reasonable ruling?

[Cyberyeti]

5♠ makes perfect sense if he also knows North will bid on because he has four. Grand could still be on if North has something useful to say at this point.

Exactly, there is a case for saying 5♠ is a stronger bid than 6♠ here, I would certainly treat it as forcing with 4 key cards. If I'm looking at the Q♠ in the small hand, I have 3 ways to ask for extras now. I can ask for the Q♠ then bid something over 5♠(I'll get a shock when partner claims to have it as in this case), I can bid a new suit directly, or I can bid 5♠ and see what partner bids when he bids on.

 

I would be very shocked if the director was called as I'd assume anybody at any level knew you bid on automatically with 4 keys here.

 

I was expecting the hand to be something more like Axxxxx, xx, x, Kxxx where there is room for partner to only have one key card, and you have a decision to make how to ask for the Q♣ or Ax if you have all the key cards.

 

On the actual hand he probably chose 5♠ because he was hoping partner would show some interest in the grand so he could show his K♦. Kxxx, AK, AQJx, Axx is what you want, and if partner bids 6♦ over 5♠ you get to the grand.

 

I notice you've ducked the question about finding a hand that will use blackwood opposite the actual strong hand, sign off and the slam will not be at least on a finesse, this is key, because if there isn't one, I'd suggest that there is no useful UI given.

[nige1]

The director did exactly as required. No criticism at all warranted.I can see no reason why East should not have called the director and find an allegation that it is spiteful extraordinary. There are some sequences where a sign off can be accepted if the player has the higher not lower number of Aces but I don't think there can be any hands where South would open 2NT, super accept and have one key card therefore for whatever reason North has doubts and I don't think South can over rule after the slow 5S bid so put me down as one of the 40%.

Presumably, the hesitation is not included in the situation presented to those being polled. The 40% said they'd pass an in-tempo 5♠ bid.

And that is precisely what is relevant.

I agree that this is a simple ruling:

1. There is an agreed hesitation.
2. A peer-poll establishes that pass and 6♠ are logical alternatives.
3. The hesitation suggests bidding on.
4. The player chooses the suggested 6♠ alternative.
5. Pass (the other alternative) would be less successful
6. It is not spiteful to call a director when you think a player may have broken the law.

NS deserve sympathy for the reasons stated by other posters but the EW director-call and the director-ruling seem reflex.

[Zelandakh]

From Responder's hand it seems very clear that E-W do indeed have the agreement that 5S is forcing with 4 key cards. If pass is a possibility for Opener at this point then Responder would certainly not have bid 5S. The hesitation seems to have been considering the best way to search for a grand. The only question here is whether the systemic bid for Opener at this point should be 5NT or 6S and what is the difference between them. A peer poll should use the same agreements as used by the players involved. How many peers do you think would choose pass if told 5S was forcing by agreement? I would hope that the AC would rule that 5S is not a valid contract here. I would hope that the 2 players here pleading their case can see that no player above Novice level would bid 5S here if it was non-forcing for an Opener with 4 key cards.

[WGF_Flame]

[*]The hesitation suggests bidding on.

 

This is not true, I would even claim that the hesitation suggested passing.

If partner bids 5S fast it would be obvious he play simply that when showing 1/4 as a rule you don't assume 4 and therefore partner always continue with 4. The hesitation might mean that partner set down and seriously calculated the slam odds vs the know 4 key cards and decided against bidding the slam.

[arikp111]

Exactly, there is a case for saying 5♠ is a stronger bid than 6♠ here, I would certainly treat it as forcing with 4 key cards. If I'm looking at the Q♠ in the small hand, I have 3 ways to ask for extras now. I can ask for the Q♠ then bid something over 5♠(I'll get a shock when partner claims to have it as in this case), I can bid a new suit directly, or I can bid 5♠ and see what partner bids when he bids on.

 

I would be very shocked if the director was called as I'd assume anybody at any level knew you bid on automatically with 4 keys here.

 

I was expecting the hand to be something more like Axxxxx, xx, x, Kxxx where there is room for partner to only have one key card, and you have a decision to make how to ask for the Q♣ or Ax if you have all the key cards.

