[Flem72]

Event: Lebhar IMP Pairs -- Subject: Break in tempo (BIT)

Vul: None Dlr: West

N: ♠ K J 10 9 8 3

♥ 4 2

♦ 9 7

♣ A 3 2

S: ♠ Q 7 6

♥ A 8 3

♦ A 8 6 2

♣ Q 9 5

1♥-1♠-Pass-2♥

3♥-Pass-Pass-3♠(1)

Pass-4♠ All Pass

(1) Break in tempo


Final Contract: 4♠ by North -- Opening Lead: ♥10

Table Result: Making four, N–S plus 420


Director Ruling: Making four, N–S plus 420

Committee ruling: Making four, N–S plus 420

Facts:

The director was called after the play was completed. All four players agreed there had been a noticeable hesitation before South’s 3♠ bid. Director’s ruling: The director ruled that there was unauthorized information available to North from South’s hesitation, but that a slow bid of 3♠ did not demonstrably suggest bidding 4♠. Accordingly, no adjust-ment was made. The table result stands, 4♠ by North, making four, N–S plus 420.

The appeal:

East–West appealed the ruling and attended the hearing. East–West contended that when

someone pauses to think in a position like this, they are always thinking about bidding more. Further, they asserted that no one who makes a limit raise sells out at the three level, so it is impossible that South was thinking of passing. The Appeals Committee

determined that the BIT lasted 10-20 seconds.

The decision:

With such clear agreement on the facts, the only question was whether the BIT demon-strably suggested bidding 4♠ over passing. Because it appears that South was actually

considering passing 3♥, the appellants’ claims seem incorrect. The Appeals Committee judged that, from North’s perspective, South could have been considering passing, doubling or bidding 4♠. In the AC’s experience, “Slow shows extras,” but at IMPs, many just bid game in close decisions. So, the chances that South was considering bidding game are reduced and the ambiguity of the hesitation is increased.

Under the old rules, where the BIT only had to “suggest” line of action, perhaps this case would fit the criteria; but with the new rule, since the suggestion is only one of a group and is not the dominant element thereof, 4♠ is allowed. The table result stands, 4♠ by North, making 4, N/S plus 420.The appeal was found to have sufficient merit.

**********************

OK, this disturbs me a bit. Shouldn’t there at least have been inquiry into how N-S play the 2H cue ? Whether they play maximal overcall doubles in this situation by either or both partners (i.e., how they play N’s pass of 3H and S’s 3S) ? No one vul, it seems to me that the N hand is a pretty clear pass opposite a generic LR….

And what are the specifics of the “new rule”?

[WellSpyder]

I agree it would be nice to know more about how this particular partnership play the 2♥ bid. But in my experience on this particular auction it is far more likely that the BIT is caused by deciding between pass and 3♠ than it is that it is caused by deciding between 3♠ and 4♠. So I'm comfortable with the rulings from the TD and AC.

[aguahombre]

I got lost on the hand, because the ten of hearts was led and the table result was 420. There is a loser in every suit. Maybe there was a misprint of the hand.

[GreenMan]

The hand in the bulletin matches the one in the hand records posted on the ACBL site, FWIW.

[Vampyr]

Flem72, on 2013-March-19, 12:10, said:

Further, they asserted that no one who makes a limit raise sells out at the three level, so it is impossible that South was thinking of

WellSpyder, on 2013-March-19, 12:17, said:

I agree it would be nice to know more about how this particular partnership play the 2♥ bid.

Yes. It makes a big difference whether the partnership were forced to 3♠ or not.

[iviehoff]

Flem72, on 2013-March-19, 12:10, said:

Because it appears that South was actually considering passing 3♥, the appellants’ claims seem incorrect.

Why does that appear so? Did South say so? Even if South said it, can we believe S was looking at a 12-count with 2 aces and thinking about passing out 3H?

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2013-March-19, 19:27, said:

I got lost on the hand, because the ten of hearts was led and the table result was 420. There is a loser in every suit. Maybe there was a misprint of the hand.

