You judge

[Fil]

N - E - S - W

2♣-p-2♦-p

3♥-p-3NT*-p

4♥-all pass

 

* deep and long thinking

 

this is the bidding.

 

Explanation: 2♣ is GF or strong two in major. 2♦ waiting, 3♥ strong two in hearts.

 

Lead small ♣.

 

The dummy:

[hv=s=sq83h543d1093ck1062]133|100|Scoring: IMPS[/hv]

 

One the sight of dummy, director was called, and told about the bidding, and the long time that took dummy to respond in 3♥ .

 

The result was 11 tricks (plus 1).

 

Director was called again and the EW claimed South's (dummy) hesitation was unethical and information was passed to North on available contracts (3NT and 4♥).

 

I have two questions for the moment:

 

1. What you reply to 3♥?

 

2. Do you think that there is unauthorised information from South (dummy) to North?

 

Director ruled that 4♥ is the contract and the score is 4♥+1.

 

For the moment I want you view on these facts only, because I don't want to influence you. I will post later the four hands, the appeal, and what the commitee ruled.

 

Thanks

 

Fil

[inquiry]

I would let 4♥'s stand.

 

The thinking after a waiting 2♦ could be....

 

1) Shoujld I introduce my own 6 card spade suit (theoretically)

2) Should I cue-bid my values in suit "x" despite a void in hearts?

3) Should I raise hearts on a void when I don't have a stopper in two side suite.

4) Should I signoff or jump to 5H to aks for good trumps, or bid 4NT, and if I bid 4NT is it quantatative or blackwood...

5) I am soooo broke and such a poor fit, is this the time to pass a frocing bid?

etc

 

That is, the hesitation could be a lot of problems and the hesitation does not suggest one action over the other. I fairly sure I would have ruled the same way. However the key thing to show is the other hand... if it was 5332 and 22 poiints, for example, I would change my mind. But if it was 7321 or the like, I would let the result stand. BTW, with many partners on this auction when I jump to 3H, we are going to play in HEARTS, so partner's 3NT is immaterail when I play with them, and partners 3NT will be simply, "i have no aces"

 

Ben

[Flame]

1. 4H (but its irelevant to the director work here)

2. Yes, north has the information that his partner 3nt is not clear, anyway in any chance that information was giving we go with the non ofending side, actually i have never heard of a case where a thinking was ruled as not giving information.

 

Now to the importent part in rulling here, dummy's hand is close to irelevant for the rulling here, we know south esitated, now we should look at his partner bid (4H) and see if its a clear bid, a bid that he would oviously bid without the esitation of his partner, if it is then no need to change the score, if its not clear then the score should be change (only if it helps the opponents) to the score that would have probebly achived (in doubt we rule infavore of the non ofending side) if north has bid what he was suppose to without the esitation , for example if north normal bid is pass then we would change it to 3nt and check how many trick they would do in 3nt with best diffence and resonable decleraring.

To know if a bid is clear on not isnt easy, a common way is to ask other players who didnt know about the case, what would they bid after 2c-2d-3h-3nt (without esitation) and eccept the 4H only if 70% of them would bid it.

Anyway as you understand there is no way to rule here without looking at north's hand.

[laughter]

1. 4H

 

2. The hesistation shows doubt about the final bid and may transmit unauthorized information, as he would not trance when he has long spades or a lot of slow values plus no heart fit. So my answer is yes.

 

However, the bid of 4H may or may not be the result of the trance. As opener can have a freak and very unsuitable for 3NT, he should not be banned to bid 4H (the obvious bid).

 

I guess the ruling should be based on the answer to the question that whether the bid is consequent (directly resulting from) or subsequent (occur after irregularity, but not a consequence) to the unauthorized information.

When in doubt, the benefit should go to the non-offending side.

[junyi_zhu]

In my system, 3H sets up hearts as trumps. 3NT here should show void in hearts and warns partner that his "solid" hearts might not be that solid. All other bids are cuebids. The right bid by south should be 4C which is a cuebid. If you don't cuebid, partner may have a tough time if he holds AKJ AKQJxx A QJx. 5 level is no safe if you hold DK and nothing else or SQ and DQ, but 6S is quite cold facing your hand.

