3.5 bid

[gordontd]

Is this another case where a director tells the pair they don't play their own system as seems to happen quite a lot ?

 

It would happen less if pairs with surprising, unlikely agreements made sure they were adequately recorded on their system cards or in their notes.

[Cyberyeti]

It would happen less if pairs with surprising, unlikely agreements made sure they were adequately recorded on their system cards or in their notes.

Do you take your notes with you to the club or record the really detailed agreements on the "front of scorecard" convention cards often used there.

[bluejak]

This is all very well, but as so often happens, if you change the question, you change the answer. Nothing in the OP suggests that pass would be forcing, and despite the agreements some pairs here have [i would like to play against them with those agreements :D ] the player was asked the reason for his actions, and did not say "3. If I pass it would be forcing and I feel better able to judge than partner".

 

So my reply stands unchanged in the scenario given to us by the OP. If the scenario was different it is true my answer might be different.

[gordontd]

Do you take your notes with you to the club or record the really detailed agreements on the "front of scorecard" convention cards often used there.

I would if I were going to cite unusual agreements in support of decisions to make calls suggested by UI.

[Cyberyeti]

I would if I were going to cite unusual agreements in support of decisions to make calls suggested by UI.

Yeah, but in reality I haven't seen a system file at anything less than a national congress in 30 years. I know ours only exists on a computer.

[bluejak]

I take my system file to club nights. But that is not for winning rulings! :D

[Trinidad]

Whenever somebody claims that he makes a bid "because his partner must be short in the opponents' suit" I ask whether he has ever played in a 4-3 fit (or worse). Since the answer is inevitably "yes", the next question is what made him so sure that his opponents would never be in a bad fit. After that, I point out that the only person at the table who can tell with reasonable accuracy whether his partner is short in the opponents' suit is his partner.

 

Rik

[jallerton]

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.

 

If you don't carry out a poll, how do you determine what the logical alternatives are? Polling fellow directors is only useful if the fellow directors are considered to be peers of the player who bid 3♠.

[bluejak]

When you make a judgement, you make a judgement, not someone else makes a judgement. There are recommendations on how to make a judgement. Polling is one of those recommendations, but there is no way that polling is the only way nor does it replace other forms of judgement. If a TD makes a judgement without a poll, so be it, but asking him how he makes the judgement is pretty pointless: based on his logic, his knowledge, his experience and so on, I suppose. People have gone overboard on polling these days, and think it replaces judgement. It sounds just like the players who think slams make if an only if you use Blackwood.

 

:ph34r:

 

As to knowing partner is short, a pretty good-natured opponent swore at my partner and myself. We took it as a compliment, which it was clearly intended as. I had overcalled in hearts, partner had raised, and the good player, holding four hearts, had gone on to four spades, as he admitted, partly because he knew partner was short in hearts.

 

We quickly cashed three heart tricks, leaving the thirteenth in the dummy. :D

[Free]

It depends a lot on what 3♠ means. If it's INV with 3+♠ then I'd definitely would allow the 4♠ bid.

 

(in my partnership this hand is a GF minisplinter, so 3♠ would be a huge underbid)

[phil_20686]

It seems like you might struggle to find "peers" who would not have bid 4S the first time. In the absence of intelligent choices I don't think many good players would have chosen a "limit raise" with this hand.

 

Reminds me of a hand from my youth:

 

I held

 

x

xxxx

AJ9xxx

xx

 

1c on my right at all red so stuck in a comedy 1d bid, the auction went:

 

1c-1d-1s-3d

4s-p* p 5d

AP

 

my pass was quite slow: I was playing with my dad and he doesnt like making preemptive raises that might go off, so i felt sac might be right at MP. Anyway the director got called took a look at my dads hand and wandered off to make a ruling. Dummy hit with

 

Axx

-

KQxxx

AQxxx

 

The director came back to say no change obviously, and sheepishly admitted in the bar later that most of the players he had polled had wondered if after the obvious "slow play" of 3d the hesitation barred you from bidding slam. :)

 

The LOL questioned the director wuite a lot - they didnt seem to think this was a "completely obvious" 5d (at least!) bid. Pretty funny. I enjoy playing with my dad - its never boring :)

 

EDIT: forgot my dads comment: "Its hard to bid intelligently when you overcall on such rubbish". Classic.

