[aguahombre]

Doing what you would have done anyway is not the answer, when there is a logical alternative and what you would have done anyway is suggested by UI.

This is not such a situation.

---No alternative is logical.
---IMO, the UI from the hesitation must be to decide between the two non-acceptance calls (X and P). Double is the farthest from accepting an invite you can get, thus in no way suggests bidding 4S. A slow pass might suggest he was thinking of doubling or that he was thinking of accepting. However:
---We don't have a mere invite; we have "or better".

In fact, if passing works out well on this hand, partner might have known the B.I.T. would make me feel forced to pass; and we should get an adverse ruling or worse.

[rmnka447]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-15, 02:11, said:

"Doing what you would have done anyway is not the answer, though there is a popular misconception that it is.



Not sure what you mean by this, but the question is whether pass is an LA. Mainly this matters when you don't pass.

4 ♠ is such a clear cut call that it is the one action that would not be deemed choosing from a logical alternative in this case. If the Director were asked to rule on the hesitation and asked a panel of "experts" about the hand, I think all of them would say they would bid 4 ♠.

But I don't disagree that "doing what you would have done any way" will necessarily keep you from getting an adjusted score. Make the hand, say, have ♦ Kxxxx instead of ♦ AJxxx. Even though you might normally still bid 4 ♠ with the revised hand, it might well be interpreted as choosing a logical alternative because it isn't a clear cut call to a majority of good players.

For the actual hand we are discussing, pass would be choosing a logical alternative. Say you did pass and, for whatever reason, 4 ♠ goes down while 4 ♥x also goes down. The score would be adjusted because 4 ♠ is such a clear cut call with the hand that failure to make that call constitutes choosing a logical alternative.

Again, I'll agree that the majority of hesitiation cases involve situations where partner takes a long time to pass and you don't pass. Then, making a call that might be suggested by the hesitation constitutes an LA while pass doesn't.

[mycroft]

Well, what was 1♠? Assuming it's limited by a AGF 2♣, I am agreeing with most of the people here; I bid 3♥ instead of 4♠ because I was worried about 6 (although ♥KJ is an interesting sidelight). I'm not getting this for 800, and I don't expect to go down.

However, am I playing with [player known to mastermind]? Pass is an LA here - in fact, i'm more concerned about -590 than +800. Partner's opened on 6-to-the-T and some other 10 points again. Of course, [player] would never take a long time to hit this one; I'd actually expect to be ruling on a "lightning double" ("partner, DON'T bid 4♠!") than a tank. Of course, [player] knows he plays a trick better than the field (he has to - he bids at least one trick more than the field), so if he wants to defend...

Is this a PDI situation? Do they play Maximal Overcall Doubles (and might they believe they apply here?) Is this defined as FP auction for this pair?

At IMPs, I basically can't see anyone passing - but it's not IMPs. At any other vulnerability, I can see passing - but it's R/W. If 1♠ was limited, I can see passing - but I don't understand 3♥ then. With 3-3 in the majors, or 4=3=4=2 or 4=2=4=3(dead), maybe.

Interesting question, but I can't imagine passing this one, under only the circumstances given and a "standard" system.

[Statto]

rmnka447, on 2012-May-15, 10:48, said:

4 ♠ is such a clear cut call that it is the one action that would not be deemed choosing from a logical alternative in this case.

rmnka447, on 2012-May-15, 10:48, said:

For the actual hand we are discussing, pass would be choosing a logical alternative. Say you did pass and, for whatever reason, 4 ♠ goes down while 4 ♥x also goes down. The score would be adjusted because 4 ♠ is such a clear cut call with the hand that failure to make that call constitutes choosing a logical alternative.

If 4♠ is a clear cut call (which it seems to be from what people have posted here) then pass isn't a logical alternative. The hesitation probably suggests bidding 4♠ rather than passing. So if you did pass and got lucky I wouldn't expect an adjustment because the hesitation didn't suggest passing.

Law 16B1(a) said:

...the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information [hesitation].

Law 16B1(b) said:

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

As it seems no-one would choose pass, it's not a logical alternative. If it had been, then an adjustment would be applied if 4♠ was the winning action and deemed to have been suggested by the hesitation.

[bluecalm]

It depends what 3H meant. If 3H was game forcing and you play standard agreement that double is penalty in forcing pass situations then pass is LA.
If 3H was invite (or invite+) or similar then pass shouldn't be forcing and dbl is just extras/nice hand in which case passing is not LA imo.

Btw I have my doubts if break in tempo clearly suggests bidding on here but that would probably be ruled because of "instant doubles are for penalty" mentality common among directors.

[Fluffy]

Partner didn't have anything close to a double, things turned out funny when auction procceed

4♠-pass-pass-5♥
double-pass-5♠!

You don't get to see much times that both partners pull out penalty doubles in the same strain at different level .

Not sure what was in partner's mind, he is intermediate/advanced. Hand was a massice double fit with 11 tricks in spades, 9 in hearts.