[billw55]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-March-16, 11:43, said:

With the hesitation: Pass is clearly a LA, even if I would always bid, I don't expect to convince an AC of that, making a try is also a LA

Agree.

PhilKing, on 2013-March-17, 11:29, said:

My experience is that a slow 2♠ is generally strong or just means partner's mind wandered - but you can usually tell which.

Also agree. I know in theory the hesitation can mean responder was also considering pass. But in practice, I think that he is considering bidding more, not less, a substantial majority of the time.

[mycroft]

I can't imagine partner passing instead of 2♠; but he's almost certainly on the "non-constructive/constructive/limit" spectrum.

The problem is that although yes, partner could have been thinking of 1NT vs 2♠ (especially with, say, a 6-ish with 4), or that partner could have one of those "too good/flat for 4, but 5 trump and how do I get to game without being in 6?" hands, it's most likely that partner has one of those bad limit raises ("we play 2♠ 8-10, and I have an aceless crappy 11, or I have a decent 10 with 4-card support")

The British have case law, I believe, that suggests that hesitations in these cases are deemed to show extras. Without that, the issue is that it can't *demonstrably* suggest extra values, especially if someone would argue that if it turned out that opener passed with a Q more or so and partner did have the "good bad single raise" that the hesitation suggested that partner didn't have enough and would enforce a game try.

One of *my* rules, which seems to be obvious given the switch to "demonstrably" suggested, is that there has to be a safe call. If we'll enforce a game try opposite a borderline minimum, we can't deny a game try opposite a borderline maximum, or we're back to "if it hesitates, shoot it".

Without the UI, I'm aggressive, I make the 3♣ call. Yes, it has downsides, especially when I get to play 3♠ as opposed to 1♠-2♠-p balanced into 3♠ (am I really going to get to play 2-of-a-fit with this hand?) But when partner has nothing wasted in clubs, he'll have help for me in the reds (I hope; but I'm also derided as too pessimistic, so I'm going to hope this time).

However, IMPs or MPs? How good am I/the field? Almost certainly that would make a difference.

[Cyberyeti]

mycroft, on 2013-March-19, 10:49, said:

The British have case law, I believe, that suggests that hesitations in these cases are deemed to show extras. Without that, the issue is that it can't *demonstrably* suggest extra values, especially if someone would argue that if it turned out that opener passed with a Q more or so and partner did have the "good bad single raise" that the hesitation suggested that partner didn't have enough and would enforce a game try.

Which is a real problem, because if a partnership decides they're always going to take the more aggressive action if they hesitate, they get away with murder as partner doesn't even consider making an even slightly borderline invite.

[WellSpyder]

mycroft, on 2013-March-19, 10:49, said:

One of *my* rules, which seems to be obvious given the switch to "demonstrably" suggested, is that there has to be a safe call. If we'll enforce a game try opposite a borderline minimum, we can't deny a game try opposite a borderline maximum, or we're back to "if it hesitates, shoot it".

Seems sensible. A pity the poor old person hesitating doesn't know which way the TD will jump as to which is the "safe" call....