BIT and slam

[shyams]

[hv=n=sjtxha8xxxdcaqjxx&s=saqxxhkqtdaxckxxx]133|200|Scoring: XIMP

Opps silent as N/S bid/BIT to a slam

 

South - North

1♣ - 1♥

1♠ - 2♦ (A)

3♥ - 4♥ (B)

4 NT - 6♥

pass [/hv]

A. 2♦ alerted; is 4th suit forcing, usually GF

B. North breaks tempo for ~30 sec before making the 4♥ bid. After South's 4NT, East "reserves rights" due to the BIT; both N & S verbally agree there was a BIT. There is nothing in the play; trumps split 3-2 but the ♠K is offside

 

East calls Director, who does the following (list below is not necessarily in chronological order)

- Director confirms with South that the BIT was agreed (it was)

- Director does not ask North anything except to confirm the BIT (confirmed)

- Director asks South for reason to bid 4NT. South states 2♦ is game forcing. He has great trump support and his 4NT bid is obvious, regardless of partner's BIT. He says he is willing to play in 5♥ even if partner is missing both Aces

- Director asks East/West for their input. East says pass is suggested; North has not shown anything more than 12 HCP, and can still be a balanced 12 HCP hand.

 

How would you rule? Is this clear-cut? If you were Director, what other steps would you take / other questions you would ask?

[CSGibson]

I would ask what the jump to 3♥ showed. If it already showed extra values, I would be tempted to disallow 4N, as partner has strongly discouraged. I would also do a poll of the player's peers to see what they would do, which might influence my decision.

 

Certainly bidding on is suggested by the huddle, since they are already in a game force.

[axman]

[hv=n=sjtxha8xxxdcaqjxx&s=saqxxhkqtdaxckxxx]133|200|Scoring: XIMP

Opps silent as N/S bid/BIT to a slam

 

South - North

1♣ - 1♥

1♠ - 2♦ (A)

3♥ - 4♥ (B)

4 NT - 6♥

pass [/hv]

A. 2♦ alerted; is 4th suit forcing, usually GF

B. North breaks tempo for ~30 sec before making the 4♥ bid. After South's 4NT, East "reserves rights" due to the BIT; both N & S verbally agree there was a BIT. There is nothing in the play; trumps split 3-2 but the ♠K is offside

 

East calls Director, who does the following (list below is not necessarily in chronological order)

- Director confirms with South that the BIT was agreed (it was)

- Director does not ask North anything except to confirm the BIT (confirmed)

- Director asks South for reason to bid 4NT. South states 2♦ is game forcing. He has great trump support and his 4NT bid is obvious, regardless of partner's BIT. He says he is willing to play in 5♥ even if partner is missing both Aces

- Director asks East/West for their input. East says pass is suggested; North has not shown anything more than 12 HCP, and can still be a balanced 12 HCP hand.

 

How would you rule? Is this clear-cut? If you were Director, what other steps would you take / other questions you would ask?

After 4sf and strong support doesn't responder's failure to bid an intervening suit strongly suggest that he doesn't have first round control of S,C,or D? So, to S who has at least a C and D to lose after a D lead, N's bidding suggests most strongly that the limit of the hand is at most 11 tricks.

 

However, the tempo suggests that N does have key undisclosed controls [he has 2-1/2 of them] that his bidding says he doesn't. As such the tempo demonstrably suggests bidding on over not bidding on- so bidding on is an infraction of L16.

[blackshoe]

I would ask North what the heck he was thinking about, and in particular what a 4♣ call by him instead of 4♥ would have meant. South does have a five loser hand, and opposite North's seven, that warrants a slam try. OTOH, Axman's argument that pass is an LA has merit, so I'm not entirely sure that pass is not an LA. So unless North can provide something convincing, a score adjustment seems right.

[campboy]

As blackshoe says, we need to know what 4♣ would have meant. Unless the answer is "definitely a cue-bid", North might have first-round club control. We also need to know what style of cue-bidding they play; if 4♦ would show a first-round control, there is no reason for South to expect a second-round diamond loser.

 

So axman's argument doesn't convince me unless N/S have a specific set of agreements; otherwise I don't see it being an LA to pass now.

[shyams]

* N/S play cue bids to show 1st or 2nd round controls.