There's a minor-suit squeeze unless EW defend very well. For example: heart lead ducked, heart continuation, trump losing to the ace, third heart ruffed, draw trumps, duck a diamond, win the return, ruff out West's diamond guard, cash any remaining trumps.

iviehoff, on 2013-March-20, 02:14, said:

Why does that appear so? Did South say so? Even if South said it, can we believe S was looking at a 12-count with 2 aces and thinking about passing out 3H?

I would think about passing out 3♥. Having thought about it, I would actually do it. I wouldn't have passed 3♥ as North though.

[Trinidad]

iviehoff, on 2013-March-20, 02:14, said:

Why does that appear so? Did South say so? Even if South said it, can we believe S was looking at a 12-count with 2 aces and thinking about passing out 3H?

I am sorry but wouldn't everybody think of passing it out in 3♥ with this South hand?

For me there are two choices with the South hand: pass and 3♠. If it would be matchpoints (it isn't) I would add double (which is NOT a maximal overcall double since I have already shown a good raise) to the mix.

Nobody would think of jumping to 4♠ with the South hand. Since South did think, he must have been thinking about pass.

Rik

[VixTD]

Flem72, on 2013-March-19, 12:10, said:

Under the old rules, where the BIT only had to “suggest” line of action, perhaps this case would fit the criteria; but with the new rule, since the suggestion is only one of a group and is not the dominant element thereof, 4♠ is allowed.
[...]
And what are the specifics of the “new rule”?

If I remember correctly, the word "demonstrably" was introduced to this law in 1987, but it just replaced a similar adverb ("significantly", or "substantially" or something), so even before it had to do more than just suggest one action over another.

I remember many commentators expressing surprise at the time, and puzzling over exactly what the intended change in meaning was.

[iviehoff]

Flem72, on 2013-March-19, 12:10, said:

In the AC’s experience, “Slow shows extras,”

There is a good reason why TDs and ACs will rather more often come across cases where the slow raiser has extras. Because those are the ones that are more likely to result in complaints. I'm beginning to wonder whether "slow shows extras" is bridge's equivalent of the placebo effect. But "slow shows extras" may still be a useful short-cut to the right decision, as I will suggest below.

If we are generally persuaded that S's hesitation was actually a decision between 3H and pass, people will probably think the ruling was morally correct. But, in law, what the hesitator was actually hesitating over is irrelevant.

As for demonstrably suggests, I think that any action that is clearly improved (in terms of expected final score) by the hesitation is demonstrably suggested. Given the size of the game bonus, it could be that a small increase in the likelihood of him having a suitable hand for game makes it profitable to bid game, even if overall it remains less than 50%. What a hesitation shows is that the hand isn't obviously central for a raise, it is more likely marginal in one direction or the other. Even if thin is more likley than comfortable, given the removal of central, comfortable may be sufficiently increased in probability that bidding game becomes a better bet than before.

[ArtK78]

I read this Appeal in the Daily Bulletin. I was very surprised by the ruling.

I thought that North's hand was a clear decline of a game invite, which he showed by passing over 3♥. South, who has already invited game, then bids 3♠, which is clearly not forcing, nor is it any more invitational than the 2♥ bid. Yet North moves on.

In the absence of a BIT, North has every right to do whatever he wants to do. With the BIT, I find North's action disturbing, and the subsequent endorsement of North's action by all concerned disturbing.

[Trinidad]

iviehoff, on 2013-March-20, 08:45, said:

As for demonstrably suggests, I think that any action that is clearly improved (in terms of expected final score) by the hesitation is demonstrably suggested. Given the size of the game bonus, it could be that a small increase in the likelihood of him having a suitable hand for game makes it profitable to bid game, even if overall it remains less than 50%. What a hesitation shows is that the hand isn't obviously central for a raise, it is more likely marginal in one direction or the other. Even if thin is more likley than comfortable, given the removal of central, comfortable may be sufficiently increased in probability that bidding game becomes a better bet than before.

I fully agree with your IMP score reasoning. However, my experience in competitive auctions is that BITs followed by an underbid are much rarer than BITs followed by an overbid. The reason is simple. Most players don't want to bar their partners, so they bite the bullet.

If they were hesitating between 3♠ and 4♠, they will bid 4♠.
If they hesitated between Pass and 3♠, they will bid 3♠.

