[gordontd]

Scoring: MP

---

This is the North hand, his partner was Dealer.

 W - N - E - S
                  1♦
1♥- P-1♠- P
2♠ - P - P -3♦
3♥-P-3♠-...P
P - 4♦ - P - P
P

1♦ showed 3+ diamonds, and NS say that once South has shown six diamonds with the 3♦ bid, and EW have settled in their spade fit, it's clear for North to bid 4♦

My questions are:
Does the slow pass over 3♠ suggest bidding on?
Is Pass a logical alternative to bidding 4♦

[jeremy69]

I can understand the reason for bidding 4D but yes I do think pass is a logical alternative. I think the slow pass suggests partner was contemplating action, probably another bid.
I knew 3H was going to be put back to 3S so if I thought I was worth 4D why didn't I bid it then? Probably because partner hadn't intimated he would like to compete a bit more

[paulg]

jeremy69, on Jul 23 2010, 10:54 AM, said:

I knew 3H was going to be put back to 3S so if I thought I was worth 4D why didn't I bid it then?

I think a lot of people live in hope of a misunderstanding and them stopping in 3♥.

[campboy]

It's certainly not clear to bid on. Partner didn't bid 2♦ on the second round and we know he has lots of diamonds so he must have been too weak. So it would be no surprise to find 4♠ is making if we push them into it.

[nigel_k]

IMO both pass and 4♦ are definitely logical alternatives. That is the easy part. The hard part is what the slow pass suggests. Obviously it depends on the partnership methods and style but I would analyse as follows:

Since partner couldn't bid 2♦ over 1♠ it's unlikely he was considering going to 4♦. Maybe his 3♦ balancing action was based on spade length and he counted on me having short spades and some diamonds. Even then, he probably has bad diamonds or would have bid them over 1♠ so his values are elsewhere. It all adds up to his hesitation being because he was thinking about doubling. Maybe a hand like:

KJ9x
x
Qxxxxx
AK

If that is his hand, probably they are down in 3S or get you for 300 in 4♦X or both. There may be variations on this where bidding works but I definitely don't think the UI suggests bidding. Actually there would be a stronger case for adjustment if the given hand passed after the hesitation and that was the correct action.

Edit: Sorry was 14 cards, removed a small diamond

[gwnn]

agree with nigel, both are logical alternatives and neither is particularly suggested by the slow pass

[shyams]

Agree with nigel_k

1. Partner's hesitation is more likely because he was thinking about a double.
2. While I think pass is a logical alternative (I would consider passing with the hand), the 4♦ bid is not suggested by the slow pass.

[helene_t]

I sorta like Nigel's reasoning but I just can't imagine a hand with which I would have bid 3♦ rather than bidding on the round before. Maybe a good hand with heart shortness, keeping out the round before because I might have a penalty pass on 1♥? Or maybe not.

If pass is a logical alternative then it would be because I were afraid of pushing them into a making game. With such good diamonds and a singleton in their suit I think this hand has too much O-D to pass except for that reason.

I would not adjust this board unless maybe if partner's strange bidding suggests something very specific for this partnership. I think it's horrible if you can't bid for fear that pass is an LA but you can't pass either for fear that bidding is an LA (and deemed suggested by the BIT).

[jdonn]

Partner was just balancing against a 2♠ fit, he didn't even rebid his diamonds over 1♠. And I completely disagree with nigel's reasoning, he would never balance them out of 2♠ then want to double them in 3♠. Hang them.

[Bbradley62]

nigel_k, on Jul 23 2010, 06:49 AM, said:

Maybe a hand like:

KJ9x
x
Qxxxxxx
AK

14 cards

[jallerton]

nigel_k, on Jul 23 2010, 11:49 AM, said:

IMO both pass and 4♦ are definitely logical alternatives. That is the easy part. The hard part is what the slow pass suggests. Obviously it depends on the partnership methods and style but I would analyse as follows:

Since partner couldn't bid 2♦ over 1♠ it's unlikely he was considering going to 4♦. Maybe his 3♦ balancing action was based on spade length and he counted on me having short spades and some diamonds. Even then, he probably has bad diamonds or would have bid them over 1♠ so his values are elsewhere. It all adds up to his hesitation being because he was thinking about doubling. Maybe a hand like:

KJ9x
x
Qxxxxx
AK

If that is his hand, probably they are down in 3S or get you for 300 in 4♦X or both. There may be variations on this where bidding works but I definitely don't think the UI suggests bidding. Actually there would be a stronger case for adjustment if the given hand passed after the hesitation and that was the correct action.

I was about to reply along similar lines but you have expressed the situation very well so you have saved me some typing!

[gordontd]

jdonn, on Jul 23 2010, 02:47 PM, said:

he would never balance them out of 2♠ then want to double them in 3♠.

Really? What is the point of balancing if not to try to get the opponents out of a making contract and in to a non-making one?

[mycroft]

gordontd, on Jul 23 2010, 10:02 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 23 2010, 02:47 PM, said:

he would never balance them out of 2♠ then want to double them in 3♠.

Really? What is the point of balancing if not to try to get the opponents out of a making contract and in to a non-making one?

And now that your first gamble paid off, why gamble again?

[MFA]

It seems very unlikely that partner was considering bidding unilaterally on the 4-level now, when he couldn't bid over 1♠. On the other hand he could have 6♦+4♠ hoping for a penalty after 1♠ if we had had the hearts locked up and a strong hand.

So when he thinks he is probably considering a penalty double. That means that he has a good hand, but if he has very strong spades his overall strength might not be so great and not enough to make 4♦ a success.

I would say that partner's huddle doesn't suggest our bidding 4♦ with the necessary clarity and would therefore allow 4♦.

[peachy]

South was certainly not thinking of doubling them, he was considering bidding 4D. The earlier auction indicates he has no extras, because he passed over 1S. North has been silent throughout the auction. My estimation is that North would never bid 4D without the confidence boost of partner's hesitation.

[Pict]

I wouldn't bid 4D and I don't think partner's bidding or thought encourages me to bid 4D.

So, if 4D worked for them, that's life. A case where 'logical alternatives' don't matter.

[ggwhiz]

Regardless of the reason for the tank, the hand (stiff spade and defence killing ♦Kxx) suggest bidding on but only because of the tank.

A smooth pass of 3♠ by the opener and this hand would pass at the speed of light.

Whatever the thought suggests, it suggest SOMETHING and my hand is heavily tilted to offence.

[jdonn]

Let's also keep in mind that regardless of shape or offense/defense implications, a partner who huddles tends to have a better hand than a partner who doesn't. That is good for both offense and defense. So I completely believe the same huddle can suggest both doubling and bidding on.

[bluejak]

helene_t, on Jul 23 2010, 01:19 PM, said:

I think it's horrible if you can't bid for fear that pass is an LA but you can't pass either for fear that bidding is an LA (and deemed suggested by the BIT).

While, of course, it can be difficult to decide what others will decide, there is no position where all actions are illegal. If A is suggested over B then B is not suggested over A.

[campboy]

And if it is not clear whether it is A that is suggested over B or vice versa then surely neither is demonstrably suggested over the other.