same old problem: new director

[mike777]

Let me back up a second, If in a poll of my peers 95 % or 90% would bid 4nt for sake of discussion and I pass....was 4nt a logical suggested alternative per the cited rules and if so what am I suppose to bid here after a BIT? Perhaps his BIT suggest is telling me I should pass and not bid 4nt, just the opposite conclusion that many are reaching here?

 

Hopefully I am making my self clear here. Everyone here seems to be saying I am forced to pass because BIt suggested 4nt....but why, what proof do you have? Why not just the opposite? Just asking...I do not know.

[Guest Jlall]

Perhaps his BIT suggest is telling me I should pass and not bid 4nt, just the opposite conclusion that many are reaching here?

Because if partner thinks over 4H he is thinking of doing something other than bidding 4S. Anything other than a 4S bid is a slam try. So partner was thinking of making a slam try rather than just signing off. So bidding 4N is more likely to work.

[Guest Jlall]

I couldn't imagine ever bidding over 4S even with no hesitation.

Neither could I, but that doesn't make pass a logical alternative for the actual player.

I never said it did.

[blackshoe]

I dispute several things you said.

 

What is this one cover card nonsense?? And anyway, what if that one cover card (which was never promised by any definition of 1♠ that I have ever heard) was the king of hearts? Isn't that why we play splinters after all? And even if partner DID promise 1 cover card that wouldn't mean passing is not an LA, a 4-1 break in either black suit could set you. 4-1's occur about 1/3 of the time, people don't go around playing on the 5 level willy nilly without a good reason.

 

If the hesitation showed confusion over the meaning of 4♥ that is even more reason to disallow further bidding. It means partner wouldn't have evaluated his hand correctly and might have been worth a stronger move. The UI suggests bidding on no matter how you slice it.

 

The point about LHO pausing 10 seconds or the use of the stop card was never brought up, you are opening something that wasn't even an issue. Apparently the hesitation was not denied at the table, it was denied later when the player was clearly just being defensive and his memory was not as fresh. If someone said you took advantage of partner's hesitation, your immediate reaction would be to deny the hesitation if you believe it didn't take place. It would not be an argument that would escape a player until later.

Dispute away, that's your right. :P

 

Cover cards are a hand evaluation tool. They are not nonsense. If you want to know more, go read some of Dr. Rosenkranz' books. And I said "one could argue" not that the argument was necessarily irrefutable.

 

Jilly asked if the stop card had been used.

[Gerben42]

Because if partner thinks over 4H he is thinking of doing something other than bidding 4S. Anything other than a 4S bid is a slam try. So partner was thinking of making a slam try rather than just signing off. So bidding 4N is more likely to work.

 

But partner in fact was thinking of passing 4♥ because he didn't know what it meant! So it doesn't matter if Pass was a LA, neither it nor any other call was suggested by the UI.

 

No adjustment, case closed!

[cherdano]

Because if partner thinks over 4H he is thinking of doing something other than bidding 4S. Anything other than a 4S bid is a slam try. So partner was thinking of making a slam try rather than just signing off. So bidding 4N is more likely to work.

 

But partner in fact was thinking of passing 4♥ because he didn't know what it meant! So it doesn't matter if Pass was a LA, neither it nor any other call was suggested by the UI.

 

No adjustment, case closed!

Non-sense. If partner didn't know what 4♥ meant, then all you know is that partner has a 1♠ bid. If partner knew what 4♥ meant, then you know he has a slam-unsuitable hand. Clearly the first makes it a lot more attractive to bid on. (Demonstrably suggests the logical alternative of bidding on.)

[Gerben42]

This is a case of someone who knew he was going to bid on after 4♠ (regardless if you agree with this decision or not) and now suddenly was told not to because his partner unsurprisingly hesitated over a bid with a non-obvious meaning. Give the guy a break (in tempo)!

 

In top bridge it would be a clear ruling to not allow 4NT, but this is a club tournament and this logic does not hold.

