A nice pickle

[aguahombre]

The director should poll peers to see if they bid 4S initially. If bidding 4S/driving a game initially was close to unanimous, you can hardly argue that Pass is a LA.

I don't think that is the way it should work. This person chose NOT to bid game or force to game or invite to game initially; "peers" who would have done so are not relevant. The only thing that would do is narrow the peer group who would have made the initial valuation.

[bluejak]

This is the problem with giving conventions to poor players. Of course 3♣ is fairly silly but since 4♠ over 3♠ is the only possible bid you bid it. When it is ruled back you apologise to the TD, the opponents, partner, and team-mates if you have them, and promise never to bid 3♣ again on such a hand.

 

But since passing 3♠ is not really an LA you might get away with 4♠!

[c_corgi]

 

But since passing 3♠ is not really an LA you might get away with 4♠!

 

Very likely you will, but that does not make it right for a player who bids illogically to be protected by the (arguable) absence of an LA.

[Vampyr]

That's fine if they have some documentary evidence that that's how they play. Absent that, I don't think we give them the benefit of agreements we're making up for them.

 

This agreement would have to be rather more complicated too -- for example, if opener rebids 4♠ instead of 3, does responder move on? He has to if 3♣ is 7-9 OR a slam try, and the five level could be too high opposite a normal hand for opener's 4♠.

 

I did once have a hand which I thought I could describe best with a Bergen raise (higher one) and then raising to game. I was lucky that time -- I hadn't thought about the possibility of partner's 3♠ being slow. I should have done, because not long before that a player lost his deposit after raising under those circumstances.

[Finch]

I think this comes down to exactly what the methods are, which hasn't been described properly - all the respondents are assuming that 3C/3D/3S are 'normal' Bergen raises. If you actually have the agreement that 3C is exactly 7-9 HCP but might have a lot of playing strength and might be a game force, then you won't (usually) get the auction ruled back... the problem is that the method does rather lend itself to an easy way to 'cheat' via UI if you can't decide how far to raise.

 

In one partnership, I don't exactly play Bergen raises, but we do play 1S - 3C as showing a limit raise with 4-card support. We are also allowed to bid 3C with a hand that wants to raise to game but doesn't have any slam interest and doesn't want to get partner excited by using Jacoby. We think we can play this without UI problems for a number of reasons:

- we alert 3C and explain it in this way

- we always use the stop card properly (not just on this auction) so opener always gets a stop pause to think

- it's rare that opener has anything to think about before signing off in 3S, and we know that we can't think then bid 3S (we also know we can't bid 3S extremely fast, because that would tell partner to change his mind about raising to game)

[mrdct]

I couldn't imagine ever stopping out of game with East's hand, however, we need to consider what East's peers might have had in their considerations. I think it's quite reasonable to conclude that a player who chose to treat this hand as a 7-9 raise would at the very least consider passing 3♠ so as bidding 4♠ is demonstrably suggested by the tank and pass is a LA for East's peers, I'm going to wind this back to 3♠ unless 4♠ wasn't making.

 

What "high level" event was this from?

[AndreSteff]

[hv=pc=n&w=sj9652hakdajt5c74&e=saqt8hqt643dc8652&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1sp3cp3sp4sppp]266|200[/hv]

This was partner's hand. Not clear to me what he had to think about after a 3♣ raise...

 

I was the TD and it seemed a textbook ruling: as 3♣ did only remotely invite game, after a huddle by partner a raise to 4♠ should not be allowed. However...

There were eight pollees:

• None would bid 3 clubs
  
• two would bid 3 diamonds but would push on to game after a negative 3 spades from partner
  
• The rest bid either 4 diamonds, or 4 spades
  

To top it off, the traveller showed 15/15 4♠ contracts.

 

So, I warned East that he just had had a narrow escape from having his game taken from him and let the result stand.

[aguahombre]

I was the TD and it seemed a textbook ruling: as 3♣ did only remotely invite game, after a huddle by partner a raise to 4♠ should not be allowed. However...

