Looooong thinking

[jahol]

Cross IMP competition. The pair bidding with the following hands:

 

7654--KJ54--AQ86--7

A109--AQ62--J-KQ632

 

The bidding is (opponents passing): pass--1club(Acol, natural, 12-20)--1heart(5+points, 4+hearts)--3 diamonds (short in dia, at least invitation to heart game)--3 hearts (just minimum,after loooooong thinking)--4hearts (immediately). My questions:

 

1) Would you bid the game when your partner has bid 3 hearts in tempo?

2) Would you bid the game after your partner has bid 3 hearts after more than 40 seconds of thinking, hesitation etc.?

 

3) Let us suppose, you are TD, being invited to the table and made familiar with the story. What would you do?

 

Jahol

[inquiry]

Cross IMP competition. The pair bidding with the following hands:

 

7654--KJ54--AQ86--7

A109--AQ62--J-KQ632

 

The bidding is (opponents passing): pass--1club(Acol, natural, 12-20)--1heart(5+points, 4+hearts)--3 diamonds (short in dia, at least invitation to heart game)--3 hearts (just minimum,after loooooong thinking)--4hearts (immediately). My questions:

 

1) Would you bid the game when your partner has bid 3 hearts in tempo?

2) Would you bid the game after your partner has bid 3 hearts after more than 40 seconds of thinking, hesitation etc.?

 

3) Let us suppose, you are TD, being invited to the table and made familiar with the story. What would you do?

 

Jahol

Let's handle question one and two together. Ethically (and legally), whatever you answer to one, you sure as heck best answer to two.

 

Now to the issue at hand. Would I bid game as south. Well, I don't bid ACOL, but it is hard to imagine not bidding game with this "monster"... True it is only 16 hcp, but it has a solid four card support, a source of potential tricks in clubs. If you play the ZAR point game, South has a solid 37 ZAR support points. It is hard to draw up a responder hand with less then the required (on a point bases) 15 ZAR points need to bid game. In fact, one usually can't respond without about 19 ZAR points. So I will bid game regardless of partners attenpt to signoff.

 

Now, subtile issues of rather this is a maximum, minimum or above or below average hand for 3♦ escape me with regard to this system.

 

IF I was the director, what would I do? I would ask north if he was "red light".. I would ask south what his intention was when he bid 3♦.. I would ask north what a 4♦ (instead of 3♦ bid would have meant to him... but in all likelyhood, I would have allowed the score to stand if South says he was always bidding game, and that 3♦ was a slam try on this particular hand.

 

Ben

[hotShot]

Well take a look at the South hand, i'm counting 5 looser here.

If North 5+ hcp are a e.g. KQ there are only 3 loosers in our combined hands left.

This is always worth a try playing IMP's.

[EricK]

Cross IMP competition. The pair bidding with the following hands:

 

7654--KJ54--AQ86--7

A109--AQ62--J-KQ632

 

The bidding is (opponents passing): pass--1club(Acol, natural, 12-20)--1heart(5+points, 4+hearts)--3 diamonds (short in dia, at least invitation to heart game)--3 hearts (just minimum,after loooooong thinking)--4hearts (immediately). My questions:

 

1) Would you bid  the game when your partner has bid 3 hearts in tempo?

2) Would you bid the game after your partner has bid 3 hearts after more than 40 seconds of thinking, hesitation etc.?

 

3) Let us suppose, you are TD, being invited to the table and made familiar with the story. What would you do?

 

          Jahol

Let's handle question one and two together. Ethically (and legally), whatever you answer to one, you sure as heck best answer to two.

I don't think this is right.

 

If you have Unauthorised Informatrion (UI) available to you, you are not allowed to choose from among Logical Alternatives (LA) any which are suggested by the UI.

 

Here, if partner had bid in tempo, it may be that both Pass and 4♥ are LAs. In which case you can bid either (because there is no UI). But the hesitation clearly suggests bidding 4♥, so now you are constrained to pass even if you would have chosen 4♥ without the UI.

 

If however you wish to argue that Pass isn't really a LA (and the definition of LA varies from place to place), then you can bid 4♥ even with the UI.

