Hesitation Exclusion KCB

[mich-b]

[hv=pc=n&e=sj62haj83dkckjt95&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1c1s2hp3hp4sdpp5hp6hppp]133|200[/hv]

 

Israel , Teams KO match, 1st half , Top level event , played with screens (East and North are screenmates). EW are experts.

 

East explained to his screenmate :

4♠ = Exclusion KCB.

Pass (after North's double) = 1 KeyCard.

 

6♥ made easily - West did have 2 KeyCards and a ♠ void , so there was only 1 keycard missing.

 

NS called the director and said there has been a hesitation on the West/South side of the screen before returning with 5♥.

They suggest that the raise to 6♥ was suggested by the hesitation.

 

East explained his raise along the lines of : "I had a very suitable hand , and was sure my partner would have 2 Keycards to bid Exclusion KCB".

When director tried to establish the facts , he also was informed that on the S/W side of the screen West explained that "Pass" showed 0 or 3 KeyCards. It was also suggested , that West made this explanation speaking (instead of writing) , and it might have been overheard (that was not confirmed).

 

1. Well, what do you really think happened? Do you believe East's reasoning for his raise?

2. How would you rule as a TD, or AC member?

3. Eventually , one team won the match by a large margin, so the result of this board didnt matter. No ruling was given (I think) , and no appeal was held.

Would you pursue the issue further (as a TD, as the opps , as a random kibitzer..) ? Do you think East should face some disciplinary/ethical body, and explain his actions?

[campboy]

Seems automatic to adjust and give East a PP if he is as experienced as you say.

[RMB1]

 

NS called the director and said there has been a hesitation on the West/South side of the screen before returning with 5♥.

 

Did North draw attention to the hesitation when (or before) East bid 6♥?

 

I would be suspicious of a call by South at the end of the hand. How do we know the hesitation was obvious on the NE side of the screen.

[barmar]

I thought you generally can't get hesitation rulings with screens. Since this is a competitive auction, and North's double was in South's suit, there's no assurance that the hesitation was by West.

[campboy]

I would think the double is purely lead-directing. North can't have significant spade length since he failed to raise earlier. It would be highly unexpected for South to consider bidding here.

 

I inferred from the OP's mention of the spoken explanation not being confirmed that the other details (such as the alleged BIT) had been confirmed; obviously the TD needs to investigate if that is not the case.

[lamford]

I would think the double is purely lead-directing. North can't have significant spade length since he failed to raise earlier. It would be highly unexpected for South to consider bidding here.

 

I inferred from the OP's mention of the spoken explanation not being confirmed that the other details (such as the alleged BIT) had been confirmed; obviously the TD needs to investigate if that is not the case.

I am struggling to find a hand that would launch into Exclusion Blackwood where slam is not good. Let us give West none KQxxx QJxx Qxxx. Exclusion Blackwood here seems out of the question when partner has only raised to 2H. KQxxx QJxx Axxx would be sub-minimum, and I would expect a 4C cue, to hope to get a diamond cue in response, and even here slam is reasonable. However, if West did state aloud "0 or 3", that would put a slightly different slant on the matter. But even if East heard that, if he viewed that there was no LA to 6H, he would not be committing an infraction.

[bluejak]

I don't like it. As a long term believer in partnership harmony, I just put the dummy down when partner signs off. Partner could have so many hands, and some of them are freakish. How about six hearts to the ten, six clubs to the AQ and a singleton diamond? No, maybe not!

 

The trouble is that players often do put dummy down without thinking it through, so even when there is no reasonable hand they still pass. But not when partner thinks, they don't! If nothing else, partner thinking before signing off gets them thinking.

 

If I was convinced that there was a BIT known to East [and I think any BIT the other side of the screen must be West on this sequence] then I would adjust, and accept I might be being unfair. It feels right.

 

Also, in view of the doubt about whether "0 or 3" could have been heard, if I believe it was not written I give West a PP.

 

:ph34r:

 

To answer the specific questions:

 

1. Well, what do you really think happened? Do you believe East's reasoning for his raise?

No, I believe he used UI, perhaps just to get him thinking.

 

2. How would you rule as a TD, or AC member?

 

Adjust to 5♥, also a PP if the explanation was not written.

 

3. Eventually , one team won the match by a large margin, so the result of this board didnt matter. No ruling was given (I think) , and no appeal was held.

Would you pursue the issue further (as a TD, as the opps , as a random kibitzer..) ? Do you think East should face some disciplinary/ethical body, and explain his actions?

 

No. It was not clear enough that something unfortunate had happened to take any further action.

[barmar]

I would think the double is purely lead-directing. North can't have significant spade length since he failed to raise earlier.

NS seem to have a 10-card spade fit, assuming West has a void for his Exclusion bid. So North probably does have some spade support, despite not having shown it earlier. Maybe the vulnerability scared him.

