Is it evident?

[bluejak]

[hv=pc=n&s=s6haqt542dqj985ca&w=sa9872h6d63ckj983&n=sj4hk9873dat42c62&e=skqt53hjdk7cqt754&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=pp1s2h4spp5d5s6hppdppp]399|300[/hv]

Simultaneous pairs, 6♥ doubled -1. NS -200.

 

N/S were not playing a two-suited defence. North was a client, South a pro, North's pass over 4♠ was slow which South readily agreed, West reserving his rights. At the end South said that with a four loser hand his 5♦ bid was obvious, hesitation or not.

 

West asked for a ruling. How would you rule?

 

:ph34r:

 

At the time of the 5♦ bid there was merely a reserving of rights and agreement over the hesitation. But when dummy appeared, West said that this was unacceptable and they would definitely be needing the TD at the end. After the TD was given the facts and had gone away West starting criticising North, saying her bidding was unfair and wrong and she must not do this.

 

What do you think of this?

[paulg]

I would tell West to be happy with his positive score and then might fine him for the subsequent abuse.

 

My personal view is that South should pass after the hesitation at this vulnerability, but I expect that there are a few players I could poll to see whether pass is an LA. Only relevant if I wanted to warn or fine South.

[iviehoff]

West asked for a ruling. How would you rule?

...

At the time of the 5♦ bid there was merely a reserving of rights and agreement over the hesitation. But when dummy appeared, West said that this was unacceptable and they would definitely be needing the TD at the end. After the TD was given the facts and had gone away West starting criticising North, saying her bidding was unfair and wrong and she must not do this.

 

What do you think of this?

I don't find it clearcut whether pass is a logical alternative, so I would need a poll.

 

West's behaviour after the departure of the TD is unacceptable. It was unnecessary to call the TD on exposure of dummy, and West learned nothing relevant to the need for a future ruling on seeing dummy. By doing so, West was casting aspersions in a quite unnacceptable way.

[lamford]

I don't find it clearcut whether pass is a logical alternative, so I would need a poll.

 

West's behaviour after the departure of the TD is unacceptable. It was unnecessary to call the TD on exposure of dummy, and West learned nothing relevant to the need for a future ruling on seeing dummy. By doing so, West was casting aspersions in a quite unnacceptable way.

I think a fine for West for failing to "avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player". But the pro would surely have beaten 4S, even playing with a client; win AH, cash AC and cross with a diamond, and the client will surely play a club. So, South did not gain any advantage from the 5D bid. So the score stands.

[wank]

it's pairs scoring - there's no reason to think south would defend that way.

 

if north has the KD then it will normally be best to lead a diamond.

 

cashing the ace of clubs will often be pointless as a heart through declarer's hypothetical king will be worth the same as a hypothetical ruff

[gnasher]

But the pro would surely have beaten 4S, even playing with a client; win AH, cash AC and cross with a diamond, and the client will surely play a club.

That would be very poor defence if declarer had KQxxx Jxx Ax Q10x, which is rather more believable than his actual hand. In any case, South is likely to lead a diamond.

 

I'm inclined to give EW 100% of 4♠ making, less a penalty for being obnoxious.

Edited January 11, 2011 by gnasher

[nigel_k]

If I was polled I would never seriously consider anything other than 5♦, or perhaps 4NT and remove to 5♦ if that is how we have agreed to show 6-5.

[Cyberyeti]

Back to 4♠, not clear how many tricks. The punter hasn't not led his ace yet.

 

Partner can be as good as Kx, xx, xxx, KQJxxx and you can be dialling a telephone number in anything. I suspect the thought is indicative of a heart fit.

 

I would bid, but particularly at this vulnerability, I consider pass a LA as 5redX-2 while 4♠ makes is very possible.

[mrdct]

I think a fine for West for failing to "avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player". But the pro would surely have beaten 4S, even playing with a client; win AH, cash AC and cross with a diamond, and the client will surely play a club. So, South did not gain any advantage from the 5D bid. So the score stands.

5D looks a completely normal bid to me, but I have a personal rule that I always compete to at least the 5-level when I have values in my suits. I would quiz South a bit about his general style and approach with 6-5s and if he's a well known pro corroborate that with any historical data available as to how he treats such hands.

 

West is going to get the book thrown at him. I would bring a formal disciplinary charge against him which in my jurisdiction would almost certainly result in a suspension.

[AlexJonson]

I will be amazed if South cannot legally bid 5D.

 

No need to add any more obvious comments about West.

[Siegmund]

At this vulnerability maybe it's close enough to make pass a LA. I could understand a director ruling either way on 5D. (If 5D was disallowed and South appealed, I would find the appeal had merit.) Any other vulnerability, bidding on with South's hand is screamingly obvious.

[mycroft]

So, South with his 4-loser hand is willing to go -500 vs at "best" +450 - unless the HA isn't cashing, which it probably is if North doesn't raise. I bet he's bidding 26 cards, and using his well-honed "table feel". "well, I'm only going 500 if partner doesn't have a good card for me." And of course, the hesitation says that he does...

 

No problem with reserving rights, or mentioning that the TD is going to be called. I had a number of people I had to explain to this weekend, however, that there are two reasons why one doesn't do the laws education oneself, but leave it to the TD:

- players don't take lessons well, especially from the opponents, especially about the Laws

- players' knowledge of the Laws isn't always correct.

 

West seems to be a particularly appropriate example of both these reasons. And what was North's problem (according to West)? Hesitating over 4S, or 6H? 6H is a great bid, which unfortunately turned a plus into a minus because the DK is off and the hearts don't break 2-0.