 

Eric

[luke warm]

i see absolutely no reason for the 3♥ bid, long hesitation or not... his first bid showed 5+ with hearts, opener then showed a diamond stiff with invitational heart support... in any type agreement, 10 hcp is more than enough to accept the invitation, it's about double the 'minimum' the first bid promised

 

anyway, the hesitation obvously showed a hand on the cusp (which this hand isn't, tho i guess responder judged it to be)... say 5-6/7 points or so... if i had opener's hand, i'd pass now... the reason? i invited him to bid game and he declined.. i obviously could have bid 4♥ myself, so there is no logical reason for doing so now... responder's bid is an attempt to sign off... if i was a td i'd rule UI, and make whatever adjustment the rules called for

[jtfanclub]

Generally speaking, I don't rule there was UI unless it's clear.

 

In this case, it seems clear to me. The long hesitation shows a stronger hand than could otherwise be expected, pointing to 4♥. Unless the experts agreed that nobody would ever pass with opener's hand, he needs to pass.

 

 

Opener has: A109--AQ62--J-KQ632

If responder has: 432--K542--Q76--432

 

This has no shot for 4♥ to me (even 3♥ is iffy), and it's possible that opener would have interpreted a quick pass to show this sort of hand. I think pass is an LA.

[HeartA]

Agree with Ben. I would bid 4♥ anyway.

 

BTW, North is chicken when he bid 3♥ only. ♦A was certainly a good card.

[flytoox]

Agree with Ben. I would bid 4♥ anyway.

 

BTW, North is chicken when he bid 3♥ only. ♦A was certainly a good card.

Agree that north is chicken, but I think if 3H by agreement shows min, then south shoud pass 3H, at least that is what i would do.

 

On the other hand, I think most ppl dont use UI even if it is there. At least there is no time I realize its existence when I play.

[inquiry]

Agree with Ben.  I would bid 4♥ anyway.

 

BTW, North is chicken when he bid 3♥ only. ♦A was certainly a good card.

Agree that north is chicken, but I think if 3H by agreement shows min, then south shoud pass 3H, at least that is what i would do.

 

On the other hand, I think most ppl dont use UI even if it is there. At least there is no time I realize its existence when I play.

The statement was, that 3♦ was short in dia, at least invitation to heart game, which I take to mean could be stronger than invite. IF it is only invite (and not invite or better), then of course after the huddle, you must pass...3♥

 

Ben

[pclayton]

Well, then what would 4♦ be over 1♥, exclusion? void splinter? Most that play mini / maxi splinters here would have some sort of differentiation.

 

Pass is 100% LA, not that its the right bridge call in some folks opinion. I'm guessing the 3♦ call shows a good hand, but not enough to force to game. Once the opener makes the 3♦ bed, he must sleep in it. I would rule against NS unless they could demostrate that 4♦ is not a systemically viable call.

 

If the South player told me the 3♦ call was invitational (...plus) I would treat that as a self-serving statement.

[inquiry]

If the South player told me the 3♦ call was invitational (...plus) I would treat that as a self-serving statement.

What if it was alerted, timely, as explained in the original post as invite plus?

 

Ben

[pclayton]

Tougher certainly. I'd still want to know what 4♦ meant.

 

The original post did not specify when the information was provided. We don't know for sure unless Jahol says so. The bidding may have started 1♣ - 1♥ - 3♦ (Alert!)....

 

I would go so far to say that any information given to the opponents after the 4♥ call might have a self-serving purpose.:

 

"...........tank.......3♥ "

 

"(boom) 4♥...."

 

"what was 3♦?"

 

"...oh, its invitational OR better (hmmmm...)"

 

Director!

 

By the way, "Invitational or better" makes North's pass all the more ludicrous. I'd be making a game try after a single raise with that collection myself.

[LH2650]

If you have Unauthorised Information (UI) available to you, you are not allowed to choose from among Logical Alternatives (LA) any which are suggested by the UI.

 

Here, if partner had bid in tempo, it may be that both Pass and 4♥ are LAs. In which case you can bid either (because there is no UI). But the hesitation clearly suggests bidding 4♥, so now you are constrained to pass even if you would have chosen 4♥ without the UI.

