[cherdano]

Blofeld, on Dec 10 2006, 09:11 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Dec 10 2006, 11:33 AM, said:

But any player who is worth a darn knows when he passes there is the risk of not bidding at all if circumstances do not allow it.  In these situations, if you elect to pass the first time you have to be prepared to either pass or bid later depending on the auction and level and thus should have no problem in that choice and thus no good reason to tank.

Having initially decided to pass and come in later, can't there now be a question of whether it's too dangerous to do so?

Maybe the initial pass was clear, because you had no bid, and have to figure out whether come in later later?

[awm]

So here's what happened at the table:

I decided that the hesitation might imply that partner has spades, so I shouldn't lead the ♠A. I'm not personally a believer in leading away from kings especially at MP scoring against a suit contract. So I decided to go passive and lead the club 3 (3/5 leads). Partner's hand turned out to be:

Scoring: MP

---

Partner ruffed the opening club lead and thought for a while. Deciding to read my ♣3 as suit preference (which it wasn't) he underlead the diamond ace back to my king (despite dummy's singleton) and I gave him another ruff. Then a spade was lead back to my ace and the hand was over, down one.

The opponents were a well-known pro-client pair who have won multiple national championships. They called the director here and suggested that "partner must've been thinking about doubling 4♥, which would ask for a club lead" and that therefore I should not be permitted to lead a club. I felt this was dubious at best, since a double would probably just be "penalty" and if I was trying to give a ruff I would probably lead a diamond in any case. It was particularly annoying since without the UI I would probably have lead the ♠A on this auction (which also leads to a one-trick set fairly easily, since our obvious shift signalling methods make it easy for partner to request a club switch). I had chosen to lead a club specifically because I thought partner's hesitation suggested a spade lead and then had my club lead rolled back. In any case the director changed the result to 4♥=, which was actually an average-plus for us since many people were making five on the hand for some reason. Partner and I chose not to appeal, in part because we were relative unknowns playing against famous elite players, and in part because we were above average on the board in any case (and were afraid committee would further alter the result to 4♥+1, which seemed to be fairly common in the field).

In any case, I think UI problems on opening lead are particularly difficult to resolve, because you rarely get much agreement on what to lead (on this problem three of the four suits seem to have roughly equal following) and there's a sensible argument for almost anything to be "suggested" by the UI. I was curious what others would think about this ruling and situation.

[Winstonm]

Blofeld, on Dec 10 2006, 02:11 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Dec 10 2006, 11:33 AM, said:

But any player who is worth a darn knows when he passes there is the risk of not bidding at all if circumstances do not allow it.  In these situations, if you elect to pass the first time you have to be prepared to either pass or bid later depending on the auction and level and thus should have no problem in that choice and thus no good reason to tank.

Having initially decided to pass and come in later, can't there now be a question of whether it's too dangerous to do so? (emphasis added)

Having initially decided to pass and maybe come in later is more apt, imo, and as such you should know with the first pass at what level the hand can still be profitably shown and know there is the chance to be blown out of the water by jump rebids. It might seem nitpicking, but I think there is substantial difference between "pass and come in later" and "pass and hope to come in later".

With the hand shown, the only problem comes in the first round of bidding, i.e., to bid over 1H - having elected not to do so there is no futher problem. To me this is the heart of Fast In/Fast Out pricinples - bidding early and lightly carries much less risk than passing and bidding later. This may seem conflicting with what I often say about passing - but those times what I have left unsaid as I thought it obvious is that if you do pass you may very well have to pass throughout the hand.
I hope I have never implied that I would pass and always bid, as that is certainly not the message I was trying to convey.
On this hand, I would have bid 2C (Michael's) the first time and not had the problem later.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Maybe the initial pass was clear, because you had no bid, and have to figure out whether come in later later?

I am having trouble finding a hand that would pass second seat and then have a problem later. Maybe along the lines of AJxx, x, KQxx, Axxx and RHO opens 1C, leaving you with no good bid, but even then if RHO second bid is 3 or 4 hearts, showing strength, there is no reason to get involved or to tank. The only problem I can see is if the auction started, 1C-P-1H-P-2H-?, and even then one could have in mind a plan for this contigency and act without undo hesitation, don't you think?

[dake50]

Hard (not impossible) to imagine D lead blowing defense. But S/C must be just so.

[awm]

Looking at partner's actual hand, I can understand what his problem was. Basically:

(1) Over 1♣, there's no two-suited bid that shows this hand. Playing regular methods 2♣ would be majors and 2NT is red suits. Partner and I play top and bottom cues, but that doesn't much help here either since the expected values for this bid are substantially greater than the hand he held (it's like 10+, not a preempt) as well as usually showing diamonds longer than spades.

