Do you think, the director decision is OK?

[jahol]

Top class IMP competition in your country, expert players, the following hand....

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sq832hkq3d973cak6&w=s1075h109dqj652cj105&e=sakj964ha42dc9872&s=shj8765dak1084cq43]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

The bidding:

North......East......South......West

1C.1).....1S..........Dbl.2).....2S

pass.......3S.........4D 3)......pass

4H.........pass

 

1) Two over one, better minor

2) 7+ PC, exactly four or five hearts guatanteed

3) Loooong thinking

 

Made just. Director called after the board, a protest made by E-W line that the long thinking from the south side significantly helped north to find correct contract.

 

The director´s decision: result adjusted, new result 4 diamond played by south, one down.

 

Would be your decision the same?

[hrothgar]

I don't consider pass a logical alternative at IMPs...

 

If partner is going to contract for 10 tricks, I prefer to be in a contract that offers a bit more upside than +130

[inquiry]

I disagree with the score correction. Result should stand.

[ArcLight]

Just my 2 cents

 

1) South made a negative double and bid diamonds, implying longer diamonds than hearts. North bid hearts, so there was no gaining of trump length.

North was trying for the best game, and took a risk in 4H rather than the 4D part score. Thats a Normal guess.

 

2) North has the KQx of hearts vs xxx in Diamonds, that is a huge reason to bid hearts over Diamonds. Probably South has Diamond honors and length, but not trump honors.

 

If South bid Hearts, and north with KQx in hearts took a poreference to Diamonds then THAT would be strange.

 

What was North able to infer about Souths hand from the delay?

That soouth ws short in Spades?

North held 4, and both opps bid them. Isn't it likely that South has just 1?

 

 

Bridge is a thinking game, and not all of us (well at least me) can think that fast.

I need time to visualize the hands.

To always award a penalty against a pair that takes a while to think makes the game no fun for those who are not yet very experienced and stong players.

 

The way to deal with this is to hand out a sheet of paper at the start of the game that says

"To protect partner, we will always take 10 seconds before making any bid or card play. We may or may not have a problem, and don't want to be accused of influencing partners play"

[pclayton]

Not sure.

 

Would we all bid a 'quick' 4♦ with: void, Jxxx, AQJxxx, xxx? South's tank indicates alternate strains (North can tell its not a double), so 4♥ becomes a lot more attractive.

 

I'd adjust too.

[hrothgar]

>1) South made a negative double and bid diamonds, implying longer diamonds than

>hearts. North bid hearts, so there was no gaining of trump length.

 

I don't think that this assumption is necessarily true

 

>The way to deal with this is to hand out a sheet of paper at the start of the

>game that says

>

>"To protect partner, we will always take 10 seconds before making any bid or card

>play. We may or may not have a problem, and don't want to be accused of influencing partners play"

 

Think what would happen if anyone actually behaved in this manner.

 

13 cards in each hand.

4 players at the table

10 seconds per card

 

You're looking at 8 minutes and 40 seconds per board for card play alone. Admittedly, there will be the occasional claim, but I'd bet you still end up averaging 10 minutes a board. That's 4 hours for a 24 board tournament.

 

I have better things to do with my life

[helene_t]

The adjustment is very bad.

 

The BIT may be based on too much strength, or to little strengt, for 4♦, or on dbl being an alternative to 4♦.

 

Actually, I don't realy understand what South was thinking about. 4♦ seems clear-cut with this hand.

 

Besides, North has no alternative to 4♥. His second-round pass already suggested that he didn't have four hearts. And he even has good trumps.

 

Result stands.

[cherdano]

>1) South made a negative double and bid diamonds, implying longer diamonds than >hearts. North bid hearts, so there was no gaining of trump length.

 

I don't think that this assumption is necessarily true

I disagree. With 5-5, most players would start bidding their suits. Usually South's shape is 4=5 or 4=6 in the red suits for the given sequence, and a Moysian looks terrible from the North hand.

 

(In fact I don't understand why South didnt start with 2H.)

 

IMO pass is certainly a LA. So the only question is whether the hesitation demonstrably suggested 4H over passing. I would think so.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Pass is not an LA, but 5D is.

 

And I think 4H is suggested by the tank,

i.e. I adjust to 5D-?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jillybean]

Pass is not a LA, but not sure if pause suggested bidding 4♥ over 5♦

[hrothgar]

I disagree. With 5-5, most players would start bidding their suits. Usually South's shape is 4=5 or 4=6 in the red suits for the given sequence, and a Moysian looks terrible from the North hand.

Why does a Moysian look terrible?

 

(Presumably) you're ruffing Spades with South's small trump while using North's Trump honors to control the suit. Admittedly, this presumes a dummy reversal, but I don't think its that far fetched.

 

Eventually, you plan to run Diamonds and cash top clubs for the bulk of your tricks...

[mikeh]

I would not adjust. The thinking clearly announced that S had a close call to make, but surely one of the options that might well be in S's mind could be 'Pass'. I do not see why knowledge of a problem in any way suggests that 4♥ had a better chance of success than after an in-tempo 4♦.

 

I do wonder why S chose a negative double, but maybe 2♥ would have shown some other hand (a good reason for changing methods, if so... it should be obvious that the ♠s were about to be raised, creating the problem).