 

The November 2004 Bridge World has an extensive editorial on this subject, which disagrees with the attached quote. To do as suggested would in fact be using UI. As suggested by inquiry, the only appropriate action is the one you would have taken without the UI. However, it doesn't matter what you would do. What is relevant is whether a significant minority of your peers would take some other action in the absence of UI. Inquiry states that he would ask South if it was always his intention to bid game, but this is also irrelevant, for the same reason.

[HeartA]

Tougher certainly. I'd still want to know what 4♦ meant.

4♦ could mean nothing. Since 2♦ is reverse, 3♦ is (mini or not ) splinter.

[jikl]

You have to bid what you would normally bid here, regardless of the UI. When you don't, you are doing a disservice to the rest of the field. You are changing their scores. The TD is there for a reason, they can make the decision. Personlly, I certainly would have bid 4♥, with or without the tank by N.

 

Sean

[inquiry]

What is relevant is whether a significant minority of your peers would take some other action in the absence of UI. Inquiry states that he would ask South if it was always his intention to bid game, but this is also irrelevant, for the same reason.

Well, I agree with the bridge world position, but oddly, this doesn't mean my question is irrelevant. If 3♦ was game invitational, as I said in my second reply, then I would have to pass 3♥. But if 3♦ was game invitational OR better, then it is horse of a completely different color.

 

This is why the question to "others" have to be tempered with the understanding that 3♦ could bid by someone who has no intention to pass 4♥'s.

[Cascade]

This is why the question to "others" have to be tempered with the understanding that 3♦ could bid by someone who has no intention to pass 4♥'s.

Your intention when you bid 3♦ is irrelevant when you are considering your action after your partner has provided you with unauthorized information.

 

Basically after your partner gives you unauthorized information you have to try and take the 'logical' action that would be least suggested by partner's unauthorized information.

 

On this hand if my partner signed off in 3♥ after my splinter then I think it would be close to bridge suicide to bid on to 4♥. I would expect the hand shown without the ♦A for a 3♥ bid. IMO bidding on can only be based on the unauthorized information available from the slow bid.

[inquiry]

This is why the question to "others" have to be tempered with the understanding that 3♦ could bid by someone who has no intention to pass 4♥'s.

Your intention when you bid 3♦ is irrelevant when you are considering your action after your partner has provided you with unauthorized information.

 

Basically after your partner gives you unauthorized information you have to try and take the 'logical' action that would be least suggested by partner's unauthorized information.

 

On this hand if my partner signed off in 3♥ after my splinter then I think it would be close to bridge suicide to bid on to 4♥. I would expect the hand shown without the ♦A for a 3♥ bid. IMO bidding on can only be based on the unauthorized information available from the slow bid.

Well, I can't agree. Simply because South;s hand is good enough to bid 4♥ directly over 1♥. That is, rather North "signs off" or not, south isn't barred as his 3♦ was forcing. The assumption that you must pass is based upon a flawed proposition that 3♦ was only a game try.

 

For those ZAR enthusiast, south hand has

15 hcp (I discount singleton jack)

5 Control points

13 distributional points

2 additional points for "fitting" heart honors

2 ruffing points for four trumps and singleton diamond.

 

This comes to 37 ZAR points. As it is next to impossible to imagine partner with less than 18 ZAR points, to not bid game here is inconsitent with normal bidding.

 

Let me phase this differently, what if you open 1H, and your parnter bids 2H and you hold a monster two suiter like this.....

 

AKQxx AKTxxx xx void

 

So, say you bid 3D and partner thinks a while, and then "signs off" with 3H. Do you feel barred? Of course not, because when you bid 3♦ you had no intention of stopping short of game. This is no different here on this hand...

 

Ben

[the hog]

"Souths hand is good enough to bid 4♥ directly over 1♥."

 

I disagree strongly with this statement, Ben.

There are many north hands which will bid the same way which will give you only a poor play or no play at all for 10 tricks. South has a clear cut pass over the sign off; the 3D mini splinter is an attempt to involve partner in the decision making process. Look at some of the possible hands opposite.

 

xxxx Kxxx Kxx xx - 1C 1D and 2S on a good day

Qxx Jxxx Qxx Jxx - how do you fancy your chances here?

 

A109--AQ62--J-KQ632

 

In fact many hands where Nth has marginal reesponding values and wasted values in Ds will be problematical. You might bash 4H playing with someone who does not know how to evaluate his hand opposite a shortage, but to do so opposite a good player after a 3H sign off is insulting.

