One of my tougher ones

[nigel_k]

I do not think there is anything about a slow 4N that argues for passing. A slow 4N, in my opinion, is much more likely to be debating between passing 4S and asking for keycards. N should be ecstatic, then, and jump to answer keys since he has mucho extra values for the sequence he has shown.

 

The real question in my mind is did South do anything in her body language to suggest that 4N was natural, like shaking her head at 4S or something...if that was the case, then I can barely see supporting your ruling, Phil. Otherwise, I think it is wrong, and N-S get to keep their score.

 

I also think Mike is right that pushing them to a good slam that goes down by bad luck is wrong in general - there would be no call back from director if spades were 3-2. This looks like rub of the green.

I agree with the first two paragraphs and would not adjust for that reason. Pass by North is not suggested by the UI, as far as we know.

 

But I disagree with the last part. The director adjusts by considering possible results on the actual hand, and giving the benefit of the doubt to the non-offending side. Whether 6♠ is a good contract in the sense that it would make on many other layouts is irrelevant.

[Cyberyeti]

Agree, and I think both 6NT and 6S will make in practice on the normal ♥ lead. Seems like North just took an odd view, and the ruling looks a poor one.

6♠ might make on a heart lead from W, but unfortunately E is on lead, and with a potential trump trick, the K♣ is hitting the table at around the speed of light.

[Phil]

During the match I called one of our directors that works regionals and NABC's. I think he's an associate national TD, but I could be wrong.

 

I gave him the 5233 17 count and had him bid it along with me. The conversation went like this:

 

"2♥ on your right. Your call". 2N (blecch, really?). I'll make you dbl. "OK".

 

"Pass then 3♥ by partner". Sounds like partner wants to know if I have a heart stopper, but I have these nice spades, so 3♠ it is.

 

"Partner bids 4♦". I'm endplayed into 4♠.

 

"4N by partner". Well for you and me, this would be natural, but playing in a pickup partnership it really sounds like RKC for spades. So, 5♣.

 

"Hmm, I think partner tries 5♥". Jeez that sounds like a hand that wants to signoff in 5N, but it also could be a Q ask. 6♠ I guess.

 

"and there you land".

 

Only then did I tell him about the hitch with 4N. He definitely thought a slow 4N suggested its natural.

[Phil]

 

There is a complicated sequence followed by partner thinking some time, then bidding 4NT. What is (s)he thinking about?

 

• Do we play 3041 or 4130?
  
• Could we go down at the 5-level?
  
• Would it be better to bid a control than to use Blackwood?
  
• I got ruled against in the North Pole Regional after I signed off slowly and partner went on so now I always think what I shall do after the responses to avoid the problem
  
• Should I be using Exclusion? Come to think of it, do I even play Exclusion with this partner?
  
• What would Bob Hamman do with this hand? Would (s)he give up or try for slam?
  
• What will a 5NT rebid by me mean?
  

How about 'Will partner take this as natural?' Be serious!

 

 

It's still early for me, and this is the time I generally make technical errors in hand analysis, but I seriously cannot tell if you are kidding or not.

 

Answers to your relevant questions:

 

- They play 1430 (everyone does around here).

- The ladies in this partnership are good friends, but usually play with other people. They were going to play in Ventura in a few weeks, but one is having problems with her recent knee surgery. They both said this is the 5th time they've ever played.

 

A slow 4NT does not suggest passing. So why does everyone think it does? Solely because it got passed! What is the most likely reason for it being passed? Because they play it a signoff.

 

Except there is no evidence that they play it as a signoff. But what better way to convey its a signoff than to bid it slowly! Seriously, imagine we held ♠Kx, ♥x ♦AQTxxx ♣AKxx. We have a monster opposite a double + a new suit hand. I would bet you this hand THUMPS down 4N, which is undeniably RKC. Contrast this with the actual hand.

 

How do I know 4N was intended as natural? Because the lady told me. I really should have made a harder inquiry to North about why she passed 4N, but I think I know the answer.

 

I truly sympathize with a player anticipating all of the potential pitfalls of the followups after 4N. However, when I tank, I can list all kinds of reasons why I'm bidding slowly. Some of them might even be bridge-related.

 

I don't believe the UI suggests passing in any way so there is no reason to adjust.

 

If you don't the game loses its greatest appeal: the skill in interpreting the legal communication between partners: it is much easier to get it right if you use the illegal communication.

 

Of course. A slow 4N is 'illegal communication'.

 

North precisely got it right because of the break in tempo.

 

QED

[phil_20686]

I really think you got this one wrong Phil.

 

It looks to me like south intended 4N as keycard for spades. It makes no sense with xxx S and only Kx hearts to try to play in 4N. This is an auction where standard orthodoxy is to play it as natural, but admittedly there is always lots of confusion about 4N among club players. North obviously thought it was natural. This looks like a clear cut case of a bidding misunderstanding, which just happened to benefit N/S.

