WB 8.16.2
Hi Everyone
I am struggling with what I see as contradictory approaches in this section.
It says that 1H - (P) - 2H (hesitation) will normally have something in hand, whereas
1H - (P) - 3H (hesitation) could show a 2½H or a 3½H bid, hence no useful inference can be drawn.
I get the 1H - 3H case, what I don't understand is why the 2H bidder could not have a 1½H or a 2½H hand? Bidder could be deciding between 2H or Pass, or between 2H and 3H.
Are we saying that a Pass would be so obvious it would not need thinking about?
Comments
This might potentially be a matter of frequency – Pass/2H borderline hands do exist, but I think they're much less common than 2H/3H borderline hands, which means that one reason to hesitate is much more likely than the other and probabilistically gives information away.
That said, in Acol-like systems, a slow 2H might quite plausibly be someone who is trying to decide between 2H and 1NT. That sort of hesitation wouldn't show extras, but rather, an inconvenient shape. (This aspect of the issue is system-dependent, e.g. in 2/1, a 1NT response and 3H response both show stronger hands than a 2H response, so the hesitation would imply extras in both of those cases.)
That's why the guidance is there - to give us the wisdom of a great deal of collective experience to rely on, rather than having to base our decisions on more limited and subjective impressions.
OK I can see that, but equally 2½H hands are surely more likely than 3½H hands.
I disagree that collective experience has much validity. Experience is always subjective, and traps you in the past (bidding styles, systems and trends change all the time).
I would accept a great deal of analysis as generating useful guidance, but that's not the same thing.
It could that a slow 2H bid might be with a HCP of 5 & 3 carder - the decision here is a choice between a bid of 1N and 2H. Who knows ? The senior players often suffer from a senior moment at bridge table!
Well it does say "The L&EC considers that". I would also say that " However, in cases such as" does signify a difference from the sub paragraphs (a) (b) & (c). I suppose that is why it is suggested polling when there is a "break in tempo" and opps feel they have been damaged. Don't forget there are several outcomes but not all will cause damage.
But the polling is only after UI has been transmitted. The issue here is whether UI has been transmitted.
Law 16 B 1, 2 & 3 needs to be considered in conjunction with White book 8.16.2. Law 16 B 2 refers to damage. So lets take an instance. Partner opens 1 Heart; Pass; now you consider your hand for about 20 seconds and then bid 2 Hearts with 4 HCPs, 3 Hearts and a 4, 3, 3, 3 hand. If partner has a 12-17 point hand and passes well probably no damage is done. Even if you pass and your LHO bids you can still bid 2 Hearts if available next time around. It will be slightly different if partner has 18 19 points and does not bid game after you respond 2 Hearts with the 20 second hesitation. But how does partner know that you don't have the 6 HCPs and 4 hearts to make game possible. Obviously 10 tricks could be there automatically. So unless you and partner have an agreement (illegal) that a 20 second hesitation followed by a 1 level raise is just trying to shut opponents out you would expect partner to bid the game.
You say that polling is only done after UI has been transmitted. However, Law 16 B 2 says
"When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could **well result he may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information **might have been conveyed)."
So I don't think that the player "must" demonstrate that UI has transferred, or be able to provide, in triplicate ,that they have been damaged. I can't say that UI has been transferred but I should follow procedure to see that the Laws are followed and make a judgement as to how to proceed.
As Gordon has said the White Book is there for guidance, to help avoid traps.
To my mind the worrying bit of all this is that so many players do not understand the significance of "break in Tempo" or whether damage has occurred so that they can protect themselves and their partner. In fact many players see what is happening without knowing the implications or what to do. As one person said to me once "You always asked to be called for an irregularity but how do we know what is irregular when everyone does something different to everyone else anyway."
The original question stated that there was hesitation, which rather implied that UI had been transmitted.
Hence the original question then being what was the nature of the UI; min or max?
Or for example if playing on BBO a non bridge reason such as my lovely wife having just asked me, at my turn to bid, whether I'd like a cup of tea.
Agreed.
Hesitation certainly says that partner has something to think about - but what inference can be drawn about partner's hand? If there is none that demonstrably suggests one action over another, then it fails the test in Law 16B1a, and whilst there is UI, there are no consequences.
This seems a bit of a red herring. The actual reason is irrelevant, what it suggests is what matters.
A slightly mischievous, but not entirely irrelevant suggestion of mine.
What does a hesitation on BBO often suggest to you?