[Gerardo]

Agree with EricK, and BW could lobby for Laws change if they want.

See The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997 - Law 16 - Unauthorized Information. Seems pretty clear to me.

 

Ben, the burden of proof is with the 4♥ bidder, and all arguments are pretty self-serving. It all comes to "Is Pass a LA?". You can be using UI even if that's what you planned to bid all along, and then your planned bid had become illegal, that's what an UI offer does by your partner do, it limits you.

 

Nuances of your system could support your argument, but self serving as they are, better be in the CC. (Why 3♦ instead of just 4♥? Is splinter GF? If so, is 3♥ or 4♥ stronger over 3♦?)

[Cascade]

The assumption that you must pass is based upon a flawed proposition that 3♦ was only a game try.

The assumption that you must pass is not based on 3♦ being a game try it is based on Pass being a logical alternatives to bidding 4♥. Pass is also a logical alternative that is not suggested by the unauthorized information.

 

It is irrelevant what you would do without unauthorized information. After you receive UI then you may not choose an alternative that might have have been suggested. This means that you can only carry out your original plan if it is bog standard.

 

I don't think this hand is good enough opposite a minimum with wastage in diamonds to justify a game bid.

[EricK]

You have to bid what you would normally bid here, regardless of the UI. When you don't, you are doing a disservice to the rest of the field. You are changing their scores. The TD is there for a reason, they can make the decision. Personlly, I certainly would have bid 4♥, with or without the tank by N.

 

Sean

This "dis-service to the rest of the field" argument always makes me laugh.

 

None of the proponents really care about the rest of the field ( although they may care about what happens when they happen to be in the rest of the field), or the "purity of the scores" or whatever. If they genuinely cared about the rest of the field then they wouldn't enforce revoke penalties on their opponents, and they would let their opponents take back cards or bids where it is obvious they didn't meant to make that play, and so on.

 

A lot of players do let their opponents off these minor indiscretions but then they are not generally the type who try to justify unethical actions with spurious arguments about protecting all the other players in the room. I genuinely wonder whether you would let your opponents off a mistake (eg revoke, lead out of turn etc) which handed you an unmakeable contract.

 

To take an extreme case, if one of my relatives was very sick in hospital and instead of sitting at home worrying, I decided to try and take my mind off the situation for a few hours by going to the bridge club, then I would certainly make more mistakes than I would if I wasn't in that state. The "protecting the field" argument would imply that I shouldn't even go and play!

 

The TD is there to enforce the rules of the game. The less he has to do, the better it is for everyone. This is why you should do your best to follow the rules of the game. In this case the rules say that you must not choose from among LAs any which are suggested by the UI. If you genuinely believe that Pass isn't even a Logical Alternative then you can bid 4♥, but otherwise, bidding 4♥ is cheating.

 

Eric

[jahol]

I started this discussion, so I can make clear some points.... 3 dia were alerted and explained immediately, TD was called after the dummy (south) showed the hand.

In my opinion (may be, I am chicken), even without north's hesitation, it is not absolutely clear whether to bid game with south's hand. Indeed, some very good examples of hands were demonstrated in the discussion here when the game has no chance to be made. May be, the game should be bid when vulnerable and vice versa.

For that reason, I would never bid the game after hesitation of my partner. I may say hundred times that I was not influenced with UI, but that is only my subjecttive, nevertheless best, opinion. In reality, nobody can be sure, there was no influence.

I do not have the qualification of TD, but always trying be ethical. In such situations, I bid something different from pass only in case that I have the hand, I really feel, the strength of my partner has no meaning for my decision.

[jahol]

By the way, many times someone has to be much more brave when passing (and is preparing for the consequences, when the game is cold).

[Flame]

As a player i might consider 4H, but as a director no way im letting this one stand. Must correct it to 3H.

The rule is if 3 of 10 ppl would seriously consider (even if they choose differently after considering) to pass 3h then 3H is a logical alternative and south cant choose a different one, those here south cant choose 4H, and the result will be change to 3H. (easy case imo)

And to those who claim the hand is good enough for 4H

KQx xxxx KQx xxx

A109--AQ62--J-KQ632

even against this 10 hcp hand 4h isnt good, so 3h is definelty a logical alternative