 

I do not understand how you can interpret the hitch as giving UI that it was intended as natural, when south clearly didn't intend it as natural. I mean, it would be completely bizarre to bid a natural 4N on the south hand.

 

Further, whatever the meaning of 4N, a slow 4N just means that partner had a lot to think about, which is obviously true on tihs auction. It could be suggesting that south is close to passing, or that south is close to bidding 5d, or that south is close to bidding 6N, or that south is unsure about whether her hand is worth a keycard bid, or whether her hand will play better in NT than spades if it was intended as natural, or south just needed to take a bit of time to figure out what exactly their agreements were about 4N.

 

Here is another question which I think makes it clear how bizarre your ruling is: If North had bid 6D over the slow 4N, reasoning that south had shown a good hand with diamonds, and that the promised heart stop/length makes it likely that all the black suit losers are going away, would you not rule it back to 4N in a heartbeat?

 

If the UI suggests anything, it is that N/S have a slam in diamonds, if N/S had bid a slam in diamonds after the slow 4N, there would be a good case for an adjustment back to 4N = or 5d+1. But we cannot simultaneously rule that if north bids on over the natural 4N they should be ruled back, and if they dont bid on they should be ruled to the non making slam, purely because they guessed to do the right thing. A good player sitting north could easily have felt constrained from their normal bid of 6D by the UI, and decided to pass, and now you are screwing them over anyway.

[phil_20686]

North precisely got it right because of the break in tempo.

 

I don't really understand this. They didn't `get it right'. north has a fairly normal 6D bid opposite a natural 4N on this sequence. Clearly north passed because (1) She isn't very good, (2) she was confused about what 4N actually meant and with Ax hearts and cashing tricks thought that this was likely a good spot. or (3) She felt constrained by the UI from making her normal 5/6d bid.

 

Also, it seems to me that if a good player had said they play this 4N as natural, you would just have accepted it, as its normal to play this 4N as natural if you are a good player. It seems harsh to apply higher standards of evidence to a worse pair just because "club pairs normally play keycard all the time". I mean, this sequence is not in my system file explicitly, but I would assume it was natural vs a good player. How else could I bid a strongish 1354 or 1363 shape? Demanding explicit evidence of an agreement about a fairly obscure auction is really harsh. I bet at least half of pairs playing the US nationals would not have an auction this obscure in their system files. Mine runs to fifty pages and it has absolutely no mention of competitive sequences where 4N is natural except for (4c/d) 4N.

[stevenagy]

 

I got ruled against in the North Pole Regional after ...

... a bad result in Outer Mongolia last year.

 

 

This partnership plays in far more exotic locales than I.

 

I played a game once with a regular partner where we decided that 4NT was defined to be natural (and a sign-off) if it was the first chance we'd had to show the strain, and there'd been competition. It might technically have applied here, though usually we'd have opened and they'd be competing over us. FWIW, the agreement netted us exactly one top and one bottom board before we discarded it.

[Phil]

I really think you got this one wrong Phil.

 

It looks to me like south intended 4N as keycard for spades. It makes no sense with xxx S and only Kx hearts to try to play in 4N. This is an auction where standard orthodoxy is to play it as natural, but admittedly there is always lots of confusion about 4N among club players. North obviously thought it was natural. This looks like a clear cut case of a bidding misunderstanding, which just happened to benefit N/S.

 

I do not understand how you can interpret the hitch as giving UI that it was intended as natural, when south clearly didn't intend it as natural. I mean, it would be completely bizarre to bid a natural 4N on the south hand.

 

Further, whatever the meaning of 4N, a slow 4N just means that partner had a lot to think about, which is obviously true on tihs auction. It could be suggesting that south is close to passing, or that south is close to bidding 5d, or that south is close to bidding 6N, or that south is unsure about whether her hand is worth a keycard bid, or whether her hand will play better in NT than spades if it was intended as natural, or south just needed to take a bit of time to figure out what exactly their agreements were about 4N.

 

Here is another question which I think makes it clear how bizarre your ruling is: If North had bid 6D over the slow 4N, reasoning that south had shown a good hand with diamonds, and that the promised heart stop/length makes it likely that all the black suit losers are going away, would you not rule it back to 4N in a heartbeat?

 

If the UI suggests anything, it is that N/S have a slam in diamonds, if N/S had bid a slam in diamonds after the slow 4N, there would be a good case for an adjustment back to 4N = or 5d+1. But we cannot simultaneously rule that if north bids on over the natural 4N they should be ruled back, and if they dont bid on they should be ruled to the non making slam, purely because they guessed to do the right thing. A good player sitting north could easily have felt constrained from their normal bid of 6D by the UI, and decided to pass, and now you are screwing them over anyway.

