Appeal committee problem

[SchTsch]

Let's say you are elected for the appeal committee and have to handle the following appeal:

 

pass - 1♠ - 2♦ - dble

pass - 3♣ - pass - 3♦

dble - 4♣ - pass - 5♣(*)

pass - 6♣ - all pass

 

Result: 6♣=

 

There was a 2 minutes break before the 5♣ bid.

The hand that bid 6♣ is:

AK109xx

Kx

-

Jxxxx

 

TD decided to leave the result made at the table.

 

If you require an additional info for your decision post a question and I will try to gather that info.

[Ant590]

Were all at the table unanimous about the pause (and its length?)

[SchTsch]

Yes.

They all agreed with the facts.

[SchTsch]

And if it is important it was a game with screens.

[paulg]

When asked, why did West bid 6♣?

[Fluffy]

Its hard to tell, 4♣was clearly slam going, 6♣ is probably the right call, but it doesn't mean that he doesn't have a good logic alternative with pass.

 

I would try an average score between 6 and 5.

[whereagles]

Thinking clearly suggests bidding 6 instead of passing. I'm not sure it's obvious to bid 6♣ regardless, so I'd give the hand to a couple peers.

 

Gonzalo: I don't think this is a situation where you can do split-scores.

[Trinidad]

What do we think the break in tempo is suggesting? I could imagine:

 

1) East was considering to pass 4♣.

2) East was considering to bid 4♠

3) East was considering making a try for 6♣

 

For 1), the form of scoring is important. If this was scored as MPs, it can be a serious option to pass 4♣. If this was an IMP event then we must be in a game forcing auction.

 

If we consider 1 and 2 reasonably likely then the break in tempo doesn't suggest bidding 6♣. (That would be a disaster if East was considering 4♠ or pass.)

 

Usually (but not always) the length of the break in tempo is revealing. If East was considering to pass 4♣ or to bid 4♠ then there will be a break in tempo, but it usually doesn't take more than 10 seconds. Long trances are usually due to difficult decsions on how (and whether) to proceed towards slam (lots of possibilities, the meaning is not always clear) or to players who simply 'fall asleep'. If you take the duration of the break in tempo in to consideration you could rule 5♣+1. If you don't, then it is well possible that the break in tempo didn't suggest one action over another and the table result (6♣=) would stand.

 

Rik

 

Rik

[glen]

Clear for opener to bid 6 regardless of the 2 minute tank, given the previous bidding.

[Codo]

I don`t have a law book in my hands, but I am quite certain that I can give a weighted score.

 

In an appeal committee I had asked:

 

3 ♦ ?

 

If this is game forcing, 5♣ +1 in this case the BIT suggest some extras for the 5 Club bid.

 

4♣?

If this is game forcing, 5♣ +1 because the BIT suggest some extras.

 

If both bids are clearly not GF, I have sympathy for 6♣ =. But I would still try to give a weighted score.

 

 

For the descission of the TD: There was a BIT and surely no clear evidence that the 6 CLub bid was just a shoot in the dark. It was at least possible that the break influenced opener so I think he MUST rule in favor of the non offending side. And if he thinks that the offender have a case, he should ask them to appeal.

[SchTsch]

I'll try to give some answers but the problem was given to me so the info might not be so accurate.

 

It is IMP scoring.

 

As I understand their bidding methods 3♦ was GF.

The explanation of the player bidding 6♣ was that he bid 3♣ and 4♣ as weak bids, showing just his distribution because he wasn't sure about the ♣ fit.

When he finally got 5♣ from his partner he realized that he has a lot of extras and that 6♣ should be a good contract.

[MickyB]

You certainly can't give a split-score in this situation in England, I'd be surprised if you can anywhere - either the hesitation suggests bidding 6C or it does not, either pass is an LA or it is not. A split-score would be appropriate if the 6♣ bid was disallowed but it was unclear what might happen after - if it was reasonable to think 5♣ might go off (despite 6♣ having made at the table) you'd give a percentage of 5♣ making and a percentage of 5♣ going off.

[paulg]

I'll try to give some answers but the problem was given to me so the info might not be so accurate.

 

It is IMP scoring.

 

As I understand their bidding methods 3♦ was GF.

The explanation of the player bidding 6♣ was that he bid 3♣ and 4♣ as weak bids, showing just his distribution because he wasn't sure about the ♣ fit.

When he finally got 5♣ from his partner he realized that he has a lot of extras and that 6♣ should be a good contract.

This all sounds very reasonable. However in a game forcing auction the hesitation suggests extra values to me, probably without a diamond control, rather than a hand deciding between 4♠ and 5♣.

 

So the question is whether Pass is a logical alternative, which is a question of how poor can partner be on this auction. Well, I believe partner has denied a heart control (no 4♥) and diamond control (no 4♦), which essentially means he must have good clubs.