* They are not a regular partnership. They do not play any other complicated ("serious 3NT"?) gadgets. The only Ace asking option is 4NT

* A 4♦ bid would probably be interpreted as natural (i.e. both red suits, 5-4 or 5-3?) but would show some slam interest. Similarly, a 4♣ bid would probably be interpreted as natural but would show slam interest. It was not clear whether 4♣ would show the Ace or King (because it was a naturally bid suit by partner.

* At the table, North was not asked to clarify what he was thinking about.

 

After the table ruling by director (result stands), East consulted others and E/W appealed against Director's ruling. The appeal committee also did not ask North to state what he was thinking about before the 4♥ bid.

[aguahombre]

Two things went wrong. Blackshoe should have been the director; failing that, Gibson should have been on the committee. The points about the jump to 3H, and the failure to bid 4C are key. These are questions which needed to be asked and answered. I don't think the one about 4C would have been answered satisfactorily.

 

Looks like the adjustment to 4H+2 would have been correct, still better for N/S than 7C-1, which would probably have been my dumb-ass result (hoping for AXX of diamonds in South, thus 14 cards B) ).

[MFA]

I don't understand the term "usually GF"?!

 

If it is not GF, I would adjust.

If it is GF, I would let adjusting depend on the result of a poll. Personally I would bid again as south opposite a GF hand. Partner's 4♥ should indicate a minimum hand with bad trumps, but that is not a big surprise when I have KQT myself.

There has to be a sufficient percentage of passers for pass to be a LA.

[Phil]

Isn't this the reason we screen the hand with the player's peers to see what they would have done?

 

I think its very tough to determine what you would have done with the South hand AQxx KQT Ax Kxxx after you've bid 3♥ and partner raises to 4. Looking at the North hand, its obvious, but move some values around and slam isn't so hot.

 

Systemic rant: 3♥ is unnecessary. Even if 2♦ is 4S (not quite forcing to game), we should be in a force through 2N or suit agreement. /rant.

[peachy]

Isn't this the reason we screen the hand with the player's peers to see what they would have done?

 

I think its very tough to determine what you would have done with the South hand AQxx KQT Ax Kxxx after you've bid 3♥ and partner raises to 4. Looking at the North hand, its obvious, but move some values around and slam isn't so hot.

 

Systemic rant: 3♥ is unnecessary. Even if 2♦ is 4S (not quite forcing to game), we should be in a force through 2N or suit agreement. /rant.

I am not sure how many peers can be found who have an agreement that 2D is either GF or not GF. That aside, North underbid and his BIT suggests he was thinking something other than 4H. South took another call IMO suggested by the UI, and that was successful. Whether S would have done it without the UI suggesting it, we don't know. And don't need to know. I think 4H+2 is correct, but if peers CAN be found, poll is usually helpful to sort out the LAs.

[OleBerg]

Well put.

 

I don't understand the term "usually GF"?!

 

If it is not GF, I would adjust.

Agree

If it is GF, I would let adjusting depend on the result of a poll.

Agree

Personally I would bid again as south opposite a GF hand.

Agree

Partner's 4♥ should indicate a minimum hand with bad trumps,

But maybe it doesn't, we should investigate.

but that is not a big surprise when I have KQT myself.

Agree :rolleyes:

There has to be a sufficient percentage of passers for pass to be a LA.

Agree, thus the poll seems right. If a poll is unavailable, I would adjust. I believe there is a significant percentage of passers.

[Fluffy]

There has to be a sufficient percentage of passers for pass to be a LA.

Agree, thus the poll seems right. If a poll is unavailable, I would adjust. I believe there is a significant percentage of passers.

I don't think so, anyone who has played the hand knows there is a slam here, and players who have played are always biased towards the right decision :/

[Finch]

This is typical of a certain type of ruling hand.

 

Everyone says (to paraphrase) "I think it's obvious to bid on over 4H anyway, but I am sure enough people would pass so that pass is a LA"

 

I think there's no LA to bidding on, but it would be nice to see a poll...and of course that's why we do them.

[kenrexford]

Tough one, IMO.