 

Phil, remember she told me she intended 4N as natural. Thats the crux of a lot of my argument in favor of a negative adjustment.

 

I never really thought about what happens if North bid 6♦, but you make a fair point without being sarcastic like others. 6♦ sort of smells like a safety play in the bidding, catering to either RKC in hearts or natural, which its reasonable to accept. If North has a true acceptance of slam, and you aren't passing, 6♦ seems like a practical choice.

[Codo]

So the problem still is: Why exactly is a slow 4 NT natural but a quick is not?

 

Many people like Phil20686 (or me) think that natural is the normal meaning. So a quick 4 NT had been the same as a slow one. Why should a quick 4 NT here be KC for spades? This sounds plain wrong, but maybe your lols do not need natural NT bids or KC for diamonds and besides this they do not know that 5 ♥ or 5 ♠ can search for slam in spades...

[Trinidad]

You can add me to the list of people who think Phil got this wrong. FWIW I also think that the phone call to the other TD went wrong. Just give the facts of the case (he is a TD, in't he?) and discuss a ruling, don't serve him bidding riddles.

 

What strikes me particularly is that:

- North says that 4NT is natural (she passed)

- South says 4NT is natural (remember that NS are "salt of the earth and good people")

- the TD Phil called says that 4NT is natural for him and Phil

 

and that despite all this evidence that 4NT is natural, Phil rules that 4NT must be keycard. And that is not all. He even knows that it has to be keycard for spades (why?!?).

 

I get the impression that if God would descend and tell Phil for a fact that NS play 4NT as natural, Phil would still rule that it must mean keycard for spades if bid in tempo.

 

Rik

[Zelandakh]

Phil, is it possible South said 4NT was natural because her partner passed it and she thought this was the "correct" answer? In my (admittedly very limited) experience club players do this sort of thing quite a lot. I think you should have asked North why she was so certain that 4NT was not asking too, and perhaps also why she did not bid 6♦.

[gnasher]

I can't imagine bidding this 4NT quickly, regardless of what I wanted it to mean.

[Phil]

Just give the facts of the case (he is a TD, in't he?) and discuss a ruling, don't serve him bidding riddles.

 

 

Rik, if I were polling players, I think I would present the hand just like this.

 

This does not seem like an unreasonable approach to another director.

[Phil]

I get the impression that if God would descend and tell Phil for a fact that NS play 4NT as natural, Phil would still rule that it must mean keycard for spades if bid in tempo.

 

 

God does not visit the forums, at least not as far as I know. He might be rather pissed at what goes on here :P

 

If South bid an in-tempo 4N, North could make any call she wanted.

[gordontd]

I can't imagine bidding this 4NT quickly

In contrast to all your other bids? :)

[Fluffy]

IMHO an ultra fast 4NT suggest to play much more than a slow one

[bluejak]

Of course. A slow 4N is 'illegal communication'.

No doubt. But the "If it hesitates, shoot it" method of ruling has been accepted as totally inappropriate everywhere now. You need more than UI to adjust.

 

North precisely got it right because of the break in tempo.

You don't know that. He says he plays it as natural, his partner does. No-one I know plays it as natural, but perhaps this pair do.

 

QED

Let's just look at your logical argument. A player opens 1♠. His partner thinks for over two minutes, then bids 4♣. He says it is splinter, his partner says it is splinter. And you? As far as I can see, you would argue that since it is so slow, he only got it right because of the tank, so we adjust as though it is Gerber, or natural, or Exclusion, or transfer to diamonds or something else.

 

They got it right, they tanked, it was intended as a splinter, QED.

 

I don't think so! :)

[Phil]

 

You don't know that. He says he plays it as natural, his partner does. No-one I know plays it as natural, but perhaps this pair do.

 

 

Upthread I already said this pair has played all of five times together. I also said she 'intended it as natural'. Top pairs that have hundreds of sessions under their belt might have problem with the definition of 4N; why would we expect a pair that seldom plays together would?

 

Oh wait, let me see. I can bid a slow 4N and hope my partner reads it as natural?? Cool.

 

Let's just look at your logical argument. A player opens 1♠. His partner thinks for over two minutes, then bids 4♣. He says it is splinter, his partner says it is splinter. And you? As far as I can see, you would argue that since it is so slow, he only got it right because of the tank, so we adjust as though it is Gerber, or natural, or Exclusion, or transfer to diamonds or something else.

 

Surely you can come up with a more ridiculous comparison. Or maybe not.

[the hog]

Phil, I have to agree with David on this one. Your ruling was wrong and for the wrong reasons.

[CSGibson]

 

Of course. A slow 4N is 'illegal communication'.

 

North precisely got it right because of the break in tempo.

 

QED

 

Remember this before the next time you think about lambasting someone for both posting a problem and then advocating for a solution after disagreeing with the feedback he is getting.

