Sanity Check

[Cascade]

Just a poll to begin with.

 

What call do you make?

 

Are there any other calls that you seriously consider?

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sat2haq984dt743c9&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1n(%5B11%5D12-14)p3h(4%20%21Hs%2C%200-1%20%21s%20GF)]133|200[/hv]

 

Assume you play penalty doubles.

 

I was at the table.

[Bad_Wolf]

Gidday Wayne, well done today- a great finish after a slow start :)

Anyway I pass. second choice double but Im not sure what this will achieve, do I want a heart lead against 3n? Well maybe I do. Look forward to others replies...

[aguahombre]

No, there are no other calls except Pass which I would seriously consider. I would hope my natural curiosity about the alert and odd (incomplete?) explanation of 3H would not lead to UI or even AI I might leak to the opponents.

[gnasher]

Pass, and I don't consider anything else.

[Hanoi5]

Passing is probably the right thing, partner holds 2♥'s at most and that lead won't necessarily get them down at 3NT.

[billw55]

Passing is probably the right thing, partner holds 2♥'s at most and that lead won't necessarily get them down at 3NT.

Meanwhile his probable normal spade lead might well beat 3NT.

[c_corgi]

Pass. Automatic.

[ArtK78]

I pass now, but I double 3NT. I certainly want a heart lead, as a minor suit lead could easily give up a trick or two.

[Trinidad]

Another pass here. Why would I double? To push them to a making 5♣?

 

Rik

[Cascade]

No, there are no other calls except Pass which I would seriously consider. I would hope my natural curiosity about the alert and odd (incomplete?) explanation of 3H would not lead to UI or even AI I might leak to the opponents.

 

What do you consider odd or incomplete about the explanation? Actually this is moot anyway as no explanation was sought at the table.

 

The bid shows " 4♥s 0-1♠ GF" That is precisely four hearts, at most one spade and game forcing values. Any other distribution is allowed although someone with and eight or nine card minor may well choose to ignore the hearts. As such I would consider the explanation neither odd nor incomplete (except in the most pedantic interpretation of complete) and much more precise and accurate than most explanations that I see.

[aguahombre]

What do you consider odd or incomplete about the explanation? Actually this is moot anyway as no explanation was sought at the table.

 

The bid shows " 4♥s 0-1♠ GF" That is precisely four hearts, at most one spade and game forcing values. Any other distribution is allowed although someone with and eight or nine card minor may well choose to ignore the hearts. As such I would consider the explanation neither odd nor incomplete (except in the most pedantic interpretation of complete) and much more precise and accurate than most explanations that I see.

It might, or might not bear on your follow-up which will surely make it clear why the original question is in the "rulings" forum. An person holding those cards, or any 13 cards, in 4th chair might well, as I stated, wonder what the difference is between starting with Stayman and starting with 3H when one has 0-1 spade, exactly 4H, and therefore at least 8 minor suit cards. A complete explanation might disclose that it is in fact a 3-suited slammish hand, etc.

 

My point was that if 4th chair attempted to get clarification, and then passed, there might be inferences taken by the other three people at the table.

 

None of the above changes the fact that Pass is the only reasonable call by 4th chair. We don't want to discourage them from playing their 4-4 heart fit, in which case a double of 3 hearts would be silly (Partner won't be on lead, and won't have a heart to lead anyway). We don't want to steer pard away from a normal spade lead vs. 3NT. We don't want to mess with their continuations in search of a high-level minor suit contract by butting in with information partner can figure out herself by looking at her hand.

[bluejak]

Pass.

 

Second choice pass.

 

Third choice pass.

 

Fourth choice double.

[mycroft]

Well, I would be thinking if it was "three-suited, short spades, guarantees 4 hearts" rather than, say, 1=4=2=6. Or, as I'd expect from anyone in my area except me, "4♠, 0-1 ♥" and the words came out backwards - but then I live in the land of strong NT.

 

I would expect that if I perpetrated this auction, and explained it as "three-suited, short spades", I'd expect to get "short *spades*?" from 4th hand - especially if she had your hand!

