seek experts' judgement

[han]

So partner has something like xx AJxx xxx Axxx (or worse: 3-4-3-3 or 4-4-3-2 shape). I think two aces certainly qualify as a serious slam try for a passed hand. 6H seems against the odds.

[arrows]

not talking about whether to get 6H, just what to bid over 3NT

[han]

I think my answer is clear.

[Kalvan14]

I fail to understand why 3N should be better than cue-bidding 3♠ or 4♣.

Being a passed hand, there is obviously some redundancy in your bids, since 3♠, 4♣ and 3NT overlap considerably. Therefore choosing which bid to pick becomes more a matter of feeling than of technique.

Actually I would say that it is a matter of technique rather than feeling: 3N is not just a way of wagging your tail, and saying you are happy. It must also convey a message to your partner.

Now the message you appear to be conveying is that you have no cue-bid available in spades; I would also say that you appear not to hold the ♣A (otherwise why not show it?).

 

Have we found the rightful heir to the "joyous" 4N? In these modern days, we have the "serious" 3N <_<

[whereagles]

Actually I would say that it is a matter of technique rather than feeling: 3N is not just a way of wagging your tail, and saying you are happy. It must also convey a message to your partner.

That may be clear to you, but maybe partner thinks otherwise. Maybe he's in fact just wiggling his tail.

 

Unless I was 100% sure I agreed with pard 3NT bid indicates a lack of spade and club cue, and that he remembes the agreement, I wouldn't trust 3NT to be a technically correct bid.

[Chamaco]

The "serious 3NT" indeed denies a spade cue, but does NOT deny a club control.

 

Using "serious" 3NT , the immediate cue bypassing 4C would DENY a good hand (in the context of being a passed hand), so the serious 3NT can STILL have a cue in clubs, but too strong for an immediate 4C.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

Partner has 'one' Ace and is still bidding a serious 3NT*. If he passed up a chance to show his spade Ace, all that is left is the Ace of clubs.

 

There are a number of ways to suggest 'maximum values' in a major auction 'without' bidding a serious 3NT holding only one possible Ace.

 

Opener never made any move towards slam so a serious 3NT* holding one possible Ace is a 'serious' overbid IMHO.

 

Maybe another 'look' at the given methods will allow some changes that will permit opener to express his values and 'allow' responder to show/deny values in the context of being a passed hand. That jump to 2NT without showing the main feature of the hand(the spade suit) could sometimes lead to a missed slam.

 

If opener can show his spades and follow up by 'bidding around the clock.'

He can describe a powerful hand with 5S 4H and short clubs.

 

Responder would now be well placed to devalue club honors and count any spade or heart cards as pure gold.

 

Opener never 'limited' his hand so responder is using up bidding space very rapidly while 'taking away' the bidding room that opener might need to show his shape and values.

 

Regards,

Robert

[hrothgar]

Hi everyone

 

Partner has 'one' Ace and is still bidding a serious 3NT*. If he passed up a chance to show his spade Ace, all that is left is the Ace of clubs.

Funny, I could have sworn that the Heart suit had an Ace as well...

[PMetsch]

I vote other. I have 4 keyards an extra king and queen and partner is looking for slam. Just bid 6♥ and stop giving more info to the opps. Grand slam is against the odds if partner cannot have ♠K or 5♥s.

[Fluffy]

When did partner say he was having balanced hand?

[Kalvan14]

The "serious 3NT" indeed denies a spade cue, but does NOT deny a club control.

 

Using "serious" 3NT , the immediate cue bypassing 4C would DENY a good hand (in the context of being a passed hand), so the serious 3NT can STILL have a cue in clubs, but too strong for an immediate 4C.

I know that, Cherdano, but the choice is between 3N and 4♣: which is better?The point is that the guy is a passed hand, and by definition limited. I would add, since it was given as a condition, a passed hand that would have opened 1NT with 10-12 balanced. So I would expect him to be non-balanced.

I would assume he cannot have 6♥, otherwise he would have opened pre-emptive.

If he holds a hand like

x AJxxx Qxxxx Ax

he would certainly be entitled to a serious 3N, but I would anticipate he would have opened.

 

xx AJxxx Qxxx Ax or xx AJxx Qxxxxx Ax would make sense for a 3N

 

I would submit that with either hand I would prefer 4♣. The only hand with which I would bid 3N would be one or the two above, with singleton spade.

[han]

The "serious 3NT" indeed denies a spade cue, but does NOT deny a club control.

 

Using "serious" 3NT , the immediate cue bypassing 4C would DENY a good hand (in the context of being a passed hand), so the serious 3NT can STILL have a cue in clubs, but too strong for an immediate 4C.

