BIT - how do you rule (Norway)

[pran]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=s643ha32d7ckqjt84]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

I should have gotten the auction in here, but didn't find out how, so here is:

 

East opened with 1NT (10-12)

South (the displayed hand): Pass

West 2♥ (transfer)

North Pass

East: 2♠

South: 3♣

West: 3♦

North: 4♣

East: 4♠

South: Pass

West: Pass

North:5♣

East: Double

South: Pass

West: 5♠

North: Pass after hesitation

East: Pass

South: 6♣ and then AP

 

Do you allow 6♣? If not then to what call do you adjust? (Both Double and Pass will be followed by AP in the actual situation)

 

Thanks for comments, and BTW, where can I find out how I should have entered the auction structured together with the card diagram?

 

regards Sven

[blackshoe]

There isn't, afaik, a template for the auction here, so you have to do it manually. You might try the "code" button. Let's see...

W....N....E....S
..........1NT..P
2[he]...P...2[sp]...3[cl]
3[di]...4[cl]...4[sp]...P
P....5[cl]...X...P
5[sp]...P*...P....6[cl]
AP

 

I used periods for spacing; you could try non-breaking spaces.

 

You might be able to put this code block in the "comments" section of the hand template. I don't know, I've not tried that.

[pran]

There isn't, afaik, a template for the auction here, so you have to do it manually. You might try the "code" button. Let's see...

W....N....E....S
..........1NT..P
2[he]...P...2[sp]...3[cl]
3[di]...4[cl]...4[sp]...P
P....5[cl]...X...P
5[sp]...P*...P....6[cl]
AP

 

I used periods for spacing; you could try non-breaking spaces.

 

You might be able to put this code block in the "comments" section of the hand template. I don't know, I've not tried that.

Thanks, I shall try to remember this till next time.

 

In the meantime I have made some local consultation. We agreed that we did not allow the 6♣ bid, but that pass was no logical alternative for South after this auction so I have adjusted the result to 5♠ Doubled which actually is 4 down for 800 instead of the table result 1370 (top score NS).

 

As the runner up score NS was 630 then ..... ;) :P

 

regards

[blackshoe]

The facts (see Law 84) appear to be:

 

That North hesitated before passing.

That North's hesitation could demonstrably suggest bidding on.

That North had (an) alternative call(s), to wit, pass and X.

That North did bid on.

 

There remains one question before we can adjust the score: were EW damaged? That is not in evidence, but assuming they were, then Law16B3 tells us to adjust.

 

In a 12C1c jurisdiction (most of the world outside NA) we don't adjust to a particular result, if there are multiple possible outcomes. Here, the possible outcomes appear to be 5♠X and 5♠ undoubled, making however many it makes. I would give a bit more weight to X than pass here, favoring the NOS, so perhaps 60% 5♠X and 40%5♠. (I'm by no means an expert with weighted scores; others may have better opinions). Note that if X could also demonstrably be suggested (I don't see it, but I could be wrong) over pass, then you can't include X in the weightings and it would be a straight 5♠.

 

If there was no damage, there would be no adjustment. We would need all four hands to determine that, of course (and to determine the correct adjustment as well).

 

Edit: now I've seen Sven's second message... could 6♣ demonstrably be suggested over X? Over pass, I can see it, but I'm not so sure about over double. Maybe....

[TimG]

It does not seem to me that bidding 6♣ is suggested over DBL by the BIT. But, that is what your ruling would suggest.

 

(I also think that Pass is a LA, but that is another issue.)

[pran]

Those who might be interested can find the full printout here:

 

http://nbfdata.bridge.no/Turnering/default...Fil=1049X100320

 

Select the small coloured tab (S:17) far out to the right and look at board 50

 

regards Sven

[axman]

The facts (see Law 84) appear to be:

 

That North hesitated before passing.

That North's hesitation could demonstrably suggest bidding on.

That North had (an) alternative call(s), to wit, pass and X.

That North did bid on.

 

There remains one question before we can adjust the score: were EW damaged? That is not in evidence, but assuming they were, then Law16B3 tells us to adjust.

 

In a 12C1c jurisdiction (most of the world outside NA) we don't adjust to a particular result, if there are multiple possible outcomes. Here, the possible outcomes appear to be 5♠X and 5♠ undoubled, making however many it makes. I would give a bit more weight to X than pass here, favoring the NOS, so perhaps 60% 5♠X and 40%5♠. (I'm by no means an expert with weighted scores; others may have better opinions). Note that if X could also demonstrably be suggested (I don't see it, but I could be wrong) over pass, then you can't include X in the weightings and it would be a straight 5♠.