(2) He could have bid 1♠ over 1♣, but this means bidding a lousy suit on super-minimum values. It's easy to imagine our getting overboard if he bids 1♠, or me making a bad lead.

(3) He could bid 1♦ over 1♣, but this will make it very difficult to find a spade fit later on (plus it's kind of strange to bid a five-card minor when holding a six-card unbid major).

(4) After 1♣-P-1♥-P-2♥, partner's afraid that the auction might end in 2♥. He thinks about some pre-balancing call, but then decides it's too risky because of the vulnerability. Certainly it is possible that I hold some flat opening hand with three hearts and will be unable to balance over 2♥ when we could be cold for a spade partial or even game.

(5) Again over 4♥ he has a decision, but now it's whether to sacrifice. At any other colors it'd be clear that we want to sacrifice in our better fit out of spades and diamonds, but how to actually reach that better fit could easily be guesswork. And at unfavorable colors sacrificing can easily be wrong.

In any case it'd obviously be nice if partner could bid in tempo, but I can see what issues he was contemplating and he wasn't just hesitating for no bridge reason.

[Codo]

I had believed, that his hesitation suggested a club length, so a club lead would have been forbidden. I had lead a spade and not a club into his length.

For the ruling: I think you had been very lucky with your score.

You lead a suit suggested from the UI. There was no clear preference here, so I think Spade and club had been forbidden.
PD tells anybody, that your 3 was suit preference, albeit you play normal leads. So he luckily deceides to underlead his ace of Diamond allthought there is a dummy, gets a second ruff and a Spade trick.
And all this good luck happened after some hesitations from pd?

Sorry, but as a TD I would rule 100 % against you and won´t believe a word.
And in a committee I would vote for not returning the money and set the score to 4 Heart +1.

And for your pd: I understand his problems, but that is no excuse. If he needs so long to solve this problem, he simply should bid to avoid any ruling against him.

[mike777]

"Looking at partner's actual hand, I can understand what his problem was. Basically:"



Really on this vul p has any problem? sigh.......

I must admit I found this whole posting confusing and not helpful to me anyway

[cherdano]

Codo, on Dec 11 2006, 09:51 AM, said:

I had believed, that his hesitation suggested a club length, so a club lead would have been forbidden. I had lead a spade and not a club into his length.

For the ruling: I think you had been very lucky with your score.

You lead a suit suggested from the UI. There was no clear preference here, so I think Spade and club had been forbidden.
PD tells anybody, that your 3 was suit preference, albeit you play normal leads. So he luckily deceides to underlead his ace of Diamond allthought there is a dummy, gets a second ruff and a Spade trick.
And all this good luck happened after some hesitations from pd?

Sorry, but as a TD I would rule 100 % against you and won´t believe a word.
And in a committee I would vote for not returning the money and set the score to 4 Heart +1.

And for your pd: I understand his problems, but that is no excuse. If he needs so long to solve this problem, he simply should bid to avoid any ruling against him.

Roland, what's wrong? You are pretty much suggesting cheating there.

Adam was especially trying to lead a suit not suggested by the UI (but he misread it, in the same way as many other posters here misread it, and as an aside we ALL misread the UI). It is pretty normal in standard leads that in exceptional circumstances you make suit preference leads.

Bridge Law's are written in a way that we can deal with UI-problem etc. without any accusation of cheating, and for very good reasons.

[Codo]

No Arend,

I don´t suggest cheating at all.
The laws are certanly not against cheating but against making mistakes. When you bid/lead something, which MAYBE is suggested by an UI, you receive a corrected score.
I am sure that Adam did not at all tried to cheat. I believe, that he tried anything to avoid any advantage from the UI. But this is not the point.
The laws do not ask whether he tried to cheat or tried to be ethical. They just ask, whether a lead was suggested by the UI or not. ANd several members of this fourms believe, that a club lead was suggested by the hesitation. So, when he lead a club he was wrong. And that is, where he gets the corrected score for.

And there is a lot of sense in the law:
A TD has no way to find out about Adams intentions. So he cannot find out whether Adam tried to be ethical or not.
But he surely can check, what lead was suggested from the UI.He just has to aks several players.
And Club was one suit, which surely is easier to lead with then without the UI. So, if the club lead is great for the defence: Bad luck for Adam and a reason to beg partner for less hesitations. Of course, there is an irony, because most people believed, that a club length was the reason for the hesitation, but again, this is bad luck for Adam.