[mrdct]

Do the Israeli Screen Regulations have a presumption of no hesitation if attention is first drawn to the BIT from the wrong side of the screen? If so, if South first drew attention to the BIT and EW don't admit that there was a BIT, the TD must determine the facts as if there was no BIT.

 

Assuming the BIT is an established fact, I think the ruling is quite easy to wind it back to 5♥ as 6♥ is suggested by the BIT and pass is clearly a logicial alternative.

 

If the BIT is not an established fact, we then need to look at the audible "0-3" comment and determine that fact on the balance of probabilities. If East denies hearing it, I'm generally reluctant to call anyone a liar and will determine the facts as if he didn't hear it unless North says that it was clearly audible in which case I'll need to look these dudes in the eye and work out who is fibbing. The 6♥ bid itself is a bit suspect and almost of itself suggests that East was in possession of some UI so I would give that some weight in determining the balance of probabilities. Michael does say, however, that the audibleness of the explanation was "not confirmed", so I think this will come down to whether or the BIT was called by North or South or otherwise admitted by EW.

 

I would only issue a PP for the non-written explanation if the player was a repeat offender as failure to write an explanation is merely a breach of correct procedure but is not something that would ordinarily be penalised.

[mich-b]

The 6♥ bid itself is a bit suspect and almost of itself suggests that East was in possession of some UI

To my mind this is the crux of the matter. Expert players don't raise their partner's signoff after Blackwood because they have a "nice hand".

Even if neither the BIT , nor the loudness of the "0 or 3" explanation is established, don't you think it is far more likely that East sensed a BIT (or thought he did) or heard "something" , than just made a bridge decision that happened to work?

If East denies hearing it, I'm generally reluctant to call anyone a liar

... but perhaps the right time has come?

 

Side note : I was not involved in any way in this hand. I wasn't playing it , or watching it. I just heard about it , and started thinking what caused East to raise to slam.

And , btw, for those who suggested a PP : how do you give a PP to a player whose team just lost a KO match and was eliminated from the event?

[blackshoe]

Same way you give it to anybody else. They may consider it adding insult to injury, but that's just too bad. If they deserve a PP, I'm not inclined to let them off the hook for it just because they lost the match.

[Finch]

Do the Israeli Screen Regulations have a presumption of no hesitation if attention is first drawn to the BIT from the wrong side of the screen? If so, if South first drew attention to the BIT and EW don't admit that there was a BIT, the TD must determine the facts as if there was no BIT.

 

Assuming the BIT is an established fact, I think the ruling is quite easy to wind it back to 5♥ as 6♥ is suggested by the BIT and pass is clearly a logicial alternative.

 

If the BIT is not an established fact, we then need to look at the audible "0-3" comment and determine that fact on the balance of probabilities. If East denies hearing it, I'm generally reluctant to call anyone a liar and will determine the facts as if he didn't hear it unless North says that it was clearly audible in which case I'll need to look these dudes in the eye and work out who is fibbing. The 6♥ bid itself is a bit suspect and almost of itself suggests that East was in possession of some UI so I would give that some weight in determining the balance of probabilities. Michael does say, however, that the audibleness of the explanation was "not confirmed", so I think this will come down to whether or the BIT was called by North or South or otherwise admitted by EW.

 

I would only issue a PP for the non-written explanation if the player was a repeat offender as failure to write an explanation is merely a breach of correct procedure but is not something that would ordinarily be penalised.

 

It's possible that North heard the comment and East didn't, and neither of them is fibbing.

[lamford]

I don't like it. As a long term believer in partnership harmony, I just put the dummy down when partner signs off. Partner could have so many hands, and some of them are freakish. How about six hearts to the ten, six clubs to the AQ and a singleton diamond? No, maybe not!

In which case the opponents would seem to be dead from the neck up, having just bid to One Spade with ten spades and eleven diamonds between them.

 

And the BIT does not seem to be have been caused by West, as he seems to have alerted the pass of 4S or responded to a question about it. There is no evidence that he thought before bidding 5H at all. Indeed if he thought his partner had 0 keycards one would expect 5H to be instantaneous.

 

If the rules are that answers to questions are to be written down, then yes we could give West a PP. In some European events, the TD would be giving thousands of PPs, as it is rare for a question or answer to be written down, and a consistent approach to this is needed.

[jallerton]

I am struggling to find a hand that would launch into Exclusion Blackwood where slam is not good. Let us give West none KQxxx QJxx Qxxx. Exclusion Blackwood here seems out of the question when partner has only raised to 2H. KQxxx QJxx Axxx would be sub-minimum, and I would expect a 4C cue, to hope to get a diamond cue in response, and even here slam is reasonable. However, if West did state aloud "0 or 3", that would put a slightly different slant on matter. But even if East heard that, if he viewed that there was no LA to 6H, he would not be committing an infraction.

