3.5 bid

[karen4]

E has QT85/J982/KT64/A. EW vulnerable, NS not, matchpoint pairs. West is dealer and opens 1S. E bids 3S, X by South. West hesitates (hesitation agreed) then passes. 4H by North and E bids 4S.

 

East is the strongest player at the table, West is the weakest. NS are aggressive bidders (you may or may not consider that relevant)

 

When East was asked why he bid 4S he said:

1. He was between 3 and 4 in the first place

2. He now knows his partner has at most 1 heart

 

Do you allow the 4S bid?

[paulg]

I would not allow the 4♠ bid.

 

You are between 3♠ and 4♠, but you chose 3♠. If your partner had not hesitated then you could have bid four with less concern, but after a hesitation you are still between three and four and it should be clear that some would pass.

 

Partner is more aware than you that he has a singleton heart and now knows that you will probably not have wasted values in the suit. Stop bidding partner's hand after a hesitation.

 

Bidding in this instance deserves a PP for an experienced player.

 

Paul

[blackshoe]

I don't know. "Strongest player at the table" doesn't say much. OTOH, East said the basis of his going on was the knowledge that his partner must be short in hearts, which is AI. I would poll a number of East's peers before ruling.

[bluejak]

No, I would not allow it. Typical 'now I have unashamedly used UI I better think of an excuse to avoid being ruled against' response. Ethical players pass over 4♥ here almost without looking at their hand.

[blackshoe]

So you wouldn't bother polling East's peers? :unsure:

[bluejak]

<mutter> <mutter> ... trying to catch me out ... :angry:

 

If East was a c******g b*****d then he would have bid 4♠ and he would have tried to justify it by saying that

 

1. He was between 3 and 4 in the first place

2. He now knows his partner has at most 1 heart

 

Now, I am not saying East is a c******g b*****d: he might just be ignorant. But I am not going to let him get away with this one.

[mjj29]

So you wouldn't bother polling East's peers? :unsure:

What I think bluejak meant to say was "Of course, polling East's peers is taken for granted - but I'm never expecting any poll to come back that pass was not an LA. Bidding is clearly suggested, so the ruling will be to adjust. Given how obvious the position is, a PP would probably also be assessed, depending on the level of the player. He'll certainly get a warning about his L73C responsibilities". (-;

[bluejak]

Exactly. :)

[pran]

So you wouldn't bother polling East's peers? :unsure:

Neither would I.

In a situation like this I would consult other fellow directors if available, but my basic guts feeling is that East must now pass and leave the decision to West.

[mycroft]

1S-p-3S-X; p-4H-4S? Opener has at most one heart, guaranteed? This strained auction has never shoehorned N/S into a 7-card heart fit with a 9- or 10-card minor fit available that neither of them are comfortable bidding (south with 1345, North with 3424)? It's matchpoints, are they not leaning to 4H because "if it makes it's game; 4m isn't"? Yeah, it's likely, but it's definitely not certain.

 

QT85/J982/KT64/A is not exactly a huge limit raise. The stiff club Ace is either huge or just a trick, depending on partner's hand. Most of the rest of the tricks are quacks, and the DK is just as badly placed opposite the double as the "partner's got only one heart" is good. I wonder if this hand will be any good (stiff heart or not) after spade lead, heart to the A, spade lead. Yeah, they might not get that defence, but it's not unreasonable.

 

I'm sure there was a "don't want to splinter with a bare ace, but it's got to be useful" in there, but that's as faulty reasoning as it is every time I think that.

 

The big thing that gets me about this raise is that this isn't in balance - partner has a call. And partner (who almost raised last time - but I don't get to know that) might just raise this time, especially if *he* can see the stiff heart.

 

Yeah, I'll check. But too many people will pass this and leave the decision to partner. Who knows, partner might "do something intelligent" double, and 4Hx might be a good result - after all, partner knows about the 4-card spade support, and you do have good defence (DK notwithstanding).

 

I agree with most of the posters here - it sounds an awful lot like "I would always have bid 4S here, even without the UI", and he's really convinced himself that that's the case. Give it three weeks and "poll" him again at the bar. See if the thinks 4S is "obvious" still.

[Cyberyeti]

What is partner's hand ?

 

I have 4 trumps and at least half the deck so I'm sure as hell not passing 4♥. If I double, does partner pull to 4♠ anyway ? and how many if any does 4♥ go down. Allowing opps to play 4♥ undoubled is farcical, pass is not a LA. My opening bids can be a bit ropy, if this pair's opening bids are fairly sound, this argument is even more sound.

 

If 3♠ is old fashioned 10-12 limit, there's a good argument for partner's pass being forcing anyway.

[paulg]

What is partner's hand ?

 

I have 4 trumps and at least half the deck so I'm sure as hell not passing 4♥. If I double, does partner pull to 4♠ anyway ? and how many if any does 4♥ go down. Allowing opps to play 4♥ undoubled is farcical, pass is not a LA. My opening bids can be a bit ropy, if this pair's opening bids are fairly sound, this argument is even more sound.