 

I know that, Cherdano

:P

[Kalvan14]

The "serious 3NT" indeed denies a spade cue, but does NOT deny a club control.

 

Using "serious" 3NT , the immediate cue bypassing 4C would DENY a good hand (in the context of being a passed hand), so the serious 3NT can STILL have a cue in clubs, but too strong for an immediate 4C.

 

I know that, Cherdano

:P

Seriously, Hannie: are you trolling me?

[Robert]

Hi Kalvan14

 

Both of your posted possible 'example' hands have 5 card heart suits. The person posting the questions stated that the bidding denied 5 hearts because a 3H would show 5Hs and that bid was 'skipped' to bid a serious 3NT.

 

Unless there is some unknown meaning in this auction, partner should have shown his 5th heart with a three bid so that his partner could cuebid the spade Ace and he could now bid a serious 3NT* with some degree of confidence.

 

I play a Big Club system and would have opened both 11HCP hands with 5-5 or

4-6 shapes.

 

Most 'light opening' big club systems would open the bidding with that hand.

 

Hi hrothgar

 

I must have gotten carried away with the 'serious' bidding here. There is indeed a heart Ace missing. Sorry. :P

 

Regards,

Robert

[Kalvan14]

Hi, Robert.

There is a single hand I postulated that feature 4 hearts only (together with 6 diamonds, because otherwise I am frankly unable to design a passed hand which would have the strength to invoke a 3N).

My interpretation is that the 3N bidder might have skipped the confirmation of the 5th heart to bid 3N: I may be wrong here.

 

I agree with you, btw: all big clubs systems would open an unbalanced hand with 10 red cards and 10-11 HCP including 2 aces.

 

This makes 3N possible just with: x Axxx Qxxxx Axx.

[arrows]

Ok, This is the story of this hand,

happened in the same round, exactly just before the other one I posted in

another thread. You must be right if you found it hard to believe,

because even I couldn't believe it.

 

Our opponents (East-West) hold the cards in question, I sit North.

It was rotated and the actual layout is:

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=skt2h8djt2ckqj852&w=saq975hkq73dak6c9&e=s83hat95d8743ca43&s=sj64hj642dq95ct76]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

N-----------E-----------S-----------W

P------------P(1)--------P-----------1♣(2)

p------------1♥(3)------P-----------2N(4)

P------------3♣(5)------P-----------3♦(6)

P------------3N(7)-------P-----------4♥

all pass

 

(7) break of tempo

 

It tooks about 20-30 seconds for East to bid that "serious" 3NT. Then

it's my partner's turn and he called director for the irregularity.

And that seems irritated our opponents, "What's the problem? 3NT was an

artificial call!", they said. Director asked the situation, I said west

thought "obviously longer than 10 seconds" before bidding 3NT, and neither

of our opponents denied there was a break of tempo.

 

3NT was explained as "serious", showing a good hand in the context and

further interest. With no delay, west drew out of 4 hearts, and it

concluded the auction.

 

The lead was a club..., when defense gained the lead, we continued with club

to force dummy, because of the bad break of trumps, declarer only made 4.

 

After the play, I called the director and said east hesitated before 3NT, and

west then only bid 4H with an non-minimum hand and all primary cards.

 

west argued that east's first pass already denied a mini-NT opening hand and

so forth, I asked "Do you open 1NT also with unbalanced hand?",

to which west responded with: "Do you think you know more of our system

than us?".

 

While I am in pain of searching anwser to west's challenge, the director

asked me if what I was trying to say is because of the break in tempo of east,

west failed to bid more positively, I said yes. The director then took the

board and ask us to continue with the next.

 

Up to this point, E-W only mentioned that, having not bid 3 spades, East

denied spade Ace or King. But no other additional agreement had been

mentioned and explained.

 

Later, the director told me the ruling was the table result stands.

I appealed, Wouldn't you? I am also puzzled that how the director got to

that conclusion.

 

During the hearing session that night, In the routine of "introduce yourself",

the chief didn't forget to add, "of course, we all know who you are",

he said toward east-west.

 

I said given East showing slam interest, holding West's hand, one could hardly

construct a East's hand for which slam has no reasonable play. Hey, not to

mention West had totally given up the slam investigation at game level.

 

East-West then came up with all the "additional agreements" I listed

earlier. They seem make some sense. So I asked the committee to ask them

whether they can provide any documentation for their "agreement",

they said there were none, they just play this way.

