.

[Trinidad]

My opinion:

Your double of 5♥

• You are in possession of UI.
  
• What are your LA's?
  
• With ♠A ♣AK, a relatively lousy diamond suit, a more or less balanced hand , I expect 5♥ to go down where 6♦ doesn't look good. There is no LA to the double. (And if I understand correctly, the world class opponents didn't state there was.) So, on the board, as is, there is no infraction.

What if partner (South) would have bid 6♦?
South doesn't have UI*, so he can bid whatever he feels like.

*Sometimes you see people argue that the UI that you give leads to getting UI. In this case, the reasoning for South would be: "I have hesitated before passing. Then partner doubled. The fact that he doubled after my UI must mean that there are no LAs to his double. After all, if there were LAs, double would be the most flexible call of them, allowing for my uncertainty, and it would be suggested bu my hesitation. So, I have the UI that his double is rock solid. He is certain that 5♥ goes down." With that UI, pulling the double would not be suggested, so South would be allowed to pull.

Rik

[barmar]

I have never heard anyone make a realistic case about that 2nd-level of UI that comes from partner having to cater to the UI he received from you. Figuring out what the LAs are and what is demonstrably suggested in the original UI situation is hard enough. The only times I've heard this discussed is in purely hypothetical thought experiments, such as a player deliberately hesitating when he DOESN'T have the kind of hand that the hesitation suggests, because he knows his ethical partner will assume he DOES have that hand, and then do the opposite of what the hesitation suggests, which is what he ACTUALLY wants him to do.

Trying to figure out all the possibilities of bluff and double bluff will drive you crazy.

[VixTD]

A couple of years ago at the Brighton Congress I was called in the middle of the auction by a player who nobly asked if he could reserve his opponents' rights because he had taken action after his partner had hesitated. I'm sure he was doing it with the best intentions, as he looked surprised when I pointed out the danger of sending the message to partner: "I noticed your hesitation, so don't worry, I've got a rock-solid double (or whatever) here".

I think this sort of thing happens a lot.

[mycroft]

I've not only asked, I've done it before - "I acknowledge partner's hesitation." Yes, it provides UI to partner, which I hope they don't use. In practise, it "never" comes up. I'm simply pointing out that if they think they have a use of UI case, I'm copping to the UI - just as if they'd asked me.

If they'd asked me if I agreed that there was a hesitation, and I agreed, would that be UI to partner?

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2015-July-28, 08:59, said:

If they'd asked me if I agreed that there was a hesitation, and I agreed, would that be UI to partner?

Yes, I think so.

Unless he thinks his hesitation was not noticeable, I don't think it would constrain him much. If he realizes on his own that his hesitation was noticeable, he'll probably assume that you noticed it, so the answer doesn't change his LAs.

[mycroft]

I would agree. Frankly, I tend to use that pattern in two cases:

• When it's screamingly obvious that partner tanked, and I'm going to bid :-)
  
• When partner hesitated, and *I* know it, but only because I have played with this partner for N years; it's likely not obvious to the opponents that thinking occurred, but it's screamingly obvious to me.

If partner isn't on the same page already, then they should be.