[WellSpyder]

Game all, imps

---

Agreed hesitation from West over 3♦ (and before anyone asks that involved both the correct EBU use of the stop card left out for c10 seconds and an additional think from West). Would you double now as East??

To be honest, I'm not really sure what East was thinking of. He (the playing TD at a county night) immediately agreed there had been a hesitation, and didn't seem at all surprised when a substitute TD who was called in ruled that pass was an LA and that double was suggested by the UI, so I've no idea what he hoped to gain. Do you agree with the TD's ruling, and would you be prepared to impose a PP as well? (These are in practice never imposed at what is in effect an ordinary club night despite being organised by the county, but I did wonder whether this could be a rare exception, particularly since the player concerned was well aware of the rules.....)

[blackshoe]

Yes, I agree with the ruling. I might impose a PP, but I'd want to ask East what he was thinking first.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-04, 13:56, said:

Yes, I agree with the ruling. I might impose a PP, but I'd want to ask East what he was thinking first.

Partner and I have the solid agreement that we always double with a singleton in absence of UI gleaned from the opps, they may have similar.

[Cascade]

I am inclined to issue a penalty. I will need some pretty convincing evidence to not do so.

[Fluffy]

there is a point where you have so few values that partner must be very strong, and you know he is passing your double (otherwise he´d act with 3NT or whatever). I haven´t seen that hand yet, bu I think it might exist.

[WellSpyder]

Fluffy, on 2012-January-05, 09:27, said:

there is a point where you have so few values that partner must be very strong, and you know he is passing your double (otherwise he´d act with 3NT or whatever). I haven´t seen that hand yet, bu I think it might exist.

Yes, I did wonder about that a bit. It's not this hand, though - partner had Q642, A10752, AQ9, 10 and felt after a fair bit of thought that the heart suit was a bit too weak to bid directly over 3♦ while the lack of club support made a double unattractive. The hand also managed only to bid 3♥ after the protective double, for a fine score of +140!

[bluejak]

I do not see what the UI suggests. That partner has an opening bid? You know that.

Several years back in the EBU Mens Pairs [now defunct] a player protected as South on a 2 count after

---

I allowed the call because I did not believe partner's hesitation told him anything. I was overturned on appeal.

In answer to the OP no, it is not a blatant use of UI, it is doubtful as to whether there is any use of UI whatever, and a PP is wildly inappropriate.

[WellSpyder]

bluejak, on 2012-January-05, 10:59, said:

I do not see what the UI suggests. That partner has an opening bid? You know that.
In answer to the OP no, it is not a blatant use of UI, it is doubtful as to whether there is any use of UI whatever, and a PP is wildly inappropriate.

Well, I guess the UI tells you partner probably doesn't have a flat 10 count, which would not otherwise be impossible if, for example, opener had a fairly heavy vulnerable pre-empt with a 10-count and responder passed with a non-fitting 15-count.

bluejak, on 2012-January-05, 10:52, said:

There is a problem with getting things right when you have both AI and UI telling you what to do. Of course you may be in a situation where you can work out what to do from point-count, inferences, or whatever, but think how often people go wrong in such situations. Now they get UI and they do not go wrong.

I am always sceptical about the "I could work it out" argument.

Am I alone in seeing a certain tension between these two views?

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2012-January-05, 10:59, said:

I do not see what the UI suggests. That partner has an opening bid? You know that.

The UI suggests an off-shape takeout double. One that wanted to bid, but found nothing suitable. Most non-beginners are capable of passing in tempo with a weak NT, and passing in tempo with a penalty double. I agree with adjusting, providing 3D scored better than -140, but would not give a PP.

[bluejak]

Knowing partner has an off-shape takeout double? How does this differ from knowing partner has opening values? Not at all. Thus the UI tells you nothing, or to put it legally, does not suggest a non-pass over a pass.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2012-January-14, 18:04, said:

Knowing partner has an off-shape takeout double? How does this differ from knowing partner has opening values? Not at all. Thus the UI tells you nothing, or to put it legally, does not suggest a non-pass over a pass.

