A Little BIT Too Tiny

[Poky]

[hv=pc=n&s=st974hkt4dt754c73&w=skqha86dkj96cj865&n=sj8hqj97532dqct92&e=sa6532hda832cakq4&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1sp2c(GF%2C%20bal%20or%20clubs)3h4hp4sp5hp6cppp]399|300[/hv]

IMP game, screens in use.

4♠ bid came after a break in tempo (opener described the BIT as 'tiny')

4♠ isn't a forward going bid and could theoretically include some crappy hands like Qxx-KQxx-KQx-xxx.

 

If ever, under what definition of opener's 4♥ bid would you consider a pass of 4♠ to be a logical alternative for opener?

 

Do you think a slow 4♠ bid could suggest opener's 5♥ over the passable 5♣ follow-up?

 

Under what conditions would you consider NS appealing to be without a merit?

[axman]

[hv=pc=n&s=st974hkt4dt754c73&w=skqha86dkj96cj865&n=sj8hqj97532dqct92&e=sa6532hda832cakq4&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1sp2c(GF%2C%20bal%20or%20clubs)3h4hp4sp5hp6cppp]399|300[/hv]

IMP game, screens in use.

4♠ bid came after a break in tempo (opener described the BIT as 'tiny')

4♠ isn't a forward going bid and could theoretically include some crappy hands like Qxx-KQxx-KQx-xxx.

 

If ever, under what definition of opener's 4♥ bid would you consider a pass of 4♠ to be a logical alternative for opener?

 

Do you think a slow 4♠ bid could suggest opener's 5♥ over the passable 5♣ follow-up?

 

Under what conditions would you consider NS appealing to be without a merit?

 

It is noteworthy that the EW cards are likely** to land in and make 6S,6N,6C,7C,6D,7D. It is further noteworthy that the actual outcome, 6C, is the lowest of likely** outcomes... which ought to render further antagonism toothless.

 

** I think that it is absurd to believe that E will blow off the 4level [4H] without planning on insisting upon a slam investigation.

[iviehoff]

But presumably this "tiny BIT" was sufficiently clear that it was the opponent on the other side of the screen who was the one who drew attention to it? (In English screen regs, the opponent on the same side of the screen is not even permitted to draw attention to a break in tempo.)

 

I think I would rule no adjustment here, on the grounds that there is no LA to bidding on over 4S, and that no particular route of bidding on over 4S is demonstrably suggested by the BIT.

 

But I think there is merit in an appeal (assuming the ruling was "no adjustment"). The argument that I think has some merit runs as follows:

(1) Slow 4S suggests uncertainty about S as a denomination. Proceding with Spades agreed is a LA.

(2) 6S doesn't roll home with quite the inevitability of 6C, there might be some small percentage chance of it going off.

 

I'm not saying I agree with the above argument, just saying that it isn't completely without merit.

[Vampyr]

Under what conditions would you consider NS appealing to be without a merit?

 

None whatsoever.

[mrdct]

If ever, under what definition of opener's 4♥ bid would you consider a pass of 4♠ to be a logical alternative for opener?

If 4♥ promises a void ♥ and first round control in every suit and some extras, then I guess pass of 4♠ would be a logical alternative; but I don't know of anyone who plays it that way.

 

Do you think a slow 4♠ bid could suggest opener's 5♥ over the passable 5♣ follow-up?

The slow 4♠ suggests that West was contemplating other actions which could be anything from 4NT to 6♦. Some of those alternatives suggest extra values and slam interest, but it could be that West is simply stuck for a bid. In this sort of auction I wouldn't really expect the tray to come back quickly anyway so there may not be too much to read into the tempo at all. In any case, I don't think pass by East is a LA and 5♣ wouldn't be in my considerations at all as I have no reason to believe we have a ♣ fit.

 

Under what conditions would you consider NS appealing to be without a merit?

If they'd consulted a qualified appeals adviser and were advised not to appeal; otherwise I think an AWM penalty is warranted as moving over 4♠ seems pretty clear-cut for me with East's hand where slam must be pretty good opposite a GF.