[Cascade]

It might, or might not bear on your follow-up which will surely make it clear why the original question is in the "rulings" forum. An person holding those cards, or any 13 cards, in 4th chair might well, as I stated, wonder what the difference is between starting with Stayman and starting with 3H when one has 0-1 spade, exactly 4H, and therefore at least 8 minor suit cards. A complete explanation might disclose that it is in fact a 3-suited slammish hand, etc.

 

My point was that if 4th chair attempted to get clarification, and then passed, there might be inferences taken by the other three people at the table.

 

None of the above changes the fact that Pass is the only reasonable call by 4th chair. We don't want to discourage them from playing their 4-4 heart fit, in which case a double of 3 hearts would be silly (Partner won't be on lead, and won't have a heart to lead anyway). We don't want to steer pard away from a normal spade lead vs. 3NT. We don't want to mess with their continuations in search of a high-level minor suit contract by butting in with information partner can figure out herself by looking at her hand.

 

I don't really get your point at all - about the explanation especially with regard to it being incomplete. The explanation is precisely as presented. Hands of this description are not bid any other way in the methods aside from occasional judgement variations when for example the stiff might be a high honour.

[Cascade]

The problem that occurred on the hand was not to do with an explanation of 3♥ as the player with these cards did not enquire about the meaning of 3♥.

 

The problem occurred because this player's partner made a significant break in tempo over 1NT. The break in tempo included asking about the range, reaching for the prealert card and clarifying the range before passing.

 

The no trump ranges had been prealerted at the beginning of the match and the information was prominently available at the top of a prealert sheet. We do however play a variable range 1NT. The hand occurred at board 5 of a 14 board match.

 

The player claimed that she always asks or rather her partner claimed that she always asks however there were other times in this match were the player did not ask.

 

The player (east) appeared to me to be more than just asking but considering bidding and in fact admitted this in the review of the director's ruling prior to an appeal. She said something like 'we overcall quite light and i was considering bidding but my hand didn't fit with Cappelletti'. She had five clubs and four spades.

 

My view is that the break in tempo by east may demonstrably suggest acting rather than passing.

 

It seems clear from the responses so far that pass is very clearly a logical alternative.

 

The west player at the table doubled.

[lalldonn]

My view is that the break in tempo by east may demonstrably suggest acting rather than passing.

I agree with you, but I have seen it argued (including by directors and committees) after breaks in tempo over an opposing 1NT opening that they do not demonstrably suggest action by the other player since they suggests second chair had his own suits, which argues for a misfit if you have your own suits. I have never really bought that argument, and in particular it doesn't seem to matter here since this hand is very suitable for most hands partner can have that would want to act over 1NT. So this case seems pretty straightforward to me as well.

 

What was the ruling and committee decision?

[Trinidad]

I fully agree with Wayne that pass is an LA. I must add though that I pretty much always ask about the range when I play against opponents who play a variable 1NT. I am simply too lazy to look it up on the card and I certainly don't want to memorize the range. And because I could be interested in knowing the range, I will pretty much always ask.

 

So, if the only thing I do is ask (or peak at the CC if it is right in front of me), take 3 seconds and pass, then that doesn't mean anything to my partner. I could be close to bidding and I could hold a 4333 yarborough.

 

Rik

[Fluffy]

pass is obviously a LA, the real problem is if UI suggests acting or not, when I see the problem I am not scared at all about 3♥ X making, but am deciding if I want a heart lead against 3NT or something else. I find it close since a spade might be better lead, but a club is obviously worse, I don´t see how UI affects this.

[aguahombre]

pass is obviously a LA, the real problem is if UI suggests acting or not, when I see the problem I am not scared at all about 3♥ X making, but am deciding if I want a heart lead against 3NT or something else. I find it close since a spade might be better lead, but a club is obviously worse, I don´t see how UI affects this.

This is what I was thinking, too. However, I now see how the UI could have affected things.

 

We know Partner wanted to take action and didn't. It is a good guess that if partner had a two-suiter with 5 spades he would have bid. That means opener himself has five spades and increases our desire to derail pard from making his normal lead in spades or clubs.

 

It also reduces the danger that we are doubling 3H when they were headed for 4H; almost surely they are headed for 3NT and no higher. Pard has a little something (from the UI) in HCP, so they won't be slamming in a suit.