Sanity Check

[wyman]

[hv=pc=n&n=st9632h7daqjt5ck5&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1n(15-17)p2h(%21s)d3sp4s5cdp]133|200[/hv]

 

r/r MP

 

Please don't abstain because you would have made an alternate call earlier in the auction.

[kayin801]

Pass, I don't see why 5♠ is making with spades likely offside and a club lead coming through us, and I'm sure we're getting a plus for 5♣. Partner must have something in clubs, either length or strength, for his X since this looks like a FP situation to me, so I'm guessing they're already playing in the wrong round suit.

 

FWIW, I don't think this is obvious and I could be convinced 5♠ is right, especially since partner is probably leading a spade now (gross). I don't think 5♦ is good because I don't expect the auction to go past 5♠ and I don't see a reason to give them extra info before the contract is played.

 

Also, if 4♦ last round was a non-strong slam try I might have bid that, not because I'm interested in slam but because that's the lead I want against their contract instead of a spade.

[mikeh]

The auction has been very informative, in one sense. Partner is (I think) 4=4=3=2 or 4=4=2=3, and more probably the former. LHO is probably 6=5 or wilder, given the vulnerability, and RHO has longer clubs than hearts.

 

My view is that my 4♠ call created a fp situation, so partner's double should serve as a warning not to bid anymore without a strong reason. My diamond suit is a strong reason but, as against that, my weak spade suit suggests trouble at the 5-level, since the suit almost surely breaks 3=1 and may be 4=0.

 

I take the money. I admit I'd be more comfortable passing at imps where our expected 500 may be lose only 4, but I'll give my brave (or foolish?) LHO his due and won't let him stampede me into -100 (or 200).

[han]

I would definitely pass, no reason to overrule partner.

[gwnn]

pass. btw i dont think we're in a forcing pass..

[Phil]

I don't think we are in a forcing pass, but I would have preferred a 4♦ call on the last anyway. I would have created a FP of course, but I seriously do not expect anyone to think we are getting another call by LHO here.

 

Now I pass. I think this could be bloody if declarer is 6♥+5♣ since partner's possible ♣Qxx grows up and declarer will have a hard time reaching that dummy for anything useful.

[dake50]

Right, partner cannot make a forcing pass

when his hand is so well defined. He did open 1NT.

His double has good defense for a jump accept.

I trust that.

[gnasher]

Maybe it's not be a forcing pass sequence, but partner's bidding is going to be much the same as though it were. He's going to double when his values are in hearts and clubs, bid when they're in spades and diamonds, and pass when he's not sure what to do.

[gwnn]

I don't think partner is really allowed to bid 5♠ here except in exceptional situations like 5 diamonds and 4 spades maybe.

[mikeh]

I don't think partner is really allowed to bid 5♠ here except in exceptional situations like 5 diamonds and 4 spades maybe.

I agree...I'd go further and wouldn't allow him to bid even with that holding (and I wouldn't agree that he could/should ever open 1N with such a hand, which would have no rebid issues). When I see this as a fp I meant only that he can pass to suggest a hand suitable for 5♠ if I want to make the call, and would double otherwise, as a 'slow down' signal.

 

A pass might look like AJxx Axxx Kxx Ax. Whether he can hold such a hand depends on agreements about what kinds of super-accepts one can show over the double of 2♥.

[gnasher]

If a pass looks like AJxx Axxx Kxx Ax, what would he do with AKxxx xxx KQx Ax? (I know that he can't have that on the actual deal, but my point is that he can have a 5♠ bid on this sequence.)

[wyman]

Thanks. This was an appeal from a club game last night. South's double was very slow. North bid 5D, and south bid 5S. +650.

 

East had --/QJT9x/xx/QJT9xx. South held (wtf) KQJxx / Kxxx / Kxx / A, so 5Cx goes for only 500.

 

_Everyone_ polled thought bidding was automatic (of course, everyone polled had played the hand). The phrase "pass is not even an option" was uttered several times. +650.

 

 

[the hog]

I would certainly pass now. Mind you, I would have bid Ds earlier.

[kayin801]

Unanimous poll so far. South's bidding is special.

[OleBerg]

Thanks. This was an appeal from a club game last night. South's double was very slow. North bid 5D, and south bid 5S. +650.

 

East had --/QJT9x/xx/QJT9xx. South held (wtf) KQJxx / Kxxx / Kxx / A, so 5Cx goes for only 500.

 

_Everyone_ polled thought bidding was automatic (of course, everyone polled had played the hand). The phrase "pass is not even an option" was uttered several times. +650.

 

It's so close to cheating, I'd be able to smell it all the way to Denmark, save that it is covered in the stench of the incompetence of the polled.

[OleBerg]

And yes, pass is forcing.

 

This is MP r/r, surely we are not allowing them to play undoubled at the 5-level, when we have opened 1NT (15-17) and bid game.

 

In this sequence it is close to unimagineable, that we, as a pair, will want to defend 5♣ undoubled.

 

At IMP's I could see a case for non-forcing, but I'd still prefer forcing.

[gwnn]

OK, KQJxx Kxx Kxxx A is also a 5♠ bid haha but first you have to escape from the loony bin to get to make it.