 

If there was no damage, there would be no adjustment. We would need all four hands to determine that, of course (and to determine the correct adjustment as well).

 

Edit: now I've seen Sven's second message... could 6♣ demonstrably be suggested over X? Over pass, I can see it, but I'm not so sure about over double. Maybe....

The facts that are missing include the agreements to the bidding.

 

As I read the auction W has made an invitational strength 3D opposite a 10-12 NT [as in responder needs to be pretty substantial-like worth a 1 of a suit opening- to be invitational].

 

So, is NS bidding 5C to make on this auction? While they might very well like to make 11 tricks I should think they are preventing 4S. EW have given the opinion that 5C does not make, so there is the expectation that 6C does not make when it is bid.

 

That 5CX was taken out suggests that setting 5C would be less than making 5S- remember that opener freely bid 4S.

 

THe strongest inference from the BIT is that he was concerned that the defense might slip in 5SX.

 

WHat is clear to me is that inferences from the BIT [a] did not suggest that 6C would make and demonstrably suggested that 5SX would be successful.

[TimG]

THe strongest inference from the BIT is that he was concerned that the defense might slip in 5SX.

 

WHat is clear to me is that inferences from the BIT [a] did not suggest that 6C would make and demonstrably suggested that 5SX would be successful.

Don't the inferences about 5SX (that the defense might slip and the contract make) also apply to 5S?

[campboy]

I agree that it doesn't sound like 6♣ is making on this auction, so bidding 6♣ is only likely to be successful if 5♠ is making, which partner's hesitation surely suggests it isn't. So I don't think 6♣ is suggested; double is of course suggested over pass.

 

Pass seems obvious at MP. Even if 6♣ is a good save, we will lose to anyone playing in 5♣x, whereas if 5♠ is off we expect to get a top even undoubled. If partner was bidding 5♣ to make, he should have doubled himself (and for that matter shouldn't have bid 4♣ in the first place).

[pran]

4♠ showed maximum. We judged that the takeout of 5♣X into 5♠ clearly announced lack of defensive values.

 

North has really shown values while South so far has not bid anything after his 3♣ bid, and South's hand has grown tremendously with his single diamond (bid by West) and three spades (North must be void or have maximum one single spade).

 

The hesitation clearly suggested some active call from South, most likely 6♣.

 

An interesting question is if North's pass should be taken as some kind of a forcing pass: "Choose between Double and 6♣", but in no way did we find Pass a logical alternative action for South. Therefore the adjustment to 5♠X

[Cascade]

4♠ showed maximum. We judged that the takeout of 5♣X into 5♠ clearly announced lack of defensive values.

 

North has really shown values while South so far has not bid anything after his 3♣ bid, and South's hand has grown tremendously with his single diamond (bid by West) and three spades (North must be void or have maximum one single spade).

 

The hesitation clearly suggested some active call from South, most likely 6♣.

 

An interesting question is if North's pass should be taken as some kind of a forcing pass: "Choose between Double and 6♣", but in no way did we find Pass a logical alternative action for South. Therefore the adjustment to 5♠X

Your argument seems to suggest that 6♣ is suggested over double by south's hand not by north's break in tempo.

 

Unless I know more about the players it seems unlikely to me given north's earlier 4♣ call (not a preemptive 5♣ or something stronger suggesting we can make anything) that it is unlikely that north was thinking of bidding 6♣ and consequently more inclined to be thinking of doubling 5♠ but perhaps worried about how much defense south has for PASS followed by 3♣.

 

I would be more inclined to disallow double as suggested over PASS and suggested over 6♣ than to disallow 6♣ which is very likely to be turning a plus into a minus.

[jallerton]

I agree with most other posters. North has bid 4♣, presumably non-forcing, so surely can't be considering bidding 6♣ to make. It is also unlikely that he was considering saving in 6♣ as (i) he has already pushed the opponents up one level and (ii) 5♣ was doubled, which suggests caution about competing further.

 

4♠ showed maximum. We judged that the takeout of 5♣X into 5♠ clearly announced lack of defensive values.

 

Fair enough, but doesn't the double of 5♣ strongly suggest that Opener does hold good defence against clubs?

 

An interesting question is if North's pass should be taken as some kind of a forcing pass: "Choose between Double and 6♣", but in no way did we find Pass a logical alternative action for South. Therefore the adjustment to 5♠X

 

Why should pass by North be forcing? If anything, the auction suggests that the hand belongs to E/W, not N/S. Perhaps if East had passed over 5♣, that might be played as forcing.