[Phil]

Remember this before the next time you think about lambasting someone for both posting a problem and then advocating for a solution after disagreeing with the feedback he is getting.

 

Um, is this a bad habit of mine or something that happens on a regular basis Chris? You make it sound like its a common occurrence.

 

By the way, even though I am in the vast minority on this, I just remain unconvinced.

 

Poll players about what they would do with the 5233 hand. If you get a bunch of passers then come back and report. I'm 8 for 8 with people responding to RKC and no one passes 4N. There's some difference of opinion about what the pollees do after the response but roughly half land in 6♠.

[CSGibson]

Um, is this a bad habit of mine or something that happens on a regular basis Chris? You make it sound like its a common occurrence.

 

By the way, even though I am in the vast minority on this, I just remain unconvinced.

 

Poll players about what they would do with the 5233 hand. If you get a bunch of passers then come back and report. I'm 8 for 8 with people responding to RKC and no one passes 4N. There's some difference of opinion about what the pollees do after the response but roughly half land in 6♠.

 

 

More tongue in cheek. I've seen it a few times, but I've also agreed most of the time when you've spoken up about it, except one time when it was directed at me - not that I hold a grudge.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that passing 4N is something they would do, or at least not the majority of responders - I just think that everyone is saying that a slow 4N does not suggest passing rather than bidding on/answering keycards, because the hesitation could be a number of different things, including deciding what the best method of exploring slam is, or determining whether your hand is worth going on, neither of which would suggest passing with the north cards. In order for you to adjust for UI, you have to demonstrate that the "illegal" action taken was suggested by the UI. In this case, I don't see it. You have essentially argued that correlation implies causation, and that is a fundamentally flawed, though often attractive, argument.

[Trinidad]

There are two ways of looking at this case.

 

I) Considering UI

It is simple. The BIT doesnot demonstrably suggest passing, in fact it doesn't suggest pass at all. And as for LA's: Pass may have been the only one, at least for this pair. No infraction. Result stands.

 

II) Considering illegal communication

Phil seems to suspect this pair is playing Weasel. A slow 4NT is to play, a fast 4NT is Blackwood. Probably a slow double is takeout whereas a fast one is penalty. There is no Laws forum that can help Phil on that one. But if Phil suspects this, he should start collecting evidence (and counterevidence!!) to prove or disprove his idea. If he proves that the pair plays Weasel, adjusting scores or giving PPs is NOT the way to deal with that.

 

No matter how you look at it, there is no reason to adjust the score on this board.

 

Rik

[bluejak]

Upthread I already said this pair has played all of five times together. I also said she 'intended it as natural'. Top pairs that have hundreds of sessions under their belt might have problem with the definition of 4N; why would we expect a pair that seldom plays together would?

Perhaps it has turned up before. Perhaps they have discussed this type of sequence. Perhaps they come from a group of people who have general agreements of this sort.

 

People make presumptions, often on pretty flimsy evidence. About one post in twenty on RGB assumes that everyone in the world is an American and plays American methods. Such people are always surprised that other things are possible.

 

If a pair plays together for the first time and have no time to discuss matters, and one opens 1♣ then it is likely to show 3+ in much of the ACBL and the London area, it is likely to show 4+ in most of the rest of England, and it is likely to show a strong hand or a variety of medium hands [probably clubs or balanced] in Poland.

 

Oh wait, let me see. I can bid a slow 4N and hope my partner reads it as natural?? Cool.

Oh, silly me, and I took you seriously. Do you know, I actually thought you were trying to argue sensibly?

 

Surely you can come up with a more ridiculous comparison. Or maybe not.

Silly me: I really must be more careful which posts are worth replying to.

[TimG]

Upthread I already said this pair has played all of five times together. I also said she 'intended it as natural'. Top pairs that have hundreds of sessions under their belt might have problem with the definition of 4N; why would we expect a pair that seldom plays together would?

Using this argument, there is no way this pair could get the auction right after a hesitation. Suppose South had intended it as KC for diamonds and north responded as such and they ended in 6D. Now you would say "top pairs have hundreds if sessions under their belts and might have a problem with this 4N, how can we expect this pair to get it right without use of UI?"

 

You've said it's natural with one of your partners, other Phil thinks it is normal for it to be natural. I think it should be natural (though I'm surely not as on top of bidding theory as either of you) second choice would be KC for diamonds, it would not occur to me that it was KC for spades. Even though I think it should be natural, I understand 4NT is seldom natural in today's bridge world, so I would consider it for a few moments before making a 4NT call I intended as natural almost regardless of sequence. I would also consider it a few moments if I intended it to be KC for either spades or diamonds since I want to make sure I can handle the responses and have a plan so that I don't break tempo over a KC response.

 

Anyway, put me in the camp of this appearing to be a case of "if it hesitates, shoot it".