 

Perhaps the worst hand he can have is:

 

Jx

QJxx

Kxx

KQxx

 

but if his clubs are better then there is still the danger that you do not have sufficient tricks and the contract will need the spades to come in even if clubs are solid.

 

So it looks a poor slam when partner is minimum. However his hesitation suggests otherwise, so I think Pass is a LA and would roll the contract back to 5♣.

 

Paul

[cherdano]

I would ask the player whether he considered 4♣ to be forcing.

 

Btw, I think 4♣ was a bad bid, with such great spades you have to rebid them at some point.

[jtfanclub]

Perhaps the worst hand he can have is:

 

Jx

QJxx

Kxx

KQxx

If my partner made a 3♦ call with that hand, I would be quite unhappy. Why would you make a slam try with that pile? That's on the border between 3NT and pass. Give it, say, KJx in diamonds and it's an obvious 3NT.

 

I think more likely is

 

Qx

QJxx

xxx

AKxx

 

That hand is both more slam oriented and is missing the diamond honors necessary to bid 3NT, while still having the same shape and HCP as your example.

 

I think the 6♣ bidder realized that to make a slam try but not have a red suit control (as the bidding seemed to show), his partner must expect no black suit losers. With only one red suit loser, he could therefore bid slam.

 

but if his clubs are better then there is still the danger that you do not have sufficient tricks and the contract will need the spades to come in even if clubs are solid.

 

He has six spades to the AK. If his partner has a doubleton, he can ruff once and make the spades goood 60% of the time, and the rest of the time he'll make anyways if he can make the ♥K good. If his partner has 3, worst case scenario he has to hope for a 2-2 split.

 

I think that the demonstably suggested bid is 5♠. Partner was likely hesitating because he was considering bidding 4♠ with Qx and trying to decide if it would be misread as a higher honor. If responder really has no controls in the red suits, as I believe is the case (and opener could figure out at the time), then surely he wasn't considering 6♣.

[paulg]

Perhaps the worst hand he can have is:

 

Jx

QJxx

Kxx

KQxx

If my partner made a 3♦ call with that hand, I would be quite unhappy. Why would you make a slam try with that pile? That's on the border between 3NT and pass. Give it, say, KJx in diamonds and it's an obvious 3NT.

I'd also be unhappy if partner bid 3♦ as a slam try with this hand, however he may bid it because he wants partner to play 3NT with ♦Qx.

 

Paul

[Finch]

These rulings are very hard, because we can't help but put our own interpretation on the auction - really we have no choice in doing so.

 

In order to rule, we have to decide

i) what call or calls the hesitation demonstrably suggests

ii) what LAs we have at this point

 

and we have to put this in the context of a method that thinks 4C was the right call over 3D (I'm another 3S bidder here).

 

Some of the suggested hands for partner's bidding I really wouldn't expect my partners to have. If partner thought 4S was an option, he could bid it now - or he could bid 4 red suit knowing that 4S from me was passable. So again for me, I don't think the hesitation was wondering whether to give preference to spades or not, but was either contemplating a strong action, or wondering whether to bid 4NT (natural).

 

so, for me, 5C is a fairly weak call from partner and thus

i) a slow 5C bid suggests partner has extra values for his weak call and demonstrably suggests bidding on

ii) I think pass is a LA here, we could be off 2 key cards

 

I would adjust to 5C.

 

But one other point to bear in mind - I've discovered it's very hard to decide what a 'LA' is. It's very easy to say "I would do x, but I think y is an LA", yet if you do a poll and find 100% of people do x, then y is is not an LA (at least not in must jurisdictions). So perhaps a more interesting thread would just be to give the 6205 hand, stick you with a 4C club, and see what people bid over 5C. That should at least answer the question about LAs.

[mikeh]

I don't understand any who say that 4♣ was slamming: to me it shows a weak 5-5 or so.... 3♦ was gf, but I cannot believe that it showed great clubs... opener is simply expected to bid whatever seems intelligent, which often will be 3N.

 

BTW, did the partnership have an agreement over the double? Over here, it is common to play that a bid shows weakness while a pass shows full values for whatever you call next (altho obviously that depends on what your calls are... 3N would not be weakness :) )

 

Another point: some pairs will use a cue bid here as forcing to game or to 4minor.. it allows them to explore 3N while not forcing to an 11 trick contract with no great fit. If that were the case, then the tank over 4♣ could be over whether to bid or pass, and I don't think that the tank suggests bidding on. And note that this ties in well with the approach that 4♣ over 3♦ x'd shows minimum hcp for the auction (while confirming 5th club).

 

But if 3♦ established a pure game force, then I agree with Frances that the logical inference to be drawn from the tank is extra values, and Pass becomes a LA.

 

Thus, with some degree of trepidation, I would have rolled the contract back to 5♣.

[inquiry]

First, did the declaring side have an agreement about would REDBL or 3♦ show?