Because you are certain to find an eight-card fit, and likely to find a nine-card fit. If partner had passed in tempo, he could have Kxx Axx Kxxx Qxx when doubling will work very badly. But nobody thinks for any length of time with that sort of hand.

[bluejak]

My experience differs from yours as to what partner is likely to hold.

[Trinidad]

I agree with Lamford. The UI tells you that partner wants to bid, but can't. If partner doesn't want to bid, he will pass without breaking tempo. You can see that he is safe whatever he wants to bid. Therefore, you make sure that he will bid by doubling now. That is using UI.

The other thing that I actively dislike is the fact that West, with a full opening hand opposite a partner who made a takeout double manages to find the winning bid of 3♥. Quite obviously he had already communicated his strength by the hesitation: If East had full values for his takeout double, he would have raised to 4♥ (or made a slam try ).

Rik

[bluejak]

When you have a very weak hand and partner passes over an opening bid, and RHO does, then the AI says that partner has a hand that has values but does not have a suitable bid. Sure, the UI says exactly the same.

[peachy]

bluejak, on 2012-January-15, 18:26, said:

When you have a very weak hand and partner passes over an opening bid, and RHO does, then the AI says that partner has a hand that has values but does not have a suitable bid. Sure, the UI says exactly the same.

In receipt of UI, IMO East did not "carefully avoid taking advantage of it". TD should deal with the UI the way he normally deals with UI cases - applying the laws and going through the checkpoints like "was there UI"-Yes, "what could the UI suggest". "what are the LA's" etc.

AI does not trump UI, I've heard before, even in this forum.

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2012-January-15, 18:26, said:

When you have a very weak hand and partner passes over an opening bid, and RHO does, then the AI says that partner has a hand that has values but does not have a suitable bid. Sure, the UI says exactly the same.

I've seen players pass mis-fitting 17-counts opposite a three-opener. But if that had happened here, I imagine partner would have been able to pass in tempo.

[blackshoe]

peachy, on 2012-January-16, 01:46, said:

AI does not trump UI, I've heard before, even in this forum.

"Even" in this forum? Are you implying that we here commonly do not hold to that principle?

[bluejak]

peachy, on 2012-January-16, 01:46, said:

In receipt of UI, IMO East did not "carefully avoid taking advantage of it". TD should deal with the UI the way he normally deals with UI cases - applying the laws and going through the checkpoints like "was there UI"-Yes, "what could the UI suggest". "what are the LA's" etc.

AI does not trump UI, I've heard before, even in this forum.

Absolutely true. But when the information from the AI is the same or includes the information from the UI then as here the UI does not suggest passing over bidding or doubling.

Suppose your partner opens 1NT showing 12 to 14 points. Of course he should not do so, but suppose he mumbles "twelve to fourteen" as he does so. This does not stop you from treating his bid as twelve to fourteen.

[Zelandakh]

bluejak, on 2012-January-17, 11:18, said:

Suppose your partner opens 1NT showing 12 to 14 points. Of course he should not do so, but suppose he mumbles "twelve to fourteen" as he does so. This does not stop you from treating his bid as twelve to fourteen.

This seems somewhat problematic to me David. I had a thread a little while back where someone said "400 or 500" before doubling. No doubt for their partner this was always a penalty double so what LA is there to passing? So, by your reasoning, what is stop me from always making such a statement before a penalty double? Or any other call where partner might not 100% be on the same wavelength. As long as partner says they would always take the call as "mumbled".

In cases like this the AI tells you that either partner has values and could not find a call, or that preemptor's partner has values and is trapping, or that someone has misbid. The UI tells you that the first of these is true. I agree with Gordon - sometimes Responder has values and sometimes Preemptor has a stronger hand they they ought to. After the pause I would not double as East because it removes any element of doubt about where the missing points are.

[bluejak]

Either the UI gives you a choice that you must not take, or it does not. In the case I cite it does not: in the case you cite it does. So your case is not relevant.

In my view the UI does not suggest an action in OP that you would not take anyway. Of course in many many other cases it does, but we are not considering many many other cases.