[awm]

Well here's the thing though....

(1) Partner's hesitation suggests spades, since he'd be much more likely to want to bid spades over 2♥/4♥ than some other suit. Therefore the ♠A lead is out.

(2) Partner's hesitation suggests some values, since if he had nothing he wouldn't have a problem. Therefore a trump lead (cutting down the ruffs) is out.

(3) Partner's hesitation suggests a shapely hand, since with a balanced hand he surely can't have a problem. A diamond lead (my longest suit) is most likely to be partner's shortage. Therefore a diamond lead is out.

(4) Partner's hesitation suggests clubs, since any other suit he could bid over 1♣. Therefore a club lead is out.

Of course, the opponents will only complain if whatever lead I make happens to work. So basically any successful lead on this hand will be rolled back. Somehow this seems wrong to me. How can the break in tempo suggest every lead, or in any case more than one lead?

[MickyB]

This is all rather complicated.

I'm really not sure what lead the UI suggests. If pard was tanking with spades he rates to not have strength in the suit, otherwise he would have bid it earlier? So I wonder if the UI does suggest a club lead after all - if pard has spades, we might need to get at our club tricks before they go on spades, and if pard has clubs the passive club lead rates to be correct (despite RHO's void). However, I can understand your annoyance, particularly if the director hasn't explained why he thinks the UI suggests a club lead.

[blackshoe]

Codo, on Dec 11 2006, 10:16 AM, said:

When you bid/lead something, which MAYBE is suggested by an UI, you receive a corrected score.

Sorry, but no.

73F1 said:

If the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score (see Law 16).

So it is not enough that what was done was "maybe" suggested by UI - it has to have demonstrably been suggested - it has to have been, as I was taught, obvious.

If it were obvious would so many of us have got it wrong?

[ArcLight]

>The laws are certanly not against cheating but against making mistakes. When you bid/lead something, which MAYBE is suggested by an UI, you receive a corrected score.
I am sure that Adam did not at all tried to cheat. I believe, that he tried anything to avoid any advantage from the UI. But this is not the point.
The laws do not ask whether he tried to cheat or tried to be ethical. They just ask, whether a lead was suggested by the UI or not. ANd several members of this fourms believe, that a club lead was suggested by the hesitation. So, when he lead a club he was wrong. And that is, where he gets the corrected score for.


The problem with this attitude/view is that it removes thinking from what is a thinking game. Not everyone is experienced enough or good enough to think quickly.

There is a sure fire 100% solution - pause for 10 seconds before every single bid and card play. Let the opps know ahead of time that you want to make sure no UI is passed. You don't want to be accused of being unethical.

[sathyab]

awm, on Dec 10 2006, 02:34 PM, said:

Dealer: West Vul: N/S Scoring: MP

♠ xxxxxx ♥ xx ♦ AQxxx ♣

With that hand, if I found myself hesitating over 2h, I'd bid something. Here an easy double to suggest take-out of the bid suits. The enormous distribution is enough compensation for me at the 2-level even an unfavorable vulnerability at MP. Over time, I have learnt that there are situations where you're caught napping, but the worst thing to do is to hesitate and pass. There's almost no reasonable action of partner that won't be challenged thanks to your hesitation.

[Codo]

blackshoe, on Dec 12 2006, 03:22 AM, said:

Codo, on Dec 11 2006, 10:16 AM, said:

When you bid/lead something, which MAYBE is suggested by an UI, you receive a corrected score.

Sorry, but no.

73F1 said:

If the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score (see Law 16).

So it is not enough that what was done was "maybe" suggested by UI - it has to have demonstrably been suggested - it has to have been, as I was taught, obvious.

If it were obvious would so many of us have got it wrong?

AS far as I know, you are a much more experienced TD then me and surely your english is better, so please explain:

1. "could demonstrably have been suggested"

is translated for me: I as a TD can demonstrate, that this call could have been influenced by the UI. Could have been is not "must" or "is" or "has to have" it is just a maybe, isn´t it?

2. If it is not a "maybe", how can I ever use this §, because how can I be sure, that he choose the alternative because of the UI and not because of AIs?


3. If I reread the opinions given here, there are many who believe, that Pds hesitation suggested spades and others who believed in clubs. So I guess, that both possibilities "could demonstrably have been suggested" by the break in tempo.

[marcD]

I'll make my normal lead : club and not worry about partner's hesitation . Second choice would be AS but my hand is too strong for that is too agressive at MP. Not clear the hesitation suggests a spade lead (with distribution partner can bid any number of spades on the 1st round) . would be interested to see what sort of hand my partner could have to hesitate 1mn !