 

Given East's minor suit holdings, it's actually quite difficult to construct any hand opposite that would be suitable for exclusion RKCB in spades. I think it would have to be something close to Bluejak's idea, but with ♥Q instead of a low one, so something like ♠none ♥Q10xxxx ♦x ♣AQxxxx. Yes, that make the opponents' bidding strange, but surely it is at least a logical alternative to trust partner rather than the opponents!

 

Campboy advocates awarding a PP for East's 6♥bid, while Bluejak advocates awarding a PP for West's alleged verbal explanation. Both are valid points, so E/W get two procedural penalties and the winning margin is adjusted accordingly.

[lamford]

Given East's minor suit holdings, it's actually quite difficult to construct any hand opposite that would be suitable for exclusion RKCB in spades.

Don't you mean "given East's minor suit holdings, it's actually quite difficult to construct any hand opposite that would be suitable for exclusion RKCB in spades where slam is not cold?"

 

We have no evidence that the BIT was caused by West; indeed the OP suggests that West responded verbally to a question about the pass. Was this question written down? Do the regulations require it to be written down? If it was not written down and the COC require it, the PP should be given to South as well, to be consistent. I would agree that if it is decided that West's response could have been overheard by East, that merits a PP, but it seems that this was not established.

 

Giving a PP to East when we are struggling to construct a hand where West would be missing two keycards seems harsh. He may well have decided that there was no LA to 6H. You might disagree with him as a TD or AC, but it is hardly heinous.

 

And it is pertinent who first drew attention to the hesitation. If it was South, there was a similar appeal in Pula, where I was on the AC, and I was told that there is no redress for a BIT when the wrong person has drawn attention to it. I share RMB1's suspicion of South's director call.

[jallerton]

Don't you mean "given East's minor suit holdings, it's actually quite difficult to construct any hand opposite that would be suitable for exclusion RKCB in spades where slam is not cold?"

 

No, I meant what I said. As commonly played (including amongst Israeli experts, we are told) the RKCB user takes control and a sign off in the trump suit by the asker means "we are missing 2 key cards". I agree that East has a very good hand opposite a spade void, but as reported the E/W methods do not allow East to exercise his judgement. Presumably West could make an intermediate call (only one of redbl, 4NT, 5♣ and 5♦ is needed to ask about the queen of trumps) to ask about the minor suit king(s) if he was unsure.

 

The distinction between using 4♠ as a consultative bid (I have a spade void, what do you think?) and as an asking bid (excluding ♠A, tell me how many key cards you have, please) is very important.

 

Suppose, you hold: ♠AKQx ♥Q109xxxx ♦Q ♣Q and the auction commences 1♣-(1♠)-2♥-(P)-3♥-(P)-?. what now? You could be off 3 key cards, but as you are playing Italian cue bids, a 3♠ bid might not help. You decide to ask for key cards with 4NT but then it occurs to you that with a holding such as ♥KJxx partner might show the queen of trumps (as a raise to 3♥ is typically based on 3-card support); a 5♠ response to 4NT would leave you awkwardly placed. Then a solution occurs to you: partner had persuaded to you to play a jump to 4♠ in this situation as "exclusion RKCB", asking for the number of key cards held outside spades (as well as the ♥Q). This convention would keep the bidding one step lower and avoid bidding a slam off two aces. Perfect! You've even discussed how to deal with intervention, so when LHO doubles and partner passes, you know partner has only one key card and so you retreat to 5♥, expecting partner to pass.

[lamford]

as reported the E/W methods do not allow East to exercise his judgement...

 

Perfect! You've even discussed how to deal with intervention, so when LHO doubles and partner passes, you know partner has only one key card and so you retreat to 5♥, expecting partner to pass.

There is no indication in detail what the E/W methods were. Other than that 4S was exclusion. There is no evidence at all that the hesitation came from West. Indeed, it is unlikely, as he thought that Pass showed 0 key cards, so he would have signed off immediately. And it seems that they had not properly discussed intervention, as East did have one key card. The OP does not indicate which is correct.

 

There are several issues; there is not a shred of evidence of any UI from the OP; it seems unclear who claimed a BIT. Without UI, East has an automatic 6H bid, and the only method is to poll players of the same ability, if we decide that there was UI, and apply whatever percentages we need in that jurisdiction. What would you bid without UI?

[lamford]

Perfect!

And when partner puts down x KJxx KJx KJ10xx and you go off in 5H, what do you say? But I must admit it is an interesting idea to bid voidwood in AKQx. I shall try it sometime.

