My own Premier league story

[bluejak]

I was consulted by phone on this one:

 

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sakj752hak3dk86c9]133|100|Scoring: MP

... 1NT .P. 3♠

.P. 4♠. .P. 6♠

.P. .P.. .P.

 

Screens[/hv]

 

There was a pronounced hesitation before the 4♠ bid, ok, it could have been the screen-mate but on this auction we can assume it was before the 4♠ bid.

 

1NT was 12-14. 3♠ was a slam try. Over 3♠ 3NT is the weakest action, so 4♠ is somewhat encouraging, but not as much as a cue-bid would be.

 

So, two questions. How would you rule? How did I say I would have ruled?

[OleBerg]

Result stands.

 

The hesitation might as well have been caused by a consideration to bid 3NT.

 

And even if it didn't, I wouldn't consider pass a LA. Grand might easily be laydown.

[campboy]

I don't think pass is an LA; I am struggling to construct a hand where slam is poor other than by giving partner neither minor ace. I don't think 6♠ is suggested over 4NT, which would have been my choice.

[jdonn]

Result stands.

 

The hesitation might as well have been caused by a consideration to bid 3NT.

 

And even if it didn't, I wouldn't consider pass a LA. Grand might easily be laydown.

I agree, I think it's just as likely to be thinking of 3NT as it is thinking of a stronger action, so nothing is demonstrably suggested. Now if 4♠ were the weakest action available that would of course be a different story.

[gnasher]

I'd want to know more about the distinction between 4♠ and a cue-bid. Suppose, for example, that the division between the bids was:

 

- 3NT: no spade fit

- 4♠: a spade fit, but not slam-suitable

- Cue-bid: slam-suitable with a fit

 

I'm fairly sure I've seen suggested that in print (possibly as a hangover from the days before transfers). In that scheme, it would obviously be correct to pass. Furthermore, the Laws would require a pass: you don't have to think to know whether you have a fit, but deciding whether you're slam-suitable may require thought, so the UI does suggest bidding over passing.

 

4♠ is such a space-consuming bid that it's hard to believe than anyone would agree to bid it on as much as an ace and ♠Q. I'd need to hear some persuasive arguments that their agreements really did allow this.

[Cyberyeti]

Grand will never be laydown, 2 aces and 4 small spades or the queen would get a cue even if minimum, but no aces should get 3N whatever else is held.

 

Expect partner to have one of the minor suit aces so the worst it figures to be on is AKJxxx opposite xx for no loser and it could easily be laydown. I'd have asked for controls (5 can hardly be going off unless stuff splits very badly), but I think bidding on is routine.

 

The hesitation could easily have been 3N/4♠ so no demonstrable suggestion that 6♠ is right.

 

Score stands for me.

[nigel_k]

Agree with the others.

 

Passing is certainly not a LA. The least you can reasonably do is Blackwood and bid slam unless off two aces.

 

If it is pairs then 6NT could be an option but I don't see how the slow 4♠ suggests that will be wrong. If anything the UI points towards 6NT not away from it.

 

Investigating grand after partner failed to cue bid is also unreasonable.

[OleBerg]

Ok, grand will be out in a serious partnership, and since it is from the premier league, that should be assured.

 

I have no problem however, imagining players of slightly less merit bidding 4♠ with:

 

♠ Qxx

♥ xx

♦ AQxx

♣ Axxx

 

with the reason: If all partner needs is two aces and the ♠Q, he will get them when he Blackwoods.

[peachy]

Result stands. Going on after 4S is very clear, passing is not a LA for a reasonable level player.

 

If anything, the UI from the BIT is that opener was on the border whether he should bid 3NT and show the weakest option. I would think that Pass is an illegal alternative [when responder has UI that opener has borderline values for the 4S response].

[Codo]

As Andy, I had asked about the 4 ♠ bid.

 

Here in Germany the by far most common way to play after a strong 3 spade bid is the way he described it.