 

On the actual hand he probably chose 5♠ because he was hoping partner would show some interest in the grand so he could show his K♦. Kxxx, AK, AQJx, Axx is what you want, and if partner bids 6♦ over 5♠ you get to the grand.

 

I notice you've ducked the question about finding a hand that will use blackwood opposite the actual strong hand, sign off and the slam will not be at least on a finesse, this is key, because if there isn't one, I'd suggest that there is no useful UI given.

 

I've not answered your question because I find it to be irrelevant.

S wasn't looking for grand, he wasn't sure 6 is on.

when the TD asked N why he bid slam he answered along the lines "look at my hand, how good it is; how can I not bid the slam"

He certainly didn't say "if I got 4 KC I must bid on and 6S is my weakest bid."

[hotShot]

Let's apply a little bridge logic, please!

[hv=pc=n&n=skjt32ha2daq2caq2&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=ppp2np3h(transfer)p4s(super%20accept%2C%20no%20other%20special%20meaning)p4n(RKCB)p5d(1/4%20out%20of%205)p5s(considerable%20BIT)p]133|200[/hv]

Partner transfered to ♠ and I have 5 card there, so we have a 10+ card fit there.

Obviously opps have to have at least a 9+ card fit. If this 9+ card fit is in a minor, partner will only hold 1- cards there.

Even a ♥ single is not unlikely.

This possible single, if South actually holds one, could make investigating the grand difficult. North could have wasted values in that suit.

 

South asked for key cards and got the best answer possible, only to discover that he picked the wrong track to investigate the grand.

5♠ is a cry for help on the way to the grand.

South hesitation clearly suggests bidding 7♠, 6♠ is the normal and ethical bid, pass is no LA.

[axman]

From Responder's hand it seems very clear that E-W do indeed have the agreement that 5S is forcing with 4 key cards. If pass is a possibility for Opener at this point then Responder would certainly not have bid 5S. The hesitation seems to have been considering the best way to search for a grand. The only question here is whether the systemic bid for Opener at this point should be 5NT or 6S and what is the difference between them. A peer poll should use the same agreements as used by the players involved. How many peers do you think would choose pass if told 5S was forcing by agreement? I would hope that the AC would rule that 5S is not a valid contract here. I would hope that the 2 players here pleading their case can see that no player above Novice level would bid 5S here if it was non-forcing for an Opener with 4 key cards.

 

 

 

From Responder's hand it is very clear that E-W do not have the agreement that 5S is forcing with 4 key cards.

 

If the plan was to bid 5S after the 4KC response then the player should have done so, but he did not. He instead hesitated and did so at extreme length in contravention of L73 before calling 5S thereby communicating to his partner other than by call or play.

 

If it were indeed system then there would only have been good tempo.

 

Indeed it is entirely possible that responder wants the opener to hold all KC as a condition for his bidding slam as would be the case when the partnership has failed to exchange enough about the source of tricks, and the case in this situation, the ace asker does not have some independent source of tricks.

 

As for leaving options to discover a grand. What can opener communicate by convention that could provide useful information towards counting to 13? None. So it is pointless to go after useless information.

[Cyberyeti]

I've not answered your question because I find it to be irrelevant.

S wasn't looking for grand, he wasn't sure 6 is on.

when the TD asked N why he bid slam he answered along the lines "look at my hand, how good it is; how can I not bid the slam"

He certainly didn't say "if I got 4 KC I must bid on and 6S is my weakest bid."

You just have no comprehension of the point I'm making. If the big hand is so good, as it is in this case that slam cannot be seriously against the odds on any hand partner can possibly have for his blackwood, then I'm perfectly entitled to bid 6. I reckon that is the case, hence asking the question as if there's no counter example, I cannot lose the ruling. Partner can be as bad as Qxxxxx and any 7 other cards including 2 kings which is short of a blackwood ask, and the worst I can be on is a finesse pretty much, and it can be laydown.

 

Nowhere did it actually say what N said when asked the question, so I had to guess.