 

That is, did 4♣ not only show a weak distributional hand, but deny a control in diamonds?

 

If bidding screens where in place, were were they? If opener was on the same side of the screen as the 6♣ bidder this question is immaterial. But if Opener was on the same side as the hand that doubled 3♦ it is not. After 3♦ doubled the overcaller might have taken most or at least some of the time in deciding to pass 5♣ given the belated support...but only when dealer is non-vul and 5♣ was bid vulnerable. However, surely the hand that could not raise 2♦ (but could double 3♦) would have nothing to think about over 4♣.

 

So if dealer and opener are on opposite sides of the screen it would have some bearing on the decision. At least then, there is a question of who took the tank (or if the time was split between two players). Also, what was the vulnerability, if the slam was bid vulnerable versus non-vul opponents, that increases the likelyhood the tank could have been on the defenders side.

 

Over 4♣, the cue-bidder could be at a difficult point. Should he pass 4♣ (ok if 4♣ was game force, we can remove that possibility), should he bid 4♠ say on Qx of spades, of hd could be considering passing even though in game force, or choosing between 4NT, 5♣ and 6♣.

 

If opener was on the same side of the screen as dealer and 4♣ was game force, I would always roll back the score. This despite I think 6♣ is a good bid. The reason being, only opener has the diamond control -- one his partner can't know about (and one he may have denied when he bid 4♣'s). But the TANK has to be LA so it has to be rolled back.

 

If opener was on the opposite side of the screen and:

• 4♣ was game force
  • Opener side was vul opponents were not vul, I would let 6♣ stand
    
  • Dealer side was vul, I would roll back the score
    
  • Neither side was vul, I would let the result stand if RDBL would have shown first round control of diamonds.
    

  [*]4♣ was not game force. I would let the result stand.

[jdonn]

This is really being overthought. Bidding slam could CLEARLY be wrong, and the tank CLEARLY showed interest in bidding it. This is one of the easier decisions ever to move back to 5♣.

[nige1]

Let's say you are elected for the appeal committee and have to handle the following appeal:

pass - 1♠ - 2♦ - dble

pass - 3♣ - pass - 3♦

dble - 4♣ - pass - 5♣(*)

pass - 6♣ - all pass

Result: 6♣=

There was a 2 minutes break before the 5♣ bid.

Hand that bid 6♣ is: ♠ AK109xx ♥ Kx ♦- ♣ Jxxxx

TD decided to leave the result made at the table.

Directors who consult me about logical alternatives, never seem to do it fairly.

 

IMO, if possible, the TD should ask a sample of peers both the following questions:

• What are the logical alternatives?
  
• What call does the unauthorised information suggest?
  

IMO it is important to ask these questions before revealing

• The call actually made.
  
• The playing result
  

Otherwise there is a danger that a player will be ruled against, no matter what successful action he takes.

 

In a 50-50 decision, however, IMO, the TD should rule against alleged offenders, because, usually the message imparted by a hesiitation (or whatever) is clearer to partner than to opponents or to a TD.

 

IMO, this is the protocol that should be detailed in the law-book, or failing that, in local regulations.

 

In this case, I agree with Paul that pass is a logical alternative; and that the hesitation suggested extra values, making 6♣ more attractive. Adjustment to 5♣+1 seems reasonable.

[benlessard]

This is really being overthought. Bidding slam could CLEARLY be wrong, and the tank CLEARLY showed interest in bidding it. This is one of the easier decisions ever to move back to 5♣.

Agree 100%.

[dburn]

Let's say you are elected for the appeal committee and have to handle the following appeal:

 

pass - 1♠ - 2♦ - dble

pass - 3♣ - pass - 3♦

dble - 4♣ - pass - 5♣(*)

pass - 6♣ - all pass

 

Result: 6♣=

 

There was a 2 minutes break before the 5♣ bid.

The hand that bid 6♣ is:

AK109xx

Kx

-

Jxxxx

 

TD decided to leave the result made at the table.

 

If you require an additional info for your decision post a question and I will try to gather that info.

Did anyone ask the player (or the partnership) what the holder of this hand would be expected to bid over 3♦ with, say:

 

♠KQ876 ♥K7 ♦J2 ♣QJ65

 

Maybe the answer to that would have been 3♥, or 3♠, or 3NT, but I'm pretty sure that if I held that hand I would bid 4♣. If partner is prepared to bid 5♣ when this is the kind of hand I could have, I ought to bid 6♣ with the hand I actually do have.

[glen]

... Bidding slam could CLEARLY be wrong ...

I have yet to see an example hand that would negative double, then cuebid (not bid 3NT) and then raise 4♣ to 5, where slam is CLEARLY wrong

[jdonn]

... Bidding slam could CLEARLY be wrong ...

I have yet to see an example hand that would negative double, then cuebid (not bid 3NT) and then raise 4♣ to 5, where slam is CLEARLY wrong

x QJxx Axx KQxxx