 

If 3♠ is old fashioned 10-12 limit, there's a good argument for partner's pass being forcing anyway.

Most of us believe that you said all this when you chose to bid 3♠, a limit bid that takes into account the partnership's opening style. It is the unknown (or less defined) hand that should make the decision.

[Cyberyeti]

Most of us believe that you said all this when you chose to bid 3♠, a limit bid that takes into account the partnership's opening style. It is the unknown (or less defined) hand that should make the decision.

And in my mind he forcing passed it back to me (and he doesn't know I have 4 hearts).

 

Don't get me wrong, I think 4♠ cannot be allowed, but it should be changed to double not pass.

[Phil]

I do no understand this business about '3♠ showed my hand'. I am not barred over 4♥ because I chose to bid 3♠ earlier and I am entitled to reevaluate. If I held KJxx xxxx AQxx x and I bid 'only' 3♠, you can bet your sweet bippy I am plowing this into 4♠, even if partner took an eternity over 4♥.

 

Why aren't you polling the player's peers here? I suppose if this was a top notch player then any of his peers would look at this and instantly know why they are being polled. So... :rolleyes:

 

By the way, with a weak partner, I doubt I am bidding 3♠ the first time, since I cannot rely on them to properly evaluate their hand. But I agree that I do not get a 2nd chance with this hand after the waffling.

[paulg]

And in my mind he forcing passed it back to me (and he doesn't know I have 4 hearts).

 

Don't get me wrong, I think 4♠ cannot be allowed, but it should be changed to double not pass.

Presuming I am reading this right, he did not pass it back to you as RHO bid 4♥.

[paulg]

[snip]

 

By the way, with a weak partner, I doubt I am bidding 3♠ the first time, since I cannot rely on them to properly evaluate their hand. But I agree that I do not get a 2nd chance with this hand after the waffling.

Just failed the 'peer' test :)

[blackshoe]

Give it three weeks and "poll" him again at the bar. See if the thinks 4S is "obvious" still.

 

Lol! Good point. Okay, I can see the view that pass is an LA. Personally, I still want to poll rather than trust my judgement, but then I haven't been directing for 40 years, like Bluejak. B)

 

I wasn't trying to catch you out, David, I was confused because you didn't seem to think a poll was necessary. I suppose it isn't, for you (or Sven), but both of you have been directing far longer than I.

[Cyberyeti]

Presuming I am reading this right, he did not pass it back to you as RHO bid 4♥.

Sorry, I think you're right, but that would make my pass forcing, so whether I want to do that or double is not clear. Telling partner he's passing it out if I do pass would be silly then.

 

Equally if I think about my decision then pass, it has no effect on pard, as I might have been thinking about X or 4♠

[jeremy69]

If 3♠ is old fashioned 10-12 limit, there's a good argument for partner's pass being forcing anyway.

 

 

So once you have made a limit bid then if the opponents interfere this becomes forcing? There may be an argument but I am not sure it is a good one!

[Cyberyeti]

So once you have made a limit bid then if the opponents interfere this becomes forcing? There may be an argument but I am not sure it is a good one!

We have a blanket agreement that if we've shown at least half the deck, pass is forcing at the 4 level. It may not be 100% best but it is simple, and is useful here where we'd make a 2N raise which has pretty much the same bottom of the range as a normal 3♠ but is unlimited.

[blackshoe]

As far as agreements are concerned, the question is what agreements the pair involved at the table have, not what agreements posters here might have.

[bluejak]

I think playing forcing passes after limit bids that are not game forcing is just awful bridge. Sounds like a sure way to increase your minus scores.

 

I have not been directing that long, Ed, but I have been playing against unethical players that long.

[blackshoe]

I have not been directing that long, Ed, but I have been playing against unethical players that long.

 

Fair enough. :)

[Cyberyeti]

As far as agreements are concerned, the question is what agreements the pair involved at the table have, not what agreements posters here might have.

 

This is very true, but around here it's a pretty common agreement. At pairs particularly, surely it must be correct not to allow opps to play 4♥ undoubled when you have 21 points and them 19 and it appears both sides have most of the points in their long suits. The usual result will be down 1 or 2 when you're making 140 (or possibly down 3 when you're making 170). If they make 4♥ you're probably in for a poor board anyway.

 

Cancelling the 4♠ bid is easy, but what do you do as the director if the pair say that it is impossible for the auction to rest in 4♥ undoubled ? and must be either 4♥X or 4♠ by system. This is not an agreement that's likely to sit on their convention card. Is this another case where a director tells the pair they don't play their own system as seems to happen quite a lot ?

[WellSpyder]

... if the pair say that it is impossible for the auction to rest in 4♥ undoubled and must be either 4♥X or 4♠ by system .... not an agreement that's likely to sit on their convention card.

 

Wht not? If you have clear agreements about forcing pass situations, I would have thought it was very much in your interests to ensure this was recorded on your convention card in order to provide evidence in just this sort of situation.