 

With the actual S hand if north bids 6♦ I'm very close to bidding 7♠ as he should have Kxxx, AK(x), AQxx, Ax(x) and if he has the J or 10 of diamonds the grand should be good, and is not misere even if he doesn't.

[blackshoe]

Can we please keep the players straight? EW's agreements are irrelevant, since it's NS who are bidding.

[campboy]

From Responder's hand it is very clear that E-W do not have the agreement that 5S is forcing with 4 key cards.

 

If the plan was to bid 5S after the 4KC response then the player should have done so, but he did not. He instead hesitated and did so at extreme length in contravention of L73 before calling 5S thereby communicating to his partner other than by call or play.

 

If it were indeed system then there would only have been good tempo.

 

Indeed it is entirely possible that responder wants the opener to hold all KC as a condition for his bidding slam as would be the case when the partnership has failed to exchange enough about the source of tricks, and the case in this situation, the ace asker does not have some independent source of tricks.

 

As for leaving options to discover a grand. What can opener communicate by convention that could provide useful information towards counting to 13? None. So it is pointless to go after useless information.

To answer the last question first, they might have the (sensible) agreement that opener, holding 4 key cards, can bid a suit in which he has a source of tricks but will just bid 6♠ otherwise. This would find the grand opposite Kxxx, AKQx, Axx, Ax or similar. As to the tempo, well it is quite reasonable to think about whether there is some continuation opener can make (6♥, here) which will allow you to bid the grand; if there isn't you just want to bid 6♠ and avoid giving information away.

 

FWIW here is what North said according to the other thread on this hand.

North said, that with or without hesitation , 5♠ asked him to bid on with 4 keycards rather than 1.

[bluejak]

It's amaze me how no one here, (almost as it was in the Israeli forum) see this as I did. When there is such a hesitation, the director must link between the hesitation and a certain logical alternative in order to consider it. Here however 5S after hearing that partner has 4 key cards, is by itself (with or without hesitation) giving the following message: 1.Although we only miss 0 or 1 key card which is usually a must bid slam after rkcb, i still after checking the odds of the slam think that its not good and settle for 5S.

I don't know of any hand that will ask for key cards and even though missing only 1 key card will not considering bidding the slam.

So 5S gave by itself the message I considered slam, and the hesitation didn't therefore give any additional information. There is no link between the 6S logical alternative and the hesitation.

When players were polled some of them passed 5♠ so pass is an LA.

 

Thus such players find it credible that 5♠ is a signoff.

 

Some people posting in this thread believe 5♠ can be passed with four key cards.

 

Thus such people find it credible that 5♠ is a signoff.

 

When players make a slow signoff after Blackwood there is a lot of experience, frankly a vast amount, that the most likely reason is that they are not off two key cards and have not decided whether to bid slam, thus suggesting that going on to slam with a suitable hand may be successful.

 

That means that a slow signoff provides UI to partner suggesting going on over passing with a suitable hand.

 

Thus it is clear that if pass is an LA that we should rule this one back. Of course, some people do not think pass an LA, and if it is not, that's fine.

 

:ph34r:

 

The one thing 5♠ isn't is a sign-off. Either opener is forced to bid on with 4 or he is assumed to hold 4 on this auction and being invited to bid on. Responder can't know that slam is bad at this point. Of course, in the latter case pass is probably an LA, though I would bid on. But that is not relevant if N/S say they must bid on by agreement (and the TD believes them).

I think it is clear that 5♠ can be a signoff. As to your second point .......

 

:ph34r:

 

Exactly, there is a case for saying 5♠ is a stronger bid than 6♠ here, I would certainly treat it as forcing with 4 key cards. If I'm looking at the Q♠ in the small hand, I have 3 ways to ask for extras now. I can ask for the Q♠ then bid something over 5♠(I'll get a shock when partner claims to have it as in this case), I can bid a new suit directly, or I can bid 5♠ and see what partner bids when he bids on.

 

I would be very shocked if the director was called as I'd assume anybody at any level knew you bid on automatically with 4 keys here.