[Codo]

I agree with the minority that the case is no clear BIT UI case because you have inexperienced players. No case at all but a good lesson to all the good players that they should judge based on the bridge knowledge the players have and not based on their personal wisdom.

I surely would take Mikeh and his peers his 4 NT bid away.

I had take it away from people of my limit class, but not from real beginners.

For the new director, I cannot judge how good he is. If he is inexperienced enough to believe, that 4 Heart followed by 4 NT was a good approach to bid his hand and I find people of his class who agree, score stands.

[Echognome]

This is a case of someone who knew he was going to bid on after 4♠ (regardless if you agree with this decision or not) and now suddenly was told not to because his partner unsurprisingly hesitated over a bid with a non-obvious meaning. Give the guy a break (in tempo)!

 

In top bridge it would be a clear ruling to not allow 4NT, but this is a club tournament and this logic does not hold.

Gerben - You should know better than this. The argument "he was always going to bid over 4♠" holds no water according to the laws! This is entirely the point that is trying to be made. If you hold possession of UI, you must be careful not to use it. That doesn't mean you can just bid what you damn well please. It doesn't mean you have to pass. It just means that you have to take an action that either has no LA or who's LA is not suggested by the UI. You have to argue one or the other of those for no adjustment.

 

I agree about your statement with 'top bridge', but in top bridge no one is bidding 4♥ either. The point here is about teaching people the laws, not relaxing them for the rank and file. Let's understand the laws before we start saying whether we should relax them. Ok?

[mycroft]

Situation 1) Gerben brings this up. Not every call besides 4S is slam-welcoming; Pass certainly doesn't. Yes, I have players in my club that would bid 1D-1S; 4H with -- AKJxxx AKQTxxx --. "Novice" players are more likely to hit these partners than the OP N. Frankly, what with 2H being a (forcing) reverse in my book, 3H is the splinter, and 4H is - what? I don't know. I might break tempo, and all it would show is "WTF?"

 

If he finally thinks "Okay, that shows spades", then bids 4S, I'm not sure that shows or denies any extras.

 

Situation 2) 1D-1S; 4NT isn't keycard for Spades. Okay, it would be in my partnership, or in basically any pickup partnership I would get into; but 1S-4NT isn't. Maybe opener has to set spades first, and then keycard, and we already knew he forgot 3H. If he can prove that, then maybe he has a case.

 

Situation 3) Yes, I know this is not what was in the OP's setup, and that Mike and his partner wouldn't do this. But it goes 1D-p-1S-p; 4H-immediate p-WTF?...4S and then the opponents gripe about BIT.

 

Yes, you're entitled to and expected to take 10 seconds over 4H, for your and your partner's protection, but it's also for LHO's protection. He's entitled to that 10 seconds as well.

 

All in all, an interesting case. Again, the best thing to do is "I'm sure there isn't a problem, but let's call the director, just to make sure" - and let the TD do the education, if there's any education to be done.

 

Michael.

[cherdano]

This is a case of someone who knew he was going to bid on after 4♠ (regardless if you agree with this decision or not) and now suddenly was told not to because his partner unsurprisingly hesitated over a bid with a non-obvious meaning. Give the guy a break (in tempo)!

 

In top bridge it would be a clear ruling to not allow 4NT, but this is a club tournament and this logic does not hold.

In essence you are saying that for such a player, you would not apply the law. That's maybe a reasonable position faced with the reality in a club you know, but you should say so, and not argue that bidding on is allowed by the law.

 

Yes he may have planned to bid on anyway, but there are certainly players of his skill level that would pass 4S, and it is hard to find out objectively whether he always wanted to bid on, or whether he was unconsciously guided by reading partner's hesitation. (And please, noone tell me that a typical beginner's hesitation here is not readable, whether he wanted to pass or consider bidding on...) Why are you so sure he always meant to bid on?