[barmar]

5D looks a completely normal bid to me, but I have a personal rule that I always compete to at least the 5-level when I have values in my suits. I would quiz South a bit about his general style and approach with 6-5s and if he's a well known pro corroborate that with any historical data available as to how he treats such hands.

The Laws define a Logical Alternative in terms of bids that other players of the same class would consider. So unless the player is in a class by himself, I'm not sure that quizzing him about his style and history would be the proper approach to determing whether pass is an LA.

[bluejak]

For the people who say they would adjust to 4♠ but do not know how many tricks, why not a weighted score?

 

As to the pro's history, he plays 2♠ over 1♠ as spades and a minor with every partner except this one, which may be relevant.

[lamford]

For the people who say they would adjust to 4♠ but do not know how many tricks, why not a weighted score?

 

As to the pro's history, he plays 2♠ over 1♠ as spades and a minor with every partner except this one, which may be relevant.

With this one he does not see the need to expose the psyche?

[Cascade]

For the people who say they would adjust to 4♠ but do not know how many tricks, why not a weighted score?

 

A split score seems normal enough given the current law. Assigning the percentages is problematic as (almost) always.

 

Philosophically the most favourable/unfavourable result that was likely/at all probable for the non offenders/offenders is far more palatable to me.

 

Sure the expectation to the non-offenders here in 4♠ might be +2 IMPs or whatever from some combination of making or not making 4♠ without the infraction but as a non-offender I will always feel agrieved by that as I have lost the opportunity to win 10 IMPs.

[mfa1010]

I tend to mean that passing 4♠ is not a LA. The comments so far seem to support this, as nobody has yet said that they would actually have passed themselves. Pass is only a LA if a significant percentage of players actually would have chosen pass in practice (and even more would consider doing it).

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=s6haqt542dqj985ca&w=sa9872h6d63ckj983&n=sj4hk9873dat42c62&e=skqt53hjdk7cqt754&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=pp1s2h4spp5d5s6hppdppp]300|300| Simultaneous pairs, 6♥ doubled -1. NS -200. N/S were not playing a two-suited defence. North was a client, South a pro, North's pass over 4♠ was slow which South readily agreed, West reserving his rights. At the end South said that with a four loser hand his 5♦ bid was obvious, hesitation or not.

West asked for a ruling. How would you rule?

:ph34r:

At the time of the 5♦ bid there was merely a reserving of rights and agreement over the hesitation. But when dummy appeared, West said that this was unacceptable and they would definitely be needing the TD at the end. After the TD was given the facts and had gone away West starting criticising North, saying her bidding was unfair and wrong and she must not do this.

What do you think of this?[/hv]

IMO, South without UI, would bid 5♦. I'm unsure whether Pass is an LA. It's close. If the director is uncertain, he may conduct a poll. The director should impose a disciplinary penalty on West. IMO, the latter isn't a close decision

[Cascade]

I tend to mean that passing 4♠ is not a LA. The comments so far seem to support this, as nobody has yet said that they would actually have passed themselves. Pass is only a LA if a significant percentage of players actually would have chosen pass in practice (and even more would consider doing it).

 

Wrong.

 

A significant number need to consider passing only some of whom need to choose that action.

[mfa1010]

Wrong.

 

A significant number need to consider passing only some of whom need to choose that action.

Semantics.

[blackshoe]

Are you suggesting that in communication, the meanings of the words used are not important?

[mfa1010]

Are you suggesting that in communication, the meanings of the words used are not important?

Yes that must be it.

 

Or perhaps I was just suggesting that Wayne used an unnecesary annoying way to point out that he found my choice of words imprecise. And that if I was imprecise I had no intention of taking the discussion back to the level of Adam and Eve because of that.

 

In my presumably limited understanding of English, "significant" means either a considerable number or just a reliable, measureable number as in statistical significant.

[Cascade]

 

 

I tend to mean that passing 4♠ is not a LA. The comments so far seem to support this, as nobody has yet said that they would actually have passed themselves. Pass is only a LA if a significant percentage of players actually would have chosen pass in practice (and even more would consider doing it).

 

 

Wrong.

 

A significant number need to consider passing only some of whom need to choose that action.

 

 

Semantics.

 

Rubbish!!!

 

Your claim that a significant percentage of players have to choose the action grossly exaggerates what is required by law.

 

Some places define "significant number" or "significant proportion" with respect to this law as 25%.

 

Say 10% of those (some) actually choose the action, that is 2.5% of the field actually choose the action, this is a logical alternative according to the law. However I imagine that most people reading your post above (and perhaps even not yourself) would not think that you meant 2.5% of the field choosing an action was a significant percentage.

[mfa1010]

Rubbish!!!

 

Your claim that a significant percentage of players have to choose the action grossly exaggerates what is required by law.

 

Some places define "significant number" or "significant proportion" with respect to this law as 25%.

 

Say 10% of those (some) actually choose the action, that is 2.5% of the field actually choose the action, this is a logical alternative according to the law. However I imagine that most people reading your post above (and perhaps even not yourself) would not think that you meant 2.5% of the field choosing an action was a significant percentage.

And that if I was imprecise I had no intention of taking the discussion back to the level of Adam and Eve because of that.

But no, 2.5% is not quite enough, Wayne.

[Cascade]

But no, 2.5% is not quite enough, Wayne.

 

2.5% is easily some of a significant number.

 

I would be happy to argue for even a smaller number.

 

If 1 in 4 of a poll will consider the action and we can find one or two in a sample that would be enough for me. Given that the one or two would likely extrapolate across the field to "some".