This is the ARCHIVE website for Mountnessing Bridge Club
2006 - 2015
For a results and ladders site for sessions at the Club between 2016 and August 2023, when the Club closed, please follow this link.

Search This Site

Another (unneccesary?) hesitation leads to trouble

Hand played on:	05/07/2012
Board number / section:	6
Dealer:	East
Vulnerability:	EW Vulnerable

The Hands and the Bidding

	North ♠K3 ♥9862 ♦KQJ92 ♣82
West ♠9875 ♥JT ♦65 ♣J9743		East ♠AQT64 ♥Q3 ♦A874 ♣AT		The Bidding
	South ♠J2 ♥AK754 ♦T3 ♣KQ65			North No1 3♥	East 1♠ 2♠ End	South 2♥ 3♣2	West No No No

Footnotes:

1. Acknowledged hesitation
2. The validity of this bid was challenged

Description:

North's initial pass followed a long hesitation, so thereby he passed 'Unauthorised Information' to partner that he held values. After the hand was played out, East challenged whether South was justified in bidding 3♣.

Analysis:

A hesitation followed by a pass will always put partner under pressure; any bid that partner subsequently makes must be 'squeaky clean' and cannot take any notice of the 'Unauthorised Information' given by the hestitation. In discussion, South suggested that East's simple 1♠ followed by 2♠ showed a minimum hand, and therefore he was entitled to assume from the bidding alone that partner held some values. That argument does not really 'stand up': one possible scenario is that West held plenty of values, and was waiting for East to re-open with a take-out double, which West planned to pass for penalties; another scenario - as in fact applies here - is that East has taken note of the vulnerability, and, opposite a pass from partner, has chosen to bid on cautiously. For South to bid freely at the 3-level without any encouragement from partner would require a much better hand, in terms of overall strength, or distribution, or both.

On this particular hand, it is difficult to see just why North passed initially after partner's overcall of 2♥. In the discussion afterwards, North said that he did not wish to encourage his partner to bid game. Surely, however, a simple 3♥ must purely be competitive / obstructive? Had North had enough values to make a game try he could instead have used the 'Unassuming Cue Bid' of 2♠?

As is usual in similar situations, a panel of seven players was asked whether they would bid 3♣ on the South hand following a smooth auction. The general approach adopted is that if 70% (ie 5 out of 7) of the players support the bid then it is allowed to stand. In practice, the first five to respond all voted to disallow it.

The Ruling:

South, after the unauthorised information of the hesitation, is not now entitled to bid at the 3 level with a poor 13 count and indifferent shape.

Judgement: roll the contract back to 2♠, making 8 tricks.

North might still have opted to compete himself but, as the offending side, they are not entitled to this kind of redress.

Wider Lessons:

• He who hesitates will create problems for partner
• Opposite an overcall from partner, you can distinguish a competitive hand from an ongoing / invitational hand by not using / using the Unassuming Cue Bid