There were eight pollees:

• None would bid 3 clubs
  
• two would bid 3 diamonds but would push on to game after a negative 3 spades from partner
  
• The rest bid either 4 diamonds, or 4 spades
  

To top it off, the traveller showed 15/15 4♠ contracts.

 

So, I warned East that he just had had a narrow escape from having his game taken from him and let the result stand.

So, what diverted you from the "textbook" ruling? Only the first item on your list seems to apply to THIS responder, and the traveller is irrelevant.

[c_corgi]

3D then overruling partners signoff is sufficiently analagous to East's action that they can be considered his peers. In fact there is more reason to bid game after you showed 7-9HCP than if you already showed 10-11. It is no surprise that consulting peers produced a silly answer here.

[Mbodell]

So, what diverted you from the "textbook" ruling? Only the first item on your list seems to apply to THIS responder, and the traveller is irrelevant.

 

I disagree (about what applied, not about the traveller). If you asked the person who bid 3♣ was he always driving to game you'd get a self serving (but possibly true) answer that yes he would. The evidence to support this is he did drive to game over his partner's 3♠ (over a huddled 3♠ no less, and at a high level you'd assume he knows ethically what he must do). Further, all of his peers would drive to game with his hand (even if they'd all do it a different way then he did). I think from all that you can safely conclude he was always driving to at least game.

[mycroft]

I believe that if the pair decided to make it clear that their Bergen raises were HCP and responder can upgrade their hand later for distribution, then they get away with this, because this sequence shows "7-9 HCP and enough shape to be a GF opposite decent 11" - as long as they actually *do* have that, like this hand.

 

I just can't see any useful Bridge reason to do this - especially since after 1M-3♣; 3M-4M, opener knows that he's looking at shortness opposite one of his suits - but has to go to the 5 level to find out that ♥AK9x ♦xxxx is huge, and the reverse isn't making even 5. But I've seen agreements with even less Bridge use than that in RL!

 

Barring such an agreement, however, when partner shows a "wish I could go" and we've made a limit bid, deciding now to upgrade our hand shouldn't succeed. It's partner's fault for putting us in that bind, or our fault for not evaluating our hand properly the first time; but not the TDs for "giving" you the zero you bid.

[aguahombre]

Further, all of his peers would drive to game with his hand (even if they'd all do it a different way then he did). I think from all that you can safely conclude he was always driving to at least game.

I conclude from the fact that none would have bid 3C that those polled were not peers within the intent of such polls, and that the poll did not mean any more than the travellers about what the ruling should be.

[StevenG]

Since nobody has ever claimed that the hand isn't automatically game-going, I'm still not sure who these hypothetical peers who would pass 3♠, thus making it an LA, actually are. (I'm guessing that they are purely fictitious, but are invented just so you can rule against the player.)

 

Surely an LA is as defined by L16 - not just something that "seems logical", but cannot be justified in law.

[campboy]

The peers who would bid on are just as hypothetical as the peers who would pass. We haven't found any peers so we can only speculate as to what someone who thought 3♣ was the right bid on this hand might do.

[mrdct]

There were eight pollees:

[*]None would bid 3 clubs

You polled the wrong people.

 

The only relevant pollees are people who would bid 3♣. If, surprise surprise, the TD can't find any such people all he can do is place himself in the mind of the 3♣ bidder and ask himself, "If I'm the sort of hcp-hound who would bid 3♣ with this hand, would I give any contemplation to passing 3♠?"

[Mbodell]

You polled the wrong people.

 

The only relevant pollees are people who would bid 3♣. If, surprise surprise, the TD can't find any such people all he can do is place himself in the mind of the 3♣ bidder and ask himself, "If I'm the sort of hcp-hound who would bid 3♣ with this hand, would I give any contemplation to passing 3♠?"

 

I still think this is wrong. The TD can place himself in the mind of the 3♣ bidder and ask himself, "If I'm the sort of slam exploring person that would rather bid 3♣ and explore slam only if partner bids 4♠, what bids would I consider when partner bids 3♠". There are lots of places where people make what looks like a game try with game forcing, slam trying hands. And then bid on when partner doesn't accept the game (hidden slam) try.