[suokko]

double wasn't neagtive but transfer to hearts. Double means pretty much same as without interference 1!H bid. After that 4♦ bid is automatic if not choosing pass.

[cherdano]

I disagree. With 5-5, most players would start bidding their suits. Usually South's shape is 4=5 or 4=6 in the red suits for the given sequence, and a Moysian looks terrible from the North hand.

Why does a Moysian look terrible?

 

(Presumably) you're ruffing Spades with South's small trump while using North's Trump honors to control the suit. Admittedly, this presumes a dummy reversal, but I don't think its that far fetched.

 

Eventually, you plan to run Diamonds and cash top clubs for the bulk of your tricks...

If you have to ruff at trick one, I find it hard to imagine hands where you can keep control to eventually run diamonds. Unless hearts split 3-3 AND diamonds split 2-2 or something like that.

[jahol]

It was explained at the beginning of the discussion, but may be, I did not pointed out enough.

 

The double call showed exactly four or five hearts, 7+ PC (not limited)...and vice versa... any distribution with 4-5 H would have been bid this way... the 2H call would mean completely different distribution. The bid was alerted and explained.

[awm]

This depends on whether the 4♦ bid is forcing in their methods. In standard methods this sequence tends to show a weaker hand (a good hand bids 2♦ over 1♠) but it seems clear that these players have different agreements. Basically:

 

(1) If 4♦ is forcing, and they can produce evidence of this (i.e. 2♦ bid would deny holding four hearts, or would be a negative free bid, or have some other meaning) then North's 4♥ call is quite normal. He can't drop partner in diamonds and given his strong heart holding it seems quite possible that 4♥ plays better than 5♦. The adjustment should be overruled.

 

(2) If 4♦ is NF, and this is the typical sequence on a weakish 4-6 red two-suiter, then I agree with the adjustment. Passing 4♦ on a flat minimum must be a LA to playing a 4-3 ♥ fit with ruffs in the long hand. It's true that south could have a number of different problems over 3♠, but given north's spade holding a penalty double is not a possible action. This leaves three major possibilities: south is thinking about passing, south is concerned about having the "wrong" shape for 4♦, and south is concerned that a NF 4♦ call may miss a game. Only in the first case might passing 4♦ work out, and this seems least likely given the opponents bidding. I agree that the break in tempo doesn't make it "indisputably obviously right" to bid 4♥ over 4♦, but it does make it substantially more likely to be right than it otherwise would be.

 

I also disagree with one of the previous comments, that north "cannot hold 4♥" on this auction. Is it automatic now to bid at the three level with a balanced hand and spade wastage, just because of an eight card fit? I would think that 3♥ would've shown mild extras, or at least a hand without much wasted in spades.

[kenberg]

The system is not one we are all familiar with. The NS pair should be asked to explain how they differentiate between a 6-4 hand and a 5-5 hand. A cynic might believe that they had just seen how it is done.

[neilkaz]

To me, the long pause indicates a strong likelyhood of 55 in the reds rather than 45. It could have been made on a very difficult decision as to whether to pass 3♠. However, to me, 4♦ tells opener to take his choice of 4♥, 5♦, or passing with a dead minimum.

 

The long pause simply points to much towards having 5♥'s and as others have noted, a quick 4♦ would likely imply 46 in the reds.

 

I hate to see adjustments like this, but south should have taken a few seconds thought while the opps' 2♠ and 3♠ bids were being made.

 

When you pause a long time, especially at high levels of comp, you are open to catching an unfavorable ruling from TD. In this case, I'd adjust as well, unless it could be proven that 4m is 100% forcing to game in their system (noting the lack of alert for 4♦, however)

 

.. neilkaz ..

[Codo]

If I had a transfer to HEart avaiable, would I use it with 4 Hearts and 6 Diamonds?

I won´t. So Phils example hand is out, if it cannot be proofen, that N/S will always show their Hearts first.

So the hesitation does not show longer hearts. It shows 4-5 Hearts and 4-5 diamonds. It may be a stretch or it may have extra values. But I see no clue, why Hearts should be prefered to Diamonds. After all, wouldn´t you think what to do with a 1543 hand f.e.? And wouldn´t you need time to remember whether X is negative or penalty, whether 4 Diamond is forcing or not and wheer other bids are avaiable? I certanly would, so I have no sympathy for directors descission.

[inquiry]

It was explained at the beginning of the discussion, but may be, I did not pointed out enough.

 

The double call showed exactly four or five hearts, 7+ PC (not limited)...and vice versa... any distribution with 4-5 H would have been bid this way... the 2H call would mean completely different distribution. The bid was alerted and explained.

DBL is unlimited, then 4♦ is forcing, again arguing strongly for no adjustment. It was clear no adjustment without dbl being unlimited, andit is crystal clear with 4♦ being forcing

[mycroft]

I haven't looked clearly at this, but I (sort of) agree with the majority. I think 4D-1 is a strange ruling - either let it stand (saying the UI said "I don't know what to do") or adjust to 5D-2 (I can't see North passing short of game in a strong IMP game - here we're ruling that "the UI shows hearts").

 

But I'm not an true expert player - the poll of true experts will show me what to do. Maybe they would play a partscore.

 

Michael.