[Fil]

This is the full hand

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=s4hakqj98dk72caq3&w=sk106h76dj8654cj87&e=saj9752h102daqc954&s=sq83h543d1093ck1062]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

As told before North moved from 3Nt to 4♥.

 

After director's rule (4♥ stands) the team appealed, claiming that South has passed unauthorized information to North and the showed availability of contracts (I have hearts but I am sure that it's ok), and claiming for adjustment to 3NT - 4 (♦ lead and ♠ shift - 6♠ and 2♦ = 8 tricks for the defense). The defense is automatic, and nothing extraordinary. The appeal commitee rejected the appeal.

 

The point is that North has every right to bid anyhing he wants, especially 4♥ with a sing BUT after the long pause he has no right to do so. I would accept the bid after the pause, with 7321, 6421, 7330, 6430 and so, patterns that usually don't belong to NT.

 

Am I wrong?

After all North showed his hand, its partners desicion now.

I think that both director's and appeal's commitee decisions were wrong because they examined the bid by North not having in mind the long pause and the availability of contracts that South offered.

 

Fil

[Flame]

I think that both director's and appeal's commitee decisions were wrong because they examined the bid by North not having in mind the long pause and the availability of contracts that South offered.

 

Fil

First of all, the rulling should be based on the question what is south bid without the pause, not what should he bid with the pause.

Now to the rulling, imo this hand should get to appeal commety (the director should advice the players to appeal) because a director cant give a right score here. As the appeal commitie I would give a calculated score, a score that will reflect 3nt-4, and the actual score. I think any other way wont give justice to this.

As a director i would give an adjusted score of 3nt-4 and advice NS to appeal, this is based on the aggrement that a director should never rule against the non offending side, the appeal commitie should represnt them.

[mikestar]

North's trumps are playble opposite a void and if South has enough strength in spades to make that suit safe, either the dimonds are inadequtely stopped or partner's waiting bid is strong enough that 6H must be at least worth investigating.

 

North can see this from looking at his own cards without even hearing any bidding much less the break in tempo.

 

I rule pass is not a logical alternative, so the question of whether 4H was suggested by the hesitation is irrelevant. The table result stands.

[DrTodd13]

David Stevenson's bridgetalk forum is probably a better forum for laws questions than this one. Here you'll get a bunch of opinions from people but there you get the opinion of the chief director of the English Bridge Union. He can give opinions for multiple countries as well.

 

Anyway, with respect to what Flame said, David Stevenson recently said that directors are now being informed not to just blindly rule for the non-offenders but to use their best judgement and to let an appeals committee deal with it only if the people who don't like the ruling feel strongly enough about it. So, maybe ruling against the non-offenders was standard policy in some places at certain times but it is moving away from that direction. Online where there is no appeals committee directors have to make these calls anyway so they have to be able to do their best in these cases.

[Flame]

What Todd said about not blindly judge against the non offended side is right, but when there is a doubt i will not rule agaisnt the non offending side, this got to do with bridge ability , i dont feel strong enough bridge player to judge that bidding 4h is an easy or blind bid, but maybe a beter player would think it is, although the law talks about people of the same skill as the player who actually played the hand and not expert.

[junyi_zhu]

This is the full hand

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=s4hakqj98dk72caq3&w=sk106h76dj8654cj87&e=saj9752h102daqc954&s=sq83h543d1093ck1062]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

As told before North moved from 3Nt to 4♥.

 

After director's rule (4♥ stands) the team appealed, claiming that South has passed unauthorized information to North and the showed availability of contracts (I have hearts but I am sure that it's ok), and claiming for adjustment to 3NT - 4 (♦ lead and ♠ shift - 6♠ and 2♦ = 8 tricks for the defense). The defense is automatic, and nothing extraordinary. The appeal commitee rejected the appeal.

 

The point is that North has every right to bid anyhing he wants, especially 4♥ with a sing BUT after the long pause he has no right to do so. I would accept the bid after the pause, with 7321, 6421, 7330, 6430 and so, patterns that usually don't belong to NT.

 

Am I wrong?

After all North showed his hand, its partners desicion now.

I think that both director's and appeal's commitee decisions were wrong because they examined the bid by North not having in mind the long pause and the availability of contracts that South offered.