 

I don't know, please correct me if I am wrong, because I really would like

to learn more about this process. I guess "agreements" without evidence

are just self-serving claims, the committee should not based their decision on

these claims. In this case, the serious 3NT should be considered as general

slam invitation with no specific implications unless East-West can prove other

agreements do exist.

 

Also, consider the probablity that a seasoned partnership and world

champions, do not have any notes for such kind of agreements. Who knows,

anything happens these days.

 

The players then asked to wait outside while the committee discuss the case,

A quarter later, I was told the final ruling. The director's ruling stands and

I was given a penalty point for APPEAL WITHOUT MERIT. And the

opponents DIDN'T EVEN SHOW UP when the committee address

their final decisions.

 

I didn't expect to win before I went to the hearing, because their

team sponsored by a figure of prominent in the world of ACBL, and who are we?

I understand the economics, or politics, or whatever you call it, behind the

decision of ruling and appeal. However, giving me a "appeal without merit" is

just carrying this idea far beyond the imagination of us merely mortals.

 

The committee, fisrt, somehow, managed to find the hesitation was "about

10 seconds" instead of "obviously longer than 10 seconds".

 

Second, they doubt there's any UI at all, because "given such a complicated

problem East had to face" Here, I really feel impetuous to defend for East.

 

Their "agreement" clearly stated

3 hearts showing 5+ hearts, 3 spades showing spade A or K, 4 clubs showing

all strength outside clubs, All are HARD requirement. (well, it's designed to

eliminate any uncertainty, anyway)

 

If East was not pondering over the choice between 3NT and 4H, she must

have a hard time to count the number of hearts, spade ace or king, or if all

clubs were telephone numbers.

Therefore, the committee was basically saying,

according to their own argument, East was an imbecile, which I, of course, totally,

absolutely, disagree!

 

Finally, I was admonished, "Be very careful to bring up appeal case in the

future". Obviously, the committee concluded that my reason of appeal is

totally unjustified. and what is this, a mafia meeting?

 

For the technical side, the committee said "they spent no time on the bridge side

of this hand...." what they tried to say is my argument was totally nonsense.

 

They based their decision on E-W's self-serving claims, this is already way out of

the line. In addition,

even East-west do have the agreement as they said, slam is far from out

of the question.

For example, east may have:

1. ♠xxxx ♥ AJxx ♦ xx ♣ Axx

in a good day, you make grand

2. ♠ x ♥ AJxx ♦ QJxxx ♣ xxx

slam is almost lay-down

and so forth.

 

I look forward to reading the appeal case book of 2005 fall NABC.

[Finch]

You're obviously very upset about this, but to be honest I would rule exactly as the TD and the AC did including the Appeal Without Merit Warning.

 

Try and look at it as a third party would: to put it bluntly you are asking for an adjusted score because you don't agree with West's bidding.

 

You seem to be saying that your judgement is better than West's and West should have made a slam try. As making a slam try would (might) have resulted in a minus score, it's somehow not fair that they stopped at the 4-level.

 

The _only_ thing that I don't like about what happened (as you describe it) is the the way the ruling was given with, apparantly, the TD not really explaining his ruling. Let me tell you how I would have given the ruling, and see if that helps:

 

i) I ask you what the problem is, and you explain that East broke tempo before bidding 3NT. I establish that there was a break in tempo.

 

ii) I find out what the auction means, in particular that 3NT is artificial.

 

now the important bit

iii) I try and work out why a slow 3NT would suggest to West that bidding 4H is likely to be more successful than making another slam try, and I can't.

 

iv) I ask you why the slow 3NT suggests that signing off in 4H is likely to be right. You haven't said anywhere in your very long post _why_ bidding 3NT slowly suggests a sign off is correct.

 

To me, a slow 3NT indicates that he was considering other actions. These could be a cue bid, a sign off, trying to remember the system in a fairly complex piece of relay kit, wondering if 3NT was natural.... there is no indication to me that says "we should sign off now"

 

v) As I cannot see that the slow 3NT suggests one action over another, I rule result stands.

[Finch]

I didn't expect to win before I went to the hearing, because their

team sponsored by a figure of prominent in the world of ACBL, and who are we?

I understand the economics, or politics, or whatever you call it, behind the

decision of ruling and appeal. However, giving me a "appeal without merit" is

just carrying this idea far beyond the imagination of us merely mortals.

 

Well, I cannot speak for the ACBL at all and I understand that their ACs are actually paid. But I feel insulted-by-proxy, if you like!

 

I am a member of the EBU panel of referees, which means I frequently chair ACs. I can promise you that the ACs I sit on are never biased in favour of sponsors or experts. In fact, experts are usually held to higher standards with regard to disclosure and UI because they are generally expected to understand the rules and apply them (as a minimum, they are far more likely to be given a procedural penalty).