[Finch]

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.

 

Why, are your fellow directors better players than those playing?

[Finch]

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.

 

Do they really?

I was given the hand as a problem without knowing about the hesitation (and without knowing it was a ruling question). I doubled, and thought it obvious.

 

Next I was asked what the slow pass demonstrably suggested, and I said bidding 4S.

So what would I do as an ethical player? I would double.

If I pass in tempo, it is extremely likely that hestitating partner is going to bid 4S. Whether or not one agrees with arguments about pass being forcing, it's still pretty likely that partner isn't going to pass out 4S.

 

(on the original hand that led to the ruling, isn't there going to be a high percentage of a 4S contract with opener bidding 4S when responder passes in tempo?)

[dburn]

Post deleted because it was in the wrong thread. Sorry.

[bluejak]

Fair enough: I was not really thinking abut double. I just do not believe an ethical player will bid 4♠.

 

I do not understand the argument about partner bidding 4♠ most of the time. How does that affect whether I bid 4♠ for him?

[nige1]

Rather than undergo mental contortions, a lot of players always make the bid they would make anyway. In their defence, they usually say "let the director sort it out". Suppose North is such a player and when you impose a PP on him, he appeals, quoting The ACBL Club Directors Handbook

Players are generally well advised to take the action they would have taken had there been no huddle.

[mjj29]

Rather than undergo mental contortions, a lot of players always make the bid they would make anyway. In their defence, they usually say "let the director sort it out". Suppose North is such a player and when you impose a PP on him, he appeals, quoting The ACBL Club Directors Handbook

I would _generally_ assess score adjustments under L16 and PPs under L73. The standard I would have for the latter is "making the bid they would anyway" (if there is one such bid, I may be unimpressed if they think it's a toss up between two calls and make the suggested one). Adjusting under L16 but not applying a PP under L73 is, IMO, the most common situation.

[Finch]

I do not understand the argument about partner bidding 4♠ most of the time. How does that affect whether I bid 4♠ for him?

 

 

It doesn't.

But when you come to make a ruling, it's not enough to say that you disallow responder's 4S bid. You must also look at how the auction would have gone after a pass, or after a double. So any final adjustment is not necessarily (or even likely) to be 4H undoubled.

[jallerton]

Do they really?

I was given the hand as a problem without knowing about the hesitation (and without knowing it was a ruling question). I doubled, and thought it obvious.

 

Next I was asked what the slow pass demonstrably suggested, and I said bidding 4S.

So what would I do as an ethical player? I would double.

If I pass in tempo, it is extremely likely that hestitating partner is going to bid 4S. Whether or not one agrees with arguments about pass being forcing, it's still pretty likely that partner isn't going to pass out 4S.

 

(on the original hand that led to the ruling, isn't there going to be a high percentage of a 4S contract with opener bidding 4S when responder passes in tempo?)

 

(Not really.) Without the UI, you might double to try for +300 against the +140/+170 you were about to collect in 3♠ when partner has a 5233 minimum. The UI suggests that partner has either extra shape or extra high cards, and as you say partner will probably bid and make a vulnerable 4♠ in either case if we pass 4♥ round to him. The one thing that might put partner off bidding 4♠ is if we double because then partner would envisage heart wastage and less offence opposite.

 

Therefore, it seems to me that Double "could demonstrably be suggested" over both Pass and 4♠, so as long as Double is judged to be a logical alternative* this is the action Responder should take at this point. A weighted score might still be appropriate if Opener has a hand where he might pull 4♥x and/or the number of tricks 4♥x might make is unclear.

 

* this is where polls come in very handy. It is all very well for some experienced TDs to rely on their own judgement, but no-one thinks of everything and often polls and consultations give the TD additional information which is helpful in forming his judgement ruling on whether a Law has been breached and how.