And in that case I had ruled for 4 ♠ +2 or 6♠ -1, whatever is the worst for the offending side.

[bluejak]

Let me ask a question: does the UI suggest bidding 6♠ over 4NT?

[phil_20686]

Let me ask a question: does the UI suggest bidding 6♠ over 4NT?

I'm not sure what you are getting at. If partner doesnt have a minor suit ace he as at most a single control and the q of spades. I think that would have been a clear 3n bid with no first round control and only one second round.

 

I think you can assume that partner has 3 spades or the q and a minor suit ace. In that case i have a compbined 30-32 count with a decent 6 card suit. If the hesitation suggests anything it suggests that partner is weaker. I would say that pass is not a LA. Its maybe close between a 5 level cue and bidding 6s. I would say bidding 4N suggests that you think partner has less than he has shown and would be a use of UI, although i accept that an argument could be made that if you have the chance to double check a piece of information and you don't, that is a bit silly - if i am prepared to leap to 6 spades it can hardly be unethical to double check he has what he has shown before i leap to slam? Perhaps it is if you are assuming that the hesitiation means he doesnt have the bid he has shown. Perhaps with Qxx spades and KQJT9 clubs he might have a decision about how suitable his hand is.

 

I think the cuebid is also suggested by the UI, as the hesitation suggests partner is at the extreme of his range for 4s, either top or bottom, and a cue will allow him to clarify - with a max he can easily bid 6s, with a min he can easily bid 5s.

 

Thus 6s is surely the only action he can ethically make.

[jallerton]

I'd want to know more about the distinction between 4♠ and a cue-bid.  Suppose, for example, that the division between the bids was:

 

- 3NT: no spade fit

- 4♠: a spade fit, but not slam-suitable

- Cue-bid: slam-suitable with a fit

 

I agree. We need to know what a 3NT bid would mean and how firm the partnership's agreements are in this area.

 

If they have specifically agreed that Opener is expected to use discretion and that 4♠ is the medium action [a sub-optimal method, if you think about it] then probably the UI does not demonstrably suggest bidding on over passing or vice versa.

 

4♠ is such a space-consuming bid that it's hard to believe than anyone would agree to bid it on as much as an ace and ♠Q.  I'd need to hear some persuasive arguments that their agreements really did allow this.

 

It really depends on their agreements. If not sure on what hands partner might bid 4♠, it seems percentage to bid Blackwood and bid slam opposite and ace and ♠Q. But if the partnership has agreed to play what I consider to be a superior method, 4♠ should deny a side suit ace (else cue bid) in which case passing is the only logical alternative lest partner hold something like:

 

♠Qxx ♥Qx ♦QJ10xx ♣KQx

 

when 4♠ could be the limit of the hand (OK, 4♠ may not make either on a really bad day but perhaps the opponents can take only one ruff, and yes 4NT is cold but it is impossible to get there).

 

Let me ask a question: does the UI suggest bidding 6♠ over 4NT?

 

It depends. Having established what agreements they have, I'd ask the player why (s)he bid 6♠. If I conclude that the player inferred only from the UI that partner must hold ♠Q and an ace, then the 6♠ bid is illegal.

 

Conceivably, is pass is not a LA, we might rule no damage from failing to bid 4NT(would get to slam after 4NT-5♦-5♥) but assess a PP for the 6♠ bid.

[peachy]

Let me ask a question: does the UI suggest bidding 6♠ over 4NT?

My answer is: No.

IMO it is impossible to determine what LA the UI suggests over another LA. I think we can ignore Pass because it is not a LA after opener encourages by 4S.

[nige1]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sakj752hak3dk86c9]133|100|Scoring: MP

I was consulted by phone on this one:

... 1NT .P. 3♠

.P. 4♠. .P. 6♠

.P. .P.. .P.

Screens

There was a pronounced hesitation before the 4♠ bid, ok, it could have been the screen-mate but on this auction we can assume it was before the 4♠ bid.