 

Fil

4H stands is right in my humble opinion. North has a small singleton in spades and solid hearts, his overall strength isn't very strong. So if 3NT is natural, he should pull 3NT to 4H, thus 4H is a logical alternative, no matter how long south thinks. Also, I don't really think there is unauthorized information. And pass is probably not even a LA, because

north's hand is very shapely and he needs some very specific cards from south to make passing as a winning decision which is highly unlikely.

[Flame]

I wish it was as clear to me as it is for you.

Just put K of spade instead of the Q at partners hand and 3nt is the right contract, or give him the J of spade, or even the 10.

[hotShot]

North has a clear 4H bid!

 

Even if South is void it is better to play ♥ because:

 

1) ♠ is a single, South would need to bring a double stop there

2) ♦K is worthless if South does not have an additional stop.

It would be a little better if North played the NT

3) ♣AD is better on the declarers side

4) If South had a double stop in ♠ and a sure stop in ♦, he might have a stonger

rebid than 2♦waiting espacially if void in ♥.

5) Since South did not show strength (towards 6♥) or distribution(several tricks in

own suit), 3 NT is a high risk.

6) Playing any contract from the North hand is better, because a lead in a minor gives a

trick.

7) South ♠ must be better than KBx to have a double hold in ♠, and the ♠ lead is

most likely against NT. He should have at least ♦QXx and ♣QXx because he

does not know what suit are stopped by North. But with 9-10 HCP South should bid

a 5card suit or 2NT. And South should have at least one ♥ for communication to the North hand. So any hand suitable for 3NT is good enough to make 4♥.

[Flame]

It always intresting to see how everyone know the right answers when they see the hiden hands. I can give you many hands which partner will have on which 3nt is better then 4h. remember the question here is not wather 4h is a better bid then pass, the question is : does pass over 3nt is a logical alternative, and i as a director wouldnt be able to say it isnt, and would send the players to an apeal commitie.

[hotShot]

Dear Flame,

 

as said before only the North hand is relevant for the ruling.

 

You are right, there might be distributions where 3NT is the better contract, but please post me a South hand, that is weak enough to bid 2♦, where 3NT is made and 4♥ cannot be done.

 

And it should have a significant statistical weight. Remember that the hand of E/W are irrelevant in this bidding.

[Flame]

but please post me a South hand, that is weak enough to bid 2♦, where 3NT is made and 4♥ cannot be done.

 

And it should have a significant statistical weight. Remember that the hand of E/W are irrelevant in this bidding.

QJ10x xx Axxx xxx

Kxxx xxx Jxxx Kxx

Kx xxx Jx Kxxxx

Q10x xxx Jxx xxx

QJx xxx Jxx Kxx

J10xx xx Qxx xxxx

AQ xxx xxxx xxx

KJ10 xxx xxx xxxx

KQx xxx Axx xxx

109xxx xx Q10x xxx

should i continue ?

[the hog]

"The point is that North has every right to bid anyhing he wants, especially 4♥ with a sing BUT after the long pause he has no right to do so. I would accept the bid after the pause, with 7321, 6421, 7330, 6430 and so, patterns that usually don't belong to NT.

 

Am I wrong?"

 

Yes you are wrong. 4H is certainly what I would bid at the table. - good post hotShot!

 

Flame, about 1/2 the hands you posted have an automatic pass after 3H, and some have no play for 3N on a slightly different E-W layout, which Nth of course, cannot judge during the auction.

[Flame]

Ron i dont know if you are a director but you might be missing the point here.

I'll explain to you what the law say here.

There are two ways to make justice here, the first is the director way the second the commitie way.

The director way is to check if passing is a logical alternative, logical alternative is a bid who would be taken buy 3 of ten people, so if pass is a bid taken by 3 of 10 people you should change the score to 3nt-4.

Now if you want to solve this as a director you must answer the question, are 3 of 10 will pass here ? if you think 3 will pass the result will be -4. if you think only 2 will pass it will be 4H made, can you tell for sure how many will pass? and do you really think giving one of the two extremes is the right choice ?

The better answer is the commitie, they got good players (the director is not suppose to be a very good bridge player and i hate it when they think they are) there are more minds there, they got more time, and above all this they can make a nice calculated adjusted score which will reflect the chances of north passing and the chances of him bidding 4h.