 

However, there is often a feeling that hesitation & similar rulings are given in favour of experts, because many people seem to believe in "if it hesitates, shoot it" i.e. if the opponents think and then get a good board, it's somehow underserved.

[000002]

The hand 2aces+4cards ♥ is NOT enough to bid a serious 3nt, serious means that i have 2pionts extra over the prior promise.

 

It's a leap to 6♥ surely if she is a expert player,OFCZ,now i think she is advanced only,and maybe novice because of 4♥ rebid.

 

The committee is poor ,very poor, just like my english pronunciation.

[Finch]

00002 you seem to be saying the same thing: I disagree with the bidding, therefore I deserve an adjusted score.

[hrothgar]

The hand 2aces+4cards ♥ is NOT enough to bid a serious 3nt, serious means that i have 2pionts extra over the prior promise.

The player who made the Serious 3NT is a passed hand playing a strong club system with a 10-12 HCP 1NT opening. Furthermore, the 3NT bid denies the King of Spades...

 

Its pretty damn difficult to construct a stronger hand consistent with the bidding

[david_c]

Try and look at it as a third party would: to put it bluntly you are asking for an adjusted score because you don't agree with West's bidding.

Seems a bit harsh. I read arrows' argument as being:

 

3NT in tempo = serious slam try

3NT after a hesitation = unsure as to whether it is worth a serious slam try

 

If you agree with this then the sign-off should be disallowed. I don't think I do agree with this, but the argument seems to have merit at least. Unless the TD specifically addressed the question of what the hesitation suggests in his ruling, I'm surprised at the AWMW. Maybe arrows managed to rub the committee up the wrong way.

[hrothgar]

Seems a bit harsh. I read arrows' argument as being:

 

3NT in tempo = serious slam try

3NT after a hesitation = unsure as to whether it is worth a serious slam try

 

If you agree with this then the sign-off should be disallowed. I don't think I do agree with this, but the argument seems to have merit at least. Unless the TD specifically addressed the question of what the hesitation suggests in his ruling, I'm surprised at the AWMW. Maybe arrows managed to rub the committee up the wrong way.

What's the old line... "if it hesitates, shoot it"?

 

Hesitation rulings are very complicated. Consider the following two situations:

 

Example 1: The Serious 3NT bidder made a hesitation. His partner decided to signoff in game and 10 tricks were made. The non-offending side decides to appeal since the hesitation obviously suggests that the 3NT bidder has a minimum hand.

 

Example 2: The Serious 3NT bidder made a hesitation. His partner decided to explore slam. The partnership rested in 6♥ and 12 tricks were made. The non-offending side decides to appeal since the the hesitation obviously suggests that the 3NT bidder has a maximum hand.

 

In and of itself, the hesitation can be used to support either line of reasoning. Accordingly, a decision to adjust based on the hesitation makes the hesitation an infraction. Argument could be made that players should be hit with proceedural penalties simply based on hesitations, however, this is not the way the system currently works.

 

As Frances has already noted, adjustments require an additional causal link. You need to demonstrate why the hesitation suggested one course of action rather than another. The fact that the partner chose the correct action is not sufficient.

[david_c]

What's the old line...  "if it hesitates, shoot it"?

 

Hesitation rulings are very complicated.

All the more reason not to issue an AWMW.

 

Really, the ruling is fine, but an AWMW seems harsh to me. The issue is what (if anything) is suggested by the hesitation, and I rate this as a close decision.

 

I don't think that "Example 1" and "Example 2" are comparable, because in the crcumstances it's highly unlikely that the 3NT bidder was considering making a stronger bid. Clearly an appeal in "Example 2" would have no merit whatsoever. Of course, there are more possible reasons for the hesitation than just trying to evaluate the strength of the hand, which is why I agree with the ruling.

[arrows]

now the important bit

iii) I try and work out why a slow 3NT would suggest to West that bidding 4H is likely to be more successful than making another slam try, and I can't.

 

iv) I ask you why the slow 3NT suggests that signing off in 4H is likely to be right. You haven't said anywhere in your very long post _why_ bidding 3NT slowly suggests a sign off is correct.

 

Ok, my fault, I didn't mention it because I thought is so obvious for any reasonable players.

 

because East had passed, If there's any problem about this 3NT, it must be too

weak, not too strong, there's only one direction one can expect.

 

Isn't it clear? signoff 4H is obviously likely to be right after the hesitation.

and a in tempo 3NT would have made the signoff virtually impossible, as examples

many people has already listed here.