 

FWIW I may be a peer of this person if you asked me as playing this system I'd consider bids of 4♠, 4♦, and 3♣[always bidding to 4♠] and I'm not sure which of the 3 I'd pick.

[campboy]

I still think this is wrong. The TD can place himself in the mind of the 3♣ bidder and ask himself, "If I'm the sort of slam exploring person that would rather bid 3♣ and explore slam only if partner bids 4♠, what bids would I consider when partner bids 3♠".

Why are you assuming he was "slam exploring"? You might as well just assume he was never going to pass. We have only his word for either.

[blackshoe]

Did he, in doing what he "was always going to do", carefully avoid taking advantage of UI? If so, or if Law 73C doesn't (in your opinion) apply, why is this case different from others where the putative offender does what he "was always going to do"?

[phil_20686]

You polled the wrong people.

 

The only relevant pollees are people who would bid 3♣. If, surprise surprise, the TD can't find any such people all he can do is place himself in the mind of the 3♣ bidder and ask himself, "If I'm the sort of hcp-hound who would bid 3♣ with this hand, would I give any contemplation to passing 3♠?"

 

This is mistaken IMO. That is sensible when the person has already made some kind of value judgement. However, here the players argument was that he had a GF hand. That is the statement that needs to be polled. If everyone agrees that he has a GF in spades then pass is not a LA. No matter what his bid "showed". Suppose he had started off with a psychic 2c to inhibit the lead, and then had a slow 2S - would you be ruled back because your pysche had no peers? That way lies madness. You are polling peers to find out if his explanation was self serving or reasonable. In this case his his explanation was that he has a GF in spades. He just wanted partner to know roughly his HCP strength either because he was worred about defending 5D or whatever reason, but if everyone agrees that this is a GF hand in spades, pass cannot be a LA.

[richlp]

Did he, in doing what he "was always going to do", carefully avoid taking advantage of UI? If so, or if Law 73C doesn't (in your opinion) apply, why is this case different from others where the putative offender does what he "was always going to do"?

 

This is "Teams, high level of play."

 

I don't know why 3♣ was chosen. And we've never heard the player's explanation. But it just doesn't seem right to ascribe Walrus-like adherence to HCP to a player on a team with a "high level of play." Peers are players of similar ability (even if they would not have made the chosen call). In a "high level" event virtually all the players should be considered as peers in terms of playing ability. The fact that EVERYBODY considered this hand a game bid/force is pretty convincing that THIS player considered it a game-drive, regardless of how he chose to bid it, and that pass of 3♠ is not a logical alternative.

[blackshoe]

All right, I suppose that's fair enough. In that case, both the TD at the table and the AC were wrong. Which seems a bit unusual. I wonder what we don't know that they did.

[mjj29]

Did he, in doing what he "was always going to do", carefully avoid taking advantage of UI? If so, or if Law 73C doesn't (in your opinion) apply, why is this case different from others where the putative offender does what he "was always going to do"?

If you found some people who with that hand after the 1S opening would consider any sequence not finishing in at least 4S, then I would agree with you. However, given everyone polled is saying "I'd never pass below game", then it seems more likely this player was going to game via 3C (for whatever reason) than he was bidding 3C because he wasn't sure about going to game. In this way I think the poll may still be useful.

[aguahombre]

Maybe they assumed that this person was playing up, and using the HCP based bidding as evidence of that; leading to a conclusion that this person might not have made the same initial valuation as the rest of the field.

[ggwhiz]

You put yourself in this pickle. Nobody will believe you made a non-gf raise then changed your mind after the hitch.

 

Endplayed by pard into a pass but set up for it by yourself.

[bluejak]

Of course in a perfect world you would only poll people who are perfect copies of the person concerned with his views and ideas.

 

Life is not like that, and polling is only an aid to judgement, not a substitute for it. If you can find no-one who thinks 3♣ is the right bid that does not mean that polling other people is wrong: it just means that you take notice of that in your judgement and in your assessment of what the pollees' replies mean and how they help.