I know that one should reason about partners logical alternatives and what one hesitation could indicate to partner. But in practice, at the table, the "I hesitated, therefore partner will have to pass if I don't do something encouraging" reflex is stronger than the drooling reflex of Pavlov's dog.

Therefore, as in "If Pavlov's dog doesn't drool then there is no meat", if pard hesitates and bids 3♠ in competition then he didn't think of bidding game.

Obviously, I am painting it a little black and white, but my feeling is that this effect -in experienced players- more then compensates for the effect of the IMP table.

Rik

Edit: removed text that didn't belong.

[GreenMan]

Trinidad, on 2013-March-20, 11:26, said:

I fully agree with your IMP score reasoning. However, my experience in competitive auctions is that BITs followed by an underbid are much rarer than BITs followed by an overbid. The reason is simple. Most players don't want to bar their partners, so they bite the bullet.

Yes, this. I know I err on the side of action after I take time puzzling over two equally (un)attractive options, for just that reason.

[FrancesHinden]

ArtK78, on 2013-March-20, 08:58, said:

I read this Appeal in the Daily Bulletin. I was very surprised by the ruling.

I thought that North's hand was a clear decline of a game invite, which he showed by passing over 3♥. South, who has already invited game, then bids 3♠, which is clearly not forcing, nor is it any more invitational than the 2♥ bid. Yet North moves on.

In the absence of a BIT, North has every right to do whatever he wants to do. With the BIT, I find North's action disturbing, and the subsequent endorsement of North's action by all concerned disturbing.

You are making the (common) mistake of assigning your own agreements to the NS auction.

You say that passing 3H shows a game invite.
You say the 3S from South is not 'any more invitational' than the 2H bid.

Those statements are only true if 2H was forcing to 3S (at least in competition).

As gnasher also plays, I play that 2H shows a good raise to 2S. Pass is not forcing over 3H from North, so passing 3H shows a minimum. South could pass out 3H, so bidding 3S shows at least something extra (or at least a desire not to defend 3H).

We don't know how the NS pair at the table play, but the way I've described is the only way I've ever seen or heard of the sequence being played until I read this thread. Now I'm more open minded, but if North's pass was forcing ('showing a game invite') then shouldn't it have been alerted?

[Flem72]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-March-20, 16:44, said:

We don't know how the NS pair at the table play, but the way I've described is the only way I've ever seen or heard of the sequence being played until I read this thread. Now I'm more open minded, but if North's pass was forcing ('showing a game invite') then shouldn't it have been alerted?

I believe that in the USA, 2H = LR+ nearly always, and most would not alert since cues are generally not alertable. Over partner's pass which = either "my overcall was min" or " decent but not opening values overcall," depending on agreements, 3S would generally say "to play" in both structures. And then there would normally be maximal overcall ways to make a game try. At least, I believe this is generally accurate. I just found it surprising that there wasn't more inquiry into N-S's actual agreements.

Don't know how this parses with "good raise to 2S." Not much Robson-Segal or variants in the mix over here, so no way to show good shapely 4-card LR, preemptive 2S raise, constructive 2S raise or balanced 3-card LR.

[ArtK78]

ArtK78, on 2013-March-20, 08:58, said:

I thought that North's hand was a clear decline of a game invite, which he showed by passing over 3♥.

FrancesHinden, on 2013-March-20, 16:44, said:

You are making the (common) mistake of assigning your own agreements to the NS auction.

You say that passing 3H shows a game invite.

No, I said that passing 3♥ DECLINES the invite issued by South.

[aguahombre]

Maybe decline means something else over there. No doesn't mean no for some.

I would think 3S should also decline, but show the ODR of this hand, but that is not relevant to the thread or necessarily their agreement. Well, maybe relevant to why North bid 4, since he forgot to bid 3 last time.

[billw55]

Interesting. On one hand, I can't imagine south considering 4♠ here: 3343, poor spots, scattered values, already showed a limit raise (presumably - could be wrong on this bit). So clearly the hesitation did not suggest bidding on.

On the other hand, I find Art's critique of north's actions persuasive.

Tough call, I would hate to be on this committee.

[ggwhiz]

I have known to a T what my obgligations are after pards BIT for decades (zero lost committee rulings) and now, apparently I don't.

Such changes in the Laws need a much bigger shout out to keep a level playing field.