 

Passing out 5♠ on the South hand just looks like the normal action to me.

[bluejak]

If pass is an LA I might adjust to pass.

 

If pass is not an LA then table result stands because 6♣ is not suggested over double by the BIT.

[pran]

If pass is an LA I might adjust to pass.

 

If pass is not an LA then table result stands because 6♣ is not suggested over double by the BIT.

We (myself in telephone conversation with another top ranked Norwegian Director) agreed that 6♣ was very questionable and indeed suggested, possibly also over Double, so we adjusted to Double. (South "knows" from his own cards and the auction that North cannot possibly have more than a single spade; quite likely he is void.)

 

However, this only had the effect of reducing the top on the board from 6♣ just made for 1370 to 5♠X down 4 for 800 with no effect on the MP scores. Our ruling was accepted by both parties without discussion.

 

We considered Pass to be absolutely out of question.

 

Sven

[jvage]

I also find your reasoning here a bit strange, Sven. To me it seems double is what the hesitation suggests. Not that it matters, but after checking the hand-record it also seems to have been what North most likely considered (he had x, KQxx, AT98, A9xx, confiming that 4♣ was an underbid, 3♠ was the least he could do). I also think pass is a LA, in pairs you would normally be satisfied having pushed the opponents to the 5-level.

 

John

[bluejak]

We (myself in telephone conversation with another top ranked Norwegian Director) agreed that 6♣ was very questionable and indeed suggested, possibly also over Double, so we adjusted to Double. (South "knows" from his own cards and the auction that North cannot possibly have more than a single spade; quite likely he is void.)

I do not think that when deciding whether a call is suggested over another the contents of the hand are relevant.

 

Furthermore, at high levels, a penalty double with a shortage in trumps is perfectly possible.

[greenender]

For me pass is a LA, but I don't buy that the BIT suggests 6♣ over either pass or double. Result stands.

 

It is not forbidden for a side in possession of UI to get an occasional lucky result if the UI laws have not been infringed.

[blackshoe]

We (myself in telephone conversation with another top ranked Norwegian Director) agreed that 6♣ was very questionable and indeed suggested, possibly also over Double, so we adjusted to Double.

Is "possibly suggested" the same as "could demonstrably have been suggested"?

[campboy]

Do we have the full hand? Not that it matters for the ruling, but it sounds like it will be amusing. Did East psyche?

[jvage]

This is from the link that Sven provided. Being Norwegian I might add that I know nothing about the case except what has been presented here. East had a normal 10-12 NT (if such a weak NT can be considered normal :lol: ). West did not have an invitational 3♦, but the OP did not say what that bid was supposed to mean.

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=s7hkq65dat98ca952&w=skt982h84dqj532c6&e=saqj5hjt97dk64c73&s=s643ha32d7ckqjt84]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

[pran]

3♦ was intended to show side suit and (additional) strength

4♠ was intended to show maximum

[bluejak]

Well, at least we all know it is North's fault. 4♣ is a lazy bid: if he had bid 3♠ then his pass over 5♠ would be forcing and there woudl be no problem.

 

But, of course, poor bidding often leads to UI rulings!!!! :)

[lamford]

Passing out 5♠ on the South hand just looks like the normal action to me.

So normal in fact that I would impose a PP for the 6C bid for a clear 73C infraction (and double would get the same PP too). I completely agree with all your comments on this one.

[pran]

Passing out 5♠ on the South hand just looks like the normal action to me.

So normal in fact that I would impose a PP for the 6C bid for a clear 73C infraction (and double would get the same PP too). I completely agree with all your comments on this one.

The situation was commented in the room afterwards and absolutely nobody considered (even remotely) that pass could be a logical alternative after 5♠.

 

As OS kept their top score also after having the score adjusted (down) to 5♠X -4 naturally reduced any discussion to a minimum.

[Finch]

Passing out 5♠ on the South hand just looks like the normal action to me.

So normal in fact that I would impose a PP for the 6C bid for a clear 73C infraction (and double would get the same PP too). I completely agree with all your comments on this one.

The situation was commented in the room afterwards and absolutely nobody considered (even remotely) that pass could be a logical alternative after 5♠.

 

As OS kept their top score also after having the score adjusted (down) to 5♠X -4 naturally reduced any discussion to a minimum.

Well, I also cannot remotely consider any call other than pass on the hand and agree entirely with lamford and jallerton.

 

 

[This is a very rare event in contentious rulings. On the phone earlier this evening bluejak said to me that even before phoning to consult on a hand, he'd warned someone else that 'Frances and Jeffrey never agree']