 

And come to think of it, East's assertion that he was sure his partner would have two keycards to use exclusion Blackwood is completely believable. East hadn't promised any, after all, (indeed he was quite likely to have spade wastage in the absence of a raise) so why would his expert partner drive to the five level with only one key card? And we are told by the OP that he was expert.

[barmar]

And when partner puts down x KJxx KJx KJ10xx and you go off in 5H, what do you say? But I must admit it is an interesting idea to bid voidwood in AKQx. I shall try it sometime.

It would probably be simpler to just agree to play Kickback, instead of improvising with Exclusion when you need it.

[campboy]

And , btw, for those who suggested a PP : how do you give a PP to a player whose team just lost a KO match and was eliminated from the event?

I make my ruling without knowing the match situation, of course. Perhaps the adjusted score is enough to change the result of the match, perhaps not. If it is then the PP is irrelevant, but if not the -3 IMPs may change the result. In the unlikely event that a team has asked for a ruling in their favour despite knowing that they have already won the match then awarding a PP is no more pointless than giving an adjusted score.

[lamford]

It would probably be simpler to just agree to play Kickback, instead of improvising with Exclusion when you need it.

It would probably be more complicated but better to play 3NT as a serious slam-try when partner is obliged to cue any minor-suit ace. But that might not have been available, of course.

[mich-b]

Without UI, East has an automatic 6H bid, and the only method is to poll players of the same ability, if we decide that there was UI, and apply whatever percentages we need in that jurisdiction. What would you bid without UI?

 

I would pass and doing anything else would not occur to me.

It is important to understand that Exclusion RKCB definetly does not mean "I have a ♠ void , please evaluate your hand suitability for slam".

What it does mean is "Please tell me how many keycards you hold excluding the ♠ Ace, and then I will bid slam if we don't miss 2 of them".

In this context the meaning of the 5♥ bid by West is "Partner , sorry , but we are missing 2 keycards, you should pass".

[lamford]

I would pass and doing anything else would not occur to me.

It is important to understand that Exclusion RKCB definetly does not mean "I have a ♠ void , please evaluate your hand suitability for slam".

What it does mean is "Please tell me how many keycards you hold excluding the ♠ Ace, and then I will bid slam if we don't miss 2 of them".

In this context the meaning of the 5♥ bid by West is "Partner , sorry , but we are missing 2 keycards, you should pass".

Not so; Exclusion Blackwood is defined as follows:

"Exclusion Blackwood or Voidwood[*] was devised by Bobby Goldman as an attempt to resolve the situation when the Blackwood-asker has a void. In that case, he is not interested in the partner's ace in the void suit, as he already has the first-round control; partner's ace would present a duplicated value in that case."

 

You should have stated in the OP that it was Surrey Blackwood, if it showed AKQx in spades, and my answer might well have been different. And why do you say that it is not correct for East to bid 6H, if he cannot construct a hand with only one key card where his partner would bid voidwood? Surely the whole basis of bidding is assessing what partner can have for his action to date.

 

Even the selection of the heading of your post, "Hesitation Exclusion KCB", prejudges the issue. You have not answered the basic question. Why did you decide the BIT originated from West, when your OP states that he gave information about the Pass over the double of Four Spades? Presumably in response to a question. Why do you think there would be a BIT by West if he believed he was missing two key cards? That is the opposite to most hesitation Blackwood issues, where the BIT says "We are NOT missing two key cards, pard. How do you feel about bidding slam over my BIT?

 

I see elsewhere that you just heard about the hand. That makes the establishment of the exact facts more difficult.

 

[*] The Bridge World, May 1981 Volume 52, Number 8, by Ron Gerard

[lamford]

If I was convinced that there was a BIT known to East [and I think any BIT the other side of the screen must be West on this sequence] then I would adjust, and accept I might be being unfair. It feels right.

Then you are not correctly applying Law 16B1a, which states "by unmistakable hesitation" (my emphasis). Most who have commented on this thread seems to think the BIT comes from West. Facing what he thought was 0 key cards, he would be bidding 5H immediately. Therefore the BIT comes from South asking and West answering.

[gnasher]

Not so; Exclusion Blackwood is defined as follows:

"Exclusion Blackwood or Voidwood[*] was devised by Bobby Goldman as an attempt to resolve the situation when the Blackwood-asker has a void. In that case, he is not interested in the partner's ace in the void suit, as he already has the first-round control; partner's ace would present a duplicated value in that case."

...

[*] The Bridge World, May 1981 Volume 52, Number 8, by Ron Gerard

I'm not sure of the merits of relying on a magazine, however highly regarded, for this sort of definition. However, since you do choose to do so, perhaps you should visit the Bridge World's Glossary of bridge terms, where you will find Exclusion Keycard defined as "a form of Blackwood in which partner is asked to show aces/key cards except in a particular suit."