Imo a director shouldnt be overconfident in his bridge judgment, and when its a bridge judgment question rather then law question, the commitie will have better tools.

[the hog]

I read what you say, but what you need to see is that with a stiff S, a C tenace and the D king passing 3N is not a sensible alternative.

[Flame]

I read what you say, but what you need to see is that with a stiff S, a C tenace and the D king passing 3N is not a sensible alternative.

If you are sure about it then ok, i cant say i do, therefore i would rule the way i explained.

Generally i can tell you most directors i know arent good enough players to make judgment calls especially when time is short, presure is on, and seeing all the hands and the result influence even the best of us.

[han]

I agree that pass is certainly not a sensible alternative, but I don't know enough about the laws or the level of directors (in particular the director that made the ruling) to judge whether the director should have made a different ruling.

 

However, the appeals committee should let the result stand, so the outcome would have been the same.

[nikos59]

In my view, pass of 3NT is not a logical alternative.

Besides the spade singleton, who on earth

would want to expose the strong

hand? This suit plays well opposite a singleton/void,

and 3NT may well be bid on two small.

 

Moreover, I consider the attitude of the EW pair

as harmful to bridge in general, since they seem

to want to improve their result at all costs with

legalistic means.

If in the appeals committee, I would vote to forfeit

the deposit.

 

nikos

[Flame]

Im thinking to myself why is it so easy for everyone to see that pass is out of the question while i would sit for 2 minutes before i would bid 4h.

I have 2 possible answers

1. its harder for me because i got this gift that i can not be effected by seeing the hands and knowing the results,while others are influented some more some less.

2. Its because im a mp player , played mp most of my life, and in mp the chances of 3nt being suppirior to 4h are higher then in imp, infact the solid suit which was said to be a resson to bid 4h ("can play even vs a void") is many time very good for 3nt.

I think its a mix between those ressons.

[Free]

First of all, it's not because partner thinks that we have to pass! Some people still think we can figure out what partner was thinking about and we'll make decisions based on that, but that's ridiculous. If we have a bid, then we have a bid, simple as that.

 

About passing 3NT, that would be quite stupid imo. Opps have at least 8 ♠s (otherwise partner should bid 3♠), and we have a self-sufficient suit. Even with a void ♥ on the other side, we can still control the trumps quite well. So 4♥ is always a correct bid, so no adjustments.

 

All I see here are opps who get a normal score and think they can get a good score out of a thinking-pause of an opponent. Everybody can think before a bid, the reason why is irrelevant (poor 3NT bid, slam or not, ...). Djeez! I would even give a warning to these opps for unsportsmanship!

[inquiry]

I think a few things have to be taken into consideration... let's start wtih the bidding.. What does this tell us?

 

Why did North leap to 3H instead of bidding just 2H? I mean as far as strong twos go, this is a horribly weak one. So first question I have, was 3H meant to be weaker somehow than 2H? Would 2H show some other kind of hand than a hand with hearts?

 

If 2H shows hearts, then 3H suggest this NS pair is perhaps not the best bidders in the world. If 3H showed a minimum hand (for the 2C bid) and WAS NOT FORCING, then this would affect our ruling. If three hearts showed 20 hcp and solid hearts, I would rule 3NT -4. However, since no mention was made, I will assume that 3H in theory show a BETTER hand than 2H, both with hearts.

 

In this case, North has misbid when he bid 3H, promising a lot more than he actually held. Given this circumstance, 4H seems entirely appropriate. And I would allow the result to stand.

 

Now to the issue nikos raised, when he said "Moreover, I consider the attitude of the EW pair as harmful to bridge in general, since they seem to want to improve their result at all costs with legalistic means." I can not disagree more. There was a clear break in tempo, and they called the director before the hand was played. For all they knew, they might have been damaged by UI. As a director, I would have ruled that the result stand, but I would have advised EW of their right to appeal. Since the question is what would a majority of player (of liked skill) bid with the north hand, a committee to discuss the options and figure this out seems more appropriate. Since the committee in this case ruled 4H is the likely bid, and this forum is leaning strongly towards four hearts as well, I think we have our answer. But this begs the question of the difference between an immediate 2H and the jump to 3H.. as the answer to that would affect how I would rule.

 

Ben