Shocked, huh? Since we have some posters and some pollees who pass 5♠ I see no reason for shock. You may play 5♠ as forcing opposite 4 keys, but clearly not everyone does so a TD call is perfectly reasonable.

 

It is always my view that sensible discussion on these threads is not helped by assuming the OP has got it wrong. If 5♠ was forcing by agreement opposite 4 keys then I am quite certain the players would have said so at the time [very loudly :P ] and the OP would have put it in. So we can safely assume that it is not forcing opposite 4 keys for the actual pair involved.

[Phil]

 

(snip)...For sake of argument, let's assume that N (the 2NT opener) is allowed to bid slam based on the quality of his hand. (snip)

 

 

Please...

 

Self-serving

[Cyberyeti]

When players were polled some of them passed 5♠ so pass is an LA.

 

Thus such players find it credible that 5♠ is a signoff.

 

Some people posting in this thread believe 5♠ can be passed with four key cards.

 

Thus such people find it credible that 5♠ is a signoff.

 

When players make a slow signoff after Blackwood there is a lot of experience, frankly a vast amount, that the most likely reason is that they are not off two key cards and have not decided whether to bid slam, thus suggesting that going on to slam with a suitable hand may be successful.

 

That means that a slow signoff provides UI to partner suggesting going on over passing with a suitable hand.

 

Thus it is clear that if pass is an LA that we should rule this one back. Of course, some people do not think pass an LA, and if it is not, that's fine.

 

:ph34r:

 

 

I think it is clear that 5♠ can be a signoff. As to your second point .......

 

:ph34r:

 

 

Shocked, huh? Since we have some posters and some pollees who pass 5♠ I see no reason for shock. You may play 5♠ as forcing opposite 4 keys, but clearly not everyone does so a TD call is perfectly reasonable.

 

It is always my view that sensible discussion on these threads is not helped by assuming the OP has got it wrong. If 5♠ was forcing by agreement opposite 4 keys then I am quite certain the players would have said so at the time [very loudly :P ] and the OP would have put it in. So we can safely assume that it is not forcing opposite 4 keys for the actual pair involved.

The OP didn't say anything of what was said between director and N in his original post, so I was left guessing. I assumed in the hurry to get away, that N had simply left it in the hands of the director.

 

I thought 5♠ was forcing to anybody with 4 key cards and was surprised to find some people are saying it isn't to them, hence the absence of this in the OP didn't alert me that anything was wrong. To me that is just bridge, but clearly not to some others. I thought you just made a try in a suit if you had a hand that wasn't prepared to bid 6 opposite any 4 key cards.

[nige1]

If 5♠ is forcing by agreement, then it is an excellent bid. You might expect South to arrive at this conclusion, without deliberation. NS would also be well-advised to tell the director because, manifestly, such an agreement is not universal. Furthermore, it would add credence, if they could produce system-notes or other evidence.

 

However, if NS deem that "5♠ is forcing by inference" or "by bridge-knowledge common to players at this exalted level" then that is a less convincing argument, especially in the light of the director's poll.

[WGF_Flame]

When players were polled some of them passed 5♠ so pass is an LA.

 

Thus such players find it credible that 5♠ is a signoff.

 

Some people posting in this thread believe 5♠ can be passed with four key cards.

 

Thus such people find it credible that 5♠ is a signoff.

 

When players make a slow signoff after Blackwood there is a lot of experience, frankly a vast amount, that the most likely reason is that they are not off two key cards and have not decided whether to bid slam, thus suggesting that going on to slam with a suitable hand may be successful.

 

That means that a slow signoff provides UI to partner suggesting going on over passing with a suitable hand.

 

Thus it is clear that if pass is an LA that we should rule this one back. Of course, some people do not think pass an LA, and if it is not, that's fine.

