[Martin]: "For myself, I rarely pause for thought and I am known for never underbidding. So, should I ever hesitate at some point in the future and then support my partners spades to the 3 level, it would not suggest that I was close to bidding 4S, but rather that I was close to passing or bidding just 2S."
I'm not sure this is right. If you are known for "rounding up" your bids to the next level when in doubt, how does your partner know that when you bid a slow 3 !s you weren't on the borderline of what for you is a simple raise to two and a jump-raise to three?
[Foxymoron]: "I am unclear what the current requirement is for a logical alternative. It was, for a while, 30% of those polled would select it (the so-called 70% rule), but now the guidelines are something like 20% would seriously consider it (according to the White Book), and, it has been mooted, 1 in 10 would select it, although the laws do not give a figure."
A litteral reading of the law can lead to problems when a hesitator's partner has a hand that is borderline for a slam try, but has three different slam tries available. If the hesitation suggests bidding on it might be the case that each slam try is equally appealing, so no individual call meets the requirements for a logical alternative, although the composite action of "make a slam try" does.
A litteral reading of the law can lead to problems when a hesitator's partner has a hand that is borderline for a slam try, but has three different slam tries available. If the hesitation suggests bidding on it might be the case that each slam try is equally appealing, so no individual call meets the requirements for a logical alternative, although the composite action of "make a slam try" does.
In this specific case, since all three actions have the same raison d'etre (investigate a slam), then Law 73C easily covers the situation ("carefully avoid taking advantage"). The harder case is where some action is indicated over pass, but it is not clear what.
Comments
[Martin]: "For myself, I rarely pause for thought and I am known for never underbidding. So, should I ever hesitate at some point in the future and then support my partners spades to the 3 level, it would not suggest that I was close to bidding 4S, but rather that I was close to passing or bidding just 2S."
I'm not sure this is right. If you are known for "rounding up" your bids to the next level when in doubt, how does your partner know that when you bid a slow 3 !s you weren't on the borderline of what for you is a simple raise to two and a jump-raise to three?
[Foxymoron]: "I am unclear what the current requirement is for a logical alternative. It was, for a while, 30% of those polled would select it (the so-called 70% rule), but now the guidelines are something like 20% would seriously consider it (according to the White Book), and, it has been mooted, 1 in 10 would select it, although the laws do not give a figure."
A litteral reading of the law can lead to problems when a hesitator's partner has a hand that is borderline for a slam try, but has three different slam tries available. If the hesitation suggests bidding on it might be the case that each slam try is equally appealing, so no individual call meets the requirements for a logical alternative, although the composite action of "make a slam try" does.
In this specific case, since all three actions have the same raison d'etre (investigate a slam), then Law 73C easily covers the situation ("carefully avoid taking advantage"). The harder case is where some action is indicated over pass, but it is not clear what.