[barmar]

Codo, I believe the intent of "could demonstrably have been suggested" is to be a stricter criteria than just "maybe". "Maybe" would mean that even if there's just a 1% chance that the action was suggested by the UI, you have to rule against the player, which is considered too harsh. While there's no precise definition of "demonstrably suggest", it's usually taken to mean that a significant number of other players believe that the UI suggests something. So in some cases where the TD isn't sure what's demonstrably suggested, he may need to poll other players to get a better sense.

So in answer to your question 3 -- yes, it seems that both Spades and Clubs are demonstrably suggested by the UI. If there are other Logical Alternatives, you can't choose these. On the other hand, if the only LAs that you started with were Spades and Clubs, and the suggestion of the UI doesn't seem to skew strongly towards either one of them, then you're free to choose either one.

[Apollo81]

awm, on Dec 10 2006, 03:34 PM, said:

So here's what happened at the table:

I decided that the hesitation might imply that partner has spades, so I shouldn't lead the ♠A. I'm not personally a believer in leading away from kings especially at MP scoring against a suit contract. So I decided to go passive and lead the club 3 (3/5 leads). Partner's hand turned out to be:

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> West </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> N/S </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> MP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> xxxxxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> xx </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td> AQxxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td>  </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->

Partner ruffed the opening club lead and thought for a while. Deciding to read my ♣3 as suit preference (which it wasn't) he underlead the diamond ace back to my king (despite dummy's singleton) and I gave him another ruff. Then a spade was lead back to my ace and the hand was over, down one.

The opponents were a well-known pro-client pair who have won multiple national championships. They called the director here and suggested that "partner must've been thinking about doubling 4♥, which would ask for a club lead" and that therefore I should not be permitted to lead a club. I felt this was dubious at best, since a double would probably just be "penalty" and if I was trying to give a ruff I would probably lead a diamond in any case. It was particularly annoying since without the UI I would probably have lead the ♠A on this auction (which also leads to a one-trick set fairly easily, since our obvious shift signalling methods make it easy for partner to request a club switch). I had chosen to lead a club specifically because I thought partner's hesitation suggested a spade lead and then had my club lead rolled back. In any case the director changed the result to 4♥=, which was actually an average-plus for us since many people were making five on the hand for some reason. Partner and I chose not to appeal, in part because we were relative unknowns playing against famous elite players, and in part because we were above average on the board in any case (and were afraid committee would further alter the result to 4♥+1, which seemed to be fairly common in the field).

In any case, I think UI problems on opening lead are particularly difficult to resolve, because you rarely get much agreement on what to lead (on this problem three of the four suits seem to have roughly equal following) and there's a sensible argument for almost anything to be "suggested" by the UI. I was curious what others would think about this ruling and situation.

I think a club lead is called for on this auction anyway....partner did not even bid 1♠, so he cannot have long spades with the ♠K. A red suit lead makes no sense to me. A diamond would be an alternative if you had fewer diamonds.

As far as the director's decision goes, I think it's reasonable to assume that a club and a spade are the logical leads here. If more people (without the hesitation) chose the spade lead, I think it's reasonable to roll your score back to whatever the spade lead would have gotten you.

Rolling back to a score worse than either lead makes no sense to me.

[jikl]

Some of these UI decisions are truly ludicrous. They basically add up to if it hesitates, shoot it.

I still remember 2 decisions made against me. One I had AKQxx in a suit and was on lead, partner had hesitated during the auction. When they received a poor result, they managed to convince a director and then an appeals board that the hesitation had somehow indicated that lead and was therefore now allowed to lead that suit. My hand was something like xx AKQxx xxx xxx. Find me someone that doesn't lead the ♥

The other one was even more amusing, my hand was something like xxxx xxxx - xxxxx. Partner had hesitated over a ♦ bid. They argued that partner must be thinking of making a takeout double of ♦ (after a poor score of course), therefore partner had indicated the other 3 suits. Therefore I could not lead any suit since I wasn't able to lead a ♦. Lost that appeal too, but I think that had more to do with some of the words I used to describe the appeal board, the director and the players involved.

This one is similar in some ways, exactly which suit is partner suggesting? And, let's say you were forced to lead a non-black card, you decide on a ♦, I bet if partner ruffed that, this suit in some way "would have been suggested" by the hesitation. So therefore by logical inference you are forced to lead a trump from Q9 I think it was? Get real.

As I said, NCBOs run scared from UI, if it hesitates, shoot to kill, safer than actually looking at the problem.

Personally, I think the director made a good ruling.

Sean