 

If we assume that 2♦ is not GF (as I play it), with the exception being a 2♥ (minimum with fit) or 2♠ (minimum without fit), then 3♥ did not show extras, other than a maximum. (Why 2NT was not the initial rebid is a mystery, but whatever.)

 

Responder, over 3♥, especially without discussion, seems to have a problem. 3♠ is likely the call made when Responder wants to show a spade fit amnd slam interest, so that's not a cuebid. 3NT is unclear in its meaning, but it might be the method of showing a quantitative (or mild slam try in clubs) or it might show something with heart agreement. 4♣ is likely the club agreement call.

 

On that note -- how can 4♣ be a cue??? This is the only way to show a solid club GF, I would imagine.

 

What about 4♦? IMO, this probably is the catch-all slammish call, but maybe North was uncertain in the new partnership.

 

With the North hand, 4♦ would be my call, but if I panicked I'd blast 6♥ and cross my fingers, especially after the tank.

 

South? I don't get 4NT. Not enough legitimate info. Had North made a less assured move than 4NT, like maybe 4♠ as a cue, or 5♥ as a quantitative invite of slam, I would be happier with South's calls.

 

So, as muich as I sympathize, I'd adjust the score back to 4♥ and give south a procedural penalty for not bidding something other than 4NT as the slam try.

[Cascade]

Why would 4♣ be a cue-bid and not a strong hand with four hearts and agreeing clubs?

[campboy]

If you don't have a clear agreement otherwise then it probably is. In which case South can't infer that partner is missing a club control, and it looks clear to bid again -- although the poll results might surprise me...

[peachy]

Conducting a poll might be problematic. Where does one find the peers to poll who play the same system where 2D is defined "either GF or not GF".

[bluejak]

It is probably not an accurate definition: better is to find out what really is meant. Furthermore, one of the skills of better players is deciding what poorer players would do, so you do not need to necessarily poll players who play identical methods.

[RMB1]

This is typical of a certain type of ruling hand.

 

Everyone says (to paraphrase) "I think it's obvious to bid on over 4H anyway, but I am sure enough people would pass so that pass is a LA"

 

I think there's no LA to bidding on, but it would be nice to see a poll...and of course that's why we do them.

We were stuck with a similar problem at the weekend. Everyone we asked would bid 4♥ but none of them would have bid how the player at the table had done, prior to the unauthorised information. The TD i/c rang a colleague who was teaching a TD course: to a range of abilities as players. Two of the attendees would have bid as the player at the table had done, and one now passed (instead of bidding 4♥). So we decided we could rule that Pass was a logical alternative.

[MFA]

This is typical of a certain type of ruling hand.

 

Everyone says (to paraphrase) "I think it's obvious to bid on over 4H anyway, but I am sure enough people would pass so that pass is a LA"

Right, this is a trap I think we should be very aware of.

[shyams]

I was North at the table. First, a clarification

I don't understand the term "usually GF"?!

Sorry, the word "usually" is misleading and my error. Partner took it as Game Forcing and that's what matters (in addition to the deal in the OP, partner had explained a FSF bid of mine from an earlier round as "game forcing"). I play 2-level FSF as forcing to 2NT with another player at the club and that's probably why I added the word "usually". Apologies for the confusion.

Systemic rant: 3♥ is unnecessary. Even if 2♦ is 4S (not quite forcing to game), we should be in a force through 2N or suit agreement. /rant.

This was my problem as well. I spent part of the BIT time wondering why partner bid 3♥ and what he could possibly mean. If I were South, I would have bid 2♥ to show support and conserve space.

 

I distinctly remember what I was thinking about:

- As above, I was trying to figure out why 3♥? I thought it reasonable that partner had extra values (18-19 HCP)

- Next thought was whether partner can have 4-4-1-4 (and forgot to splinter). I thought it unlikely, because (a) partner would splinter and (b) with 12 missing diamonds, I'd expect some intervention from opps

- I tried to construct a few hands for South, but at the table I thought partner needed ♥KQx exactly to make it a decent slam (+ opps ♥ need to be 3-2). I specifically remember worrying about trump quality. So I chose to rest in 4♥. What followed is already stated in my previous posts.

Some of my thought process was clearly flawed. But if the 3♥ bid is a given, I could not think of a way to slam (except blasting to 6♣) in an auction controlled by North.