[mfa1010]

Thanks. This was an appeal from a club game last night. South's double was very slow. North bid 5D, and south bid 5S. +650.

 

East had --/QJT9x/xx/QJT9xx. South held (wtf) KQJxx / Kxxx / Kxx / A, so 5Cx goes for only 500.

 

_Everyone_ polled thought bidding was automatic (of course, everyone polled had played the hand). The phrase "pass is not even an option" was uttered several times. +650.

LOL, bunch of merchants.

[wyman]

It's so close to cheating, I'd be able to smell it all the way to Denmark, save that it is covered in the stench of the incompetence of the polled.

 

I disagree, and this is why we poll. I think the player involved may well have bid 5D or 5S over 5C had partner passed. I think this is irrelevant with respect to the ruling, of course, but relevant to anyone who might use the c-word. Bad judgment and cheating aren't the same. I posted because after all who polled bid, I wanted to make sure my own feeling (which was auto-pass even without the hesitation, and super-auto-pass with) wasn't way off.

 

I was even told by one of the polled afterwards "I know you just want to punish the slow doubler, and I usually do, too, but this hand isn't close" or something to that effect. :sigh:

 

Thanks.

 

edit: I *do* agree that for a good player, this is borderline PP worthy. Maybe you were operating under that assumption. This is a local club game.

[Fluffy]

Another proof that polling players who have played the hand is not a good idea.

 

Maybe a better idea is to switch suits and ask them about a equivalent yet completelly different bidding without showing cards.

 

 

1NT-pass-2♦-2♠

3♥-pass-4♥-5♣

X - pass-

 

and ask them what kind of hand they would need to pull and what hand for pass.

[mfa1010]

Another proof that polling players who have played the hand is not a good idea.

 

Maybe a better idea is to switch suits and ask them about a equivalent yet completelly different bidding without showing cards.

 

 

1NT-pass-2♦-2♠

3♥-pass-4♥-5♣

X - pass-

 

and ask them what kind of hand they would need to pull and what hand for pass.

I don't like that. Different situations are different. In your bidding the opponent has made a NF bid at the 2-level, in the actual hand he has not. For instance.

[jdeegan]

It would be nice to know the vulnerability, the form of scoring, something about the match and the opponents if for no other reason to better judge why LHO has been so aggressive. Of course, pard's putative pass on the last round would have been forcing because we have just voluntarily bid game. Anyone who doesn't know this needs to study up on the game a bit more.

 

Pass seems best in most of the hypothetical situations, but I might bid on in others, likely 5♦. Pard only needs something like:

♠AKxx

♥Qxxx

♦Kxx

♣A10

for 5♦ or 5♠ to have a better than even shot - only 4-0♠ are likely to defeat it. Say we are vul vs not versus good aggressive bidders and probably slightly behind on board six of a seven board Swiss match. I might bid on. And, even if our 5 bid can't make, there is no law that says the opponents won't err by bidding on.

[Fluffy]

I don't like that. Different situations are different. In your bidding the opponent has made a NF bid at the 2-level, in the actual hand he has not. For instance.

Well 100% biased players who said they would bid isn't better than what I propose IMO.

[han]

In your average club game there is no good solution. I think it is better to follow the proper routine and get to a bad answer because the people that were polled are unable to be unbiased, than to follow a improper routine.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&n=st9632h7daqjt5ck5&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1n(15-17)p2h(%21s)d3sp4s5cdp]133|200|

r/r MP

Please don't abstain because you would have made an alternate call earlier in the auction.

[/hv]

IMO

When partner doubles in tempo, 5♦ = 10, _P = 9, 5♠ = 8,

Partner's hesitation expresses doubt, making the removal of his double to 5♦ or 5♠ more attractive; so you should pass.

 

The law-book should lay down a complete protocol for coping with such matters. Roughly....

1. A sample of the players' peers should be given the putative offender's hand but should not be shown the other hands or told the board-result. A peer should be defined as a player of roughly the same standard as all the competitors -- not a match for the individual. The poll group should include only players, who accept as reasonable, the player's previous actions on the board.
2. The director should ask them what action (call/play) they would take, in context, and what other actions they would consider.
3. The director should collate a list of logical alternatives, defined as an action, given practical consideration by a specified percentage (say 30%) of peers.
4. If it is not already on the list, the director should add the action that the player actually took.
5. The peers should assess the relative merits of the logical alternatives (rank the complete list in order of merit or award marks out of 10).
6. Now, the director should tell the peers the nature of the unauthorised information (UI). The director should ask the peers which actions are suggested by the UI i.e re-order the logical alternatives, assuming the UI was authorised. N.B. The peers must still be kept ignorant of the other hands and actual results.
7. Those actions that improve in rank are "suggested alternatives". If the putative offender chose a suggested action, he would be penalized (procedural penalty).
8. In addition, if there were consequent damage, a favourable result would be restored. (determined by some other practical procedure -- IMO, the director should be allowed to consider actual results at other tables as an aid to such a determination).
9. The director won't always have an actual group of peers but he can still perform the above thought experiment to arrive at a judgement.

Something like that should be written into the law book itself. Then players and directors, everywhere, would know what the law means. The current laws are impractical and imprecise.