[bluejak]

blackshoe, on Aug 12 2010, 08:40 PM, said:

Cherdanno said:

A hesitation shows values. This makes a penalty double more likely to work.

Lotta holes in that.

I don't know. It seems a very sensible even if simplistic view.

blackshoe, on Aug 12 2010, 08:40 PM, said:

tgoodwinsr said:

The hesitation suggests that "doing something" might well be more profitable than "doing nothing." The only plausible alternative to "doing nothing" for a player who was prepared to defend two spades undoubled is to defend four spades doubled, so that is the alternative demonstrably suggested by the UI. QED

Why does the hesitation suggest that?

It just seems obvious to me, and presumably to tgoodwinsr who wrote it.

[peachy]

After OP informed there was a hesitation, Double is no longer a legal LA, IMO.
The hesitation suggests [not only COULD suggest, but actually suggests] action other than Pass; the only other "action" that is a LA is Double. Even if I had been originally thinking about whether to Pass or Double, after the hesitation my options are restricted by law. Pass.

[Phil]

If you're curious, the tanker held: J, AKJxxxx, Axx, xx.

[MFA]

Whacking it is reasonable, but after a tank you can't.

[blackshoe]

I am not disagreeing with the conclusion that pass is an LA and that X could demonstrably be suggested by the UI. I'm trying to understand the process by which all you experts (and I'm not trying to be nasty there — most of you are better players than I am, based on what I've read in your posts) are arriving at the conclusion. If it's just "I've been playing this game for 40 years, I've seen this a hundred times, trust me, it's suggested", fine and dandy, but that won't help a less experienced (as a player) TD figure out what "could demonstrably be suggested".

Yes, I understand that these cases require consultation, and I do that. Still, it would be nice to have a better handle on the thing.

[StevenG]

I have a similar problem to Ed.

What the hesitation suggests to me is that, given the limited nature of his hand, the tanker must have long hearts and a few good controls - which, it turns out, is exactly what he did have. But with my 3-card support, it is clear that heart controls are not going to stand up in a doubled contract. So where else in his hand are tricks going to come from? (The hesitation doesn't change my excellent defensive prospects.) I don't see that the hesitation makes his hand more oriented towards defence, since it suggests his defensive values are wasted, so why does it make doubling more attractive?

[bluejak]

The basis of our approach is that if you take positive action in these high level decisions, the worst hand that partner can have for you is a featureless minimum. But you know he has not got a featureless minimum once he tanks. Any other hand, whether non-minimum, or with nice features, tends to suggest taking some action somewhat.

Thus a tank suggests positive action.

As a general rule, double tends to be more flexible as positive action since if partner's tank is based on extreme distribution he sometimes pulls it, knowing the doubler has some cards.

So, when partner tanks and passes at a high level, double tends to be more successful than if partner passes quickly. So it is suggested over pass by the tank.

[StevenG]

But ... shouldn't a hard calculation on an unusual hand have considerably more weight than a "general rule"?

[cherdanno]

In this specific situation I would think that partner is likely to have a spade void (just based on the opponents bidding). If he had 7 hearts, he would probably have bid 5♥. So I think his likely problem hands are 65 hands (considering to bid his second suit), or a strong 6430/5440 hand - with that he could make a takeout double.
If he had no/little defense, he probably would bid with 65 hands and pass without hesitation with the takeout double type (he needs a lot of defense to stand a likely penalty pass). So more likely problem hands are 65 with some defense (where bidding on could be a phantom save), or 5440/6430 hands with some defense (but not a lot). Hands with long pure hearts are possible problem hands but not so likely, and all other problem hands contain more defense than a typical minimum opening bid.

[iviehoff]

cherdanno, on Aug 13 2010, 12:43 PM, said:

If he had 7 hearts, he would probably have bid 5♥.

In fact we see that is precisely what he had and precisely what he was thinking of doing, but didn't.

I remain unconvinced - on this specific hand, not in general - by the argument that "because the hestitation shows partner was thinking of action, action is suggested over inaction by the hesitation". On this specific hand, by far the most likely action partner was thinking of was a save. I said that before I saw his hand, and I was right. Given that we are stronger than partner thinks, we know that a save is a worse idea than partner thinks it is. Bluejak correctly points out that double is a flexible action, because partner might take it out. But since taking it out is likely to a save, and we know a save looks daft, I don't think, in this case, that it is a flexible action in the right kind of way, especially since partner likely has fewer tops than he turned up with in practice. I would still say on this hand, unusually, that the hesitation does not demonstrably suggest action over inaction.

[cherdanno]

iviehoff, on Aug 13 2010, 08:22 AM, said:

cherdanno, on Aug 13 2010, 12:43 PM, said:

If he had 7 hearts, he would probably have bid 5♥.

In fact we see that is precisely what he had and precisely what he was thinking of doing, but didn't.

I meant if partner has 7 hearts AND a spade void (as seems likely), then he would likely have bid 5H.
If partner does have a spade, then I think double is likely to work anyway, as they are in a 5-3 fit with maybe 22 hcp and 2 trump losers that would easily become 3 if they have to ruff here and there.

[mycroft]

The problem with double is that, unlike pass or save, it is *not* unilateral - partner can pull it.

So, from a "think like a cheater" point of view, you can make two kinds of saves: The kind you always want to make, opposite any pass-throughout hand; and the kind where if partner has stuff (even if it's defensive stuff), you want to be in 5H. You just think about pulling 4S before passing, and pull the double. Of course, with convertible values yourself, you think about doubling 4S before passing, and sit the double.

Similarly from the other side of the table, without the tank, you double only with "don't save" values; after the tank, you double with "convertible values" (the downside to this is that you have to pass with "we got 'em, pard" values - which almost never happens, or even if it does, it's this kind of hand where the double slips a trick by pointing out the trump break - my partners, at least, never have the stiff J, they have the stiff 5).

So, over "three-way" decisions with UI like this, double, which caters to whatever hand partner was tanking with, is almost always disallowed.

[BudH]

Phil, on Aug 11 2010, 10:49 AM, said:

IMPs, nv/nv

KQ92 Qxx xxx xxx

1♥* - (2♠**) - pass - (4♠)
pass - (pass) - ?

* 1♥ is <16

** - Two suited - spades and clubs; clubs equal to or better than spades, 5-7 AKQ losers.

5C could easily be making with 4S going down. I pass, in tempo, on all calls in this auction.