 

I didn't claim that pass isn't LA, i claimed that the hesitation didn't give any additional information to the 5S bid without the hesitation.

the hesitation information was "I had to check wather we had slam, it wasn't a clear to me without thinking about it that we can only make 5. bidding 5S in tempo when we have 4 of the 5 key card gives exactly the same message. if you think not, show me a hand that can ask for keycard and then will not consider slam. the only extra information the hesitation gives is that the player was not thinking fast, might be tired, and didn't think of the bid before the 4NT, but this isn't relevent information.

[mfa1010]

Polling players is almost worthless on this one. They will not give us a bridge evaluation of the hand but instead tell us how they personally interpret 5♠. And what matters is not the pollee's system but NS's system. And what that system is, is for the TD to judge.

 

I concede that there are players out there who would treat 5♠ as a sign off. But we are told that this is second division in Israel, and if that is roughly as strong as second division in Denmark, then they are quite decent players.

 

Interpreting 5♠ as a sign-off is in my opinion way-way off normal expert thinking, and I would expect quite decent players to think like that very, very rarely. So I would be easy to convince that raising with 4 key cards is part of their methods in practice. Or in other words. I would be very reluctant to foist upon them some system interpretation that I consider an outright out-of-level mistake.

 

I would (also) be shocked if someone called the TD in this situation at my table. It is his right of course, and I would not critisize it since bullying opponents from calling the TD is so bad, but it just wouldn't have occurred to me to call him. After this thread I have come to remember a similar episode from 6-7 years ago in the Danish League. Some opp jump-raised his partner (1mi-1ma-3ma) and then showed 0/3. It didn't occur to me at all to call the TD when he later raised partner's slow 5ma with 3 key cards.

[campboy]

When players were polled some of them passed 5♠ so pass is an LA.

Does not follow. Were the players polled peers of the player involved, playing the same methods?

Thus such players find it credible that 5♠ is a signoff.

 

Some people posting in this thread believe 5♠ can be passed with four key cards.

 

Thus such people find it credible that 5♠ is a signoff.

Does not follow. There is a massive difference between "signoff" and "can be passed". I did say that inviting partner to bid on was a plausible meaning, and I did say that in that case I expected pass to be an LA.

 

When players make a slow signoff after Blackwood there is a lot of experience, frankly a vast amount, that the most likely reason is that they are not off two key cards and have not decided whether to bid slam, thus suggesting that going on to slam with a suitable hand may be successful.

The fact that I have four key cards is a rather more compelling reason to think we are not off two key cards.

[bluejak]

I didn't claim that pass isn't LA, i claimed that the hesitation didn't give any additional information to the 5S bid without the hesitation.

the hesitation information was "I had to check wather we had slam, it wasn't a clear to me without thinking about it that we can only make 5. bidding 5S in tempo when we have 4 of the 5 key card gives exactly the same message. if you think not, show me a hand that can ask for keycard and then will not consider slam. the only extra information the hesitation gives is that the player was not thinking fast, might be tired, and didn't think of the bid before the 4NT, but this isn't relevent information.

I know you did not: I just disagreed with your approach and explained why.

[nige1]

I would (also) be shocked if someone called the TD in this situation at my table. It is his right of course, and I would not critisize it since bullying opponents from calling the TD is so bad, but it just wouldn't have occurred to me to call him.

I, too, rarely call the director unless somebody draws attention to an infraction. My partners complain and I concede that they are right: We should all call the director more often. Unfortunately, laws based on so-called "Equity" guarantee a long-term profit for law-breakers. That profit would be reduced, however if players were more vigilant in detecting putative infractions and more conscientious about reporting them, because some would attract at least partial redress. Cases of apparent use of UI are particularly common and only a small proportion are reported to the director.

[Zelandakh]

It is always my view that sensible discussion on these threads is not helped by assuming the OP has got it wrong. If 5♠ was forcing by agreement opposite 4 keys then I am quite certain the players would have said so at the time [very loudly :P ] and the OP would have put it in. So we can safely assume that it is not forcing opposite 4 keys for the actual pair involved.

David, perhaps you missed this from the other thread on this hand:-

North said, that with or without hesitation , 5♠ asked him to bid on with 4 keycards rather than 1.

I am not assuming the OP got things wrong. I am assuming based on his comments and the additional information we have that he is an interested party and chose to miss out certain facts such as the above.