1NT was 12-14. 3♠ was a slam try.  Over 3♠ 3NT is the weakest action, so 4♠ is somewhat encouraging, but not as much as a cue-bid would be.

So, two questions.  How would you rule?  How did I say I would have ruled?[/hv]

If I understand gnasher and jallerton correctly, I agree with them that the director should ask for evidence of N-S agreements. If a normal tempo 4♠ would deny an Ace, then a successful 6♠ may attract an adverse ruling. Blackjak seems to be hinting that, at the other extreme, with different agreements, the slowness of 4♠ may rule out grand-slam aspirations, making a unilateral 6♠ more attractive than an exploratory 4N. This may deprive defenders of the opportunity to defeat a grand slam or to double an Ace-response to suggest a successful defence against a small slam.

[bluejak]

My own view - without being able to speak to the pair concerned - is that there is a danger that a player with [say] Qxxx will always bid 4♠ not 3NT. Thus, while I believe pass of 4♠ is not an LA, I think the 6♠ bid was illegal because, without the BIT, you could be missing an ace.

 

So I would have adjusted it from 6♠ making to 6♠ making. It makes no difference, you say. I think it establishes a view, and makes it clear to the player what I think of his failure to follow the Laws, and how he was lucky on this occasion.

[Codo]

So I would have adjusted it from 6♠ making to 6♠ making.

Can the pair protest against this descission and request the AC to restore the table result of 6 ♠ making?

 

Maybe the Ac will give a weighted score between your descission and the table result. :)

 

Anyway, nice reasoning and hopefully they will understand your point.

[bluejak]

So I would have adjusted it from 6♠ making to 6♠ making.

Maybe the Ac will give a weighted score between your descission and the table result. :)

No, that's a Reveley ruling. :D :)

[axman]

I was consulted by phone on this one:

 

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sakj752hak3dk86c9]133|100|Scoring: MP

... 1NT .P. 3♠

.P. 4♠. .P. 6♠

.P. .P.. .P.

 

Screens[/hv]

 

There was a pronounced hesitation before the 4♠ bid, ok, it could have been the screen-mate but on this auction we can assume it was before the 4♠ bid.

 

1NT was 12-14. 3♠ was a slam try. Over 3♠ 3NT is the weakest action, so 4♠ is somewhat encouraging, but not as much as a cue-bid would be.

 

So, two questions. How would you rule? How did I say I would have ruled?

The normal meaning of slam try is that partner is <required> to cue first round controls. Absent first round controls then sign off minimally or fake a cue in a suit with a king. THerefore, when the partner denies first round control systemically he will never freely proceed beyond game.

 

As such, a player that takes a considerable time to not cue creates the inference that his hand has at least an ace. This demonstrably suggests that instead of impossible, twelve tricks are possible; and, therefore 6S is demonstrably suggested over pass. L16 therefore provides the score be adjusted to 4S once damage is asserted and it is shown that the partner in fact hesitated to 4S.

[gordontd]

The normal meaning of slam try is that partner is <required> to cue first round controls.

Is it? Not in my experience. Anyway, that wasn't the way the pair in question were playing.

[gordontd]

So I would have adjusted it from 6♠ making to 6♠ making.

That's what I did, having consulted with David and others.

[jallerton]

My own view - without being able to speak to the pair concerned - is that there is a danger that a player with [say] Qxxx will always bid 4♠ not 3NT. Thus, while I believe pass of 4♠ is not an LA, I think the 6♠ bid was illegal because, without the BIT, you could be missing an ace.

 

So I would have adjusted it from 6♠ making to 6♠ making. It makes no difference, you say. I think it establishes a view, and makes it clear to the player what I think of his failure to follow the Laws, and how he was lucky on this occasion.

If, having received feedback from the pairs concerned, you felt it necessary to adjust from 6♠= reached via an illegal route to 6♠= reached via a legal route, why did you not give a procedural penalty for the 4NT bid?

 

Surely that would be a clearer way to get over the message of what you think of the player's "failure to follow the Laws".