[jeremy69]

Polling players is almost worthless on this one.

 

I don't agree provided the players are roughly in the same category of player as those who bid the hand.

 

Does not follow. Were the players polled peers of the player involved, playing the same methods?

 

Did they provide any evidence of their methods? Could they demonstrate 5♠ was forcing, for example? Thery did not seem to do so at the time according to what we have seen.

 

In the other thread apprently(how tedious to have two!)

North said, that with or without hesitation , 5♠ asked him to bid on with 4 keycards rather than 1.

 

Well they all say that don't they? Let's see it in the system file because one interpretation of a slow 5S is that the player is not clear whether to go on(I agree that 5♠ can be interpreted other ways also.

[hotShot]

Every beginner should have learned, that once you found that you are strong enough for slam, you use some flavor of Blackwood to avoid bidding slam, if 2 key cards are missing.

 

If South 4NT bid was not a misbid, it promised a hand strong enough for slam given partners well defined 2NT opening.

Looking at 4 of 5 key cards, it is obvious to North that the lack of 2 key cards can't be the reason for South hesitation prior to the 5♠ bid.

 

If South 4NT bid was a misbid, a TD should not allow North to pass over a hesitated 5♠, bid holding 4 key cards.

If South 4NT bid was not a misbid, holding 4 key cards, the only logical alternative to 6♠ is 7♠.

[iviehoff]

If South 4NT bid was a misbid, a TD should not allow North to pass over a hesitated 5♠, bid holding 4 key cards.

Because that would be fielding a misbid, communicated by the hesitation.

 

I find this the convincing argument that 6S is actually the ethical bid.

[nige1]

The TD stated that he had consulted with five players out of which two said they would pass 5S. In his own words: "As 40% constitute PASS as a logical alternative to bidding 6S I've got no choice but to change the score accordingly."

North said, that with or without hesitation , 5♠ asked him to bid on with 4 keycards rather than 1. EW argued , that South should have figured out that the 2NT opener has 4 keycards and not 1 , and in that context his 5♠ bid, can be seen as a signoff

I'd challenge the OP to look at the hand that bid 6, and find a hand where his partner will use Blackwood and sign off without asking about the Q♠, where 6 is not at worst on a finesse.

Polling players is almost worthless on this one. They will not give us a bridge evaluation of the hand but instead tell us how they personally interpret 5♠. And what matters is not the pollee's system but NS's system. And what that system is, is for the TD to judge. I concede that there are players out there who would treat 5♠ as a sign off. But we are told that this is second division in Israel, and if that is roughly as strong as second division in Denmark, then they are quite decent players.

There are seemingly contradictory judgement arguments...

• Can you construct a hand with one key-card that opens two-notrump and super-accepts a transfer?
• Can you construct a hand for a RKC bidder that wants to sign-off opposite four key cards?

The two threads agree except in key omissions. For example...

• In the later thread, Mich-b says that South claimed that 5♠ asked him to bid on with four keycards rather than one.
• In the earlier thread, Arikp11 says that the TD conducted a poll to establish logical alternatives and two players passed.

IMO it is the responsibility of the director (not the player who calls the director) to weigh up the arguments. Judging by the comments of internationals in Magazine Bidding Competitions, cyberyeti and mfa100 may be right about the unreliability of polls. Assuming that the director followed correct protocol, however, his conclusion seems inevitable.

[ggwhiz]

I have a lot of sympathy for just about everyone here.

 

It is not Easts job to waste brian power analyzing the possible infraction of the 6♠ bid, It's the Directors. Besides, the volume of discussion shows that its not clearcut.

 

I would allow the slam on the basis that partner did not ask for the ♠Queen, therefore they have it. I can't imagine any soft-marginal slam try that won't make most of the time.

 

Polling five people that may give a shoot from the lip answer is not the same as a committee that would spend time on a long serious analysis and MAY have allowed the slam depending on the N/S argument.

 

Meanwhile nobody did anything wrong except people that throw around words like petty and rancour.