Another UI case

[Cyberyeti]

I don't have the exact hand, but basically you have 9 solid hearts 211 small cards, not sure which is the doubleton, vul is love all, you deal.

 

You open 4♥, LHO bids 4♠, partner passes slowly, pass to you, is pass a LA ? 5♥ is -1.

 

Also if you decide to adjust, 4♠ is not an automatic make. Presumably you can adjust to say 70% 4♠=/30% 4♠-1. How much benefit of the doubt do you give to the NoS in this situation.

[NickRW]

You open 4♥, LHO bids 4♠, partner passes slowly, pass to you, is pass a LA ? 5♥ is -1.

 

Pass is definitely an LA. Preempters normally don't bid again anyway - and after a slow pass really cannot to my mind. I don't see the 9th heart as much defence - I've seen people open 5♥ in the first place with that sort of hand - so it isn't as if it wasn't an option in the first place.

 

Admitedly I've seen many preempters bid again when they shouldn't - but no matter how inexperienced, IMO, they really should learn that a slow pass from partner does constrain them.

 

I'll leave others to answer the other question.

 

Nick

 

P.S. I've seen people open that sort of thing 2H (strong) many times too - much to Bluejak's consternation - and partner's when they double opps high level contract.

[paulg]

I would definitely expect that Pass is an LA. However I expect that if partner passes smoothly that 5♥ would be an LA too and, depending on methods, in rare cases even double might be.

 

But when I have nine solid hearts and a singleton spade, my first thought is that partner is considering doubling. So I'm not convinced that 5♥ is suggested by the UI. But I may be in the minority as, interestingly, in a different case currently on bridgewinners, quite a number of posters are certain that slow passes in this situation always show offence, not defence.

[Vampyr]

I've seen people open 5♥ in the first place with that sort of hand - so it isn't as if it wasn't an option in the first place.

 

Some people open 5M as a slam try. At least they used to; I am not sure how popular that approach is now.

[Cyberyeti]

Some people open 5M as a slam try. At least they used to; I am not sure how popular that approach is now.

Yeah, but it was normally a slam try which asked partner to bid slam with top trump honours, which you know they're not going to do.

[NickRW]

Some people open 5M as a slam try. At least they used to; I am not sure how popular that approach is now.

 

I've seen plenty of people play a free bid of 5M in the middle of auction as a slam try expressing that trump quality is the primary concern. I can't say I've seen anyone play that as an opening bid, though.

 

N

[Cyberyeti]

I've seen plenty of people play a free bid of 5M in the middle of auction as a slam try expressing that trump quality is the primary concern. I can't say I've seen anyone play that as an opening bid, though.

 

N

The classic never seen hand that was usually presented was QJ1098765432,AK,-,- for a 5♠ bid.

[blackshoe]

I've seen plenty of people play a free bid of 5M in the middle of auction as a slam try expressing that trump quality is the primary concern. I can't say I've seen anyone play that as an opening bid, though.

 

I had it on my card for several years. It never came up. B-)

[bluejak]

I have played a 5♥ opening as a pre-empt for 40+ years. It is very slightly more common than the slam try version!

 

As to the weighting, you decide what you think the likelihood is of making nine or ten tricks in spades dependent on your judgement and that of the people with whom you consult. Having decided, perhaps, that ten tricks will be made about two times in three, you then might give a small benefit of doubt swing, so rule something like

 

.. 70% of 4♠ =

+ 30% of 4♠ -1

 

Especially if you are unsure or the consultants disagree with each other a lot, you might make it 75%/25%. On the other hand if you think it will make ten tricks one time in three, then you might rule:

 

.. 35% of 4♠ =

+ 65% of 4♠ -1

 

or even 40%/60% as before.

[campboy]

FWIW I would bid again. I don't think this is inconsistent with opening 4♥ and hoping either to buy the contract or to give partner the chance to double them.

[Sjoerds]

As to the weighting, you decide what you think the likelihood is of making nine or ten tricks in spades dependent on your judgement and that of the people with whom you consult. Having decided, perhaps, that ten tricks will be made about two times in three, you then might give a small benefit of doubt swing,

And check if that outcome really benefits the NOP.

It will be most of the time... but it cannot hurt checking

[nigel_k]

I would not consider pass. I have nine solid hearts and partner could not double.

 

Obviously I didn't open 4♥ because I consider it the limit of what the hand is worth. I opened 4♥ in case we take exactly ten tricks and they make nothing and/or let us play there. That seems much less likely now.

 

I don't have to stop playing bridge and just accept a poor result any time partner thinks before passing.

[Cyberyeti]

FWIW I would bid again. I don't think this is inconsistent with opening 4♥ and hoping either to buy the contract or to give partner the chance to double them.

I would also always bid again, and would know I was going to when I opted to bid 4♥ rather than 5.

 

I had no horse in this race, I was in the A team of a county match when our oppo did this in the B team. They volunteered that pass was an LA and conceded the adjustment to 4♠=. I thought that was generous although they were losing the match by the maximum regardless of the result on this board. The preempt sort of did its job, 6♣ is cold the other way.

 

Not sure what the slow pass was thinking about, hand was A8xx, xx, J9xx, J10x.

[Cascade]

Preempters normally don't bid again anyway - and after a slow pass really cannot to my mind.

 

Sure they don't normally bid again but neither do they normally have nine solid.

[ggwhiz]

IF (big if) I could determine that the 4♥ bid was followed quickly by the 4♠ bid I don't think partners tank shows anything more than WTF? :blink: with any 13 cards and I would be searching for details before ruling. If the tank was less than a coma I may well let the 5♥ bid stand.

 

I would be more inclined to roll back a 5♥ bid after a fast pass by pard than over a reasonable tank.

[Finch]

There was a similar hand in some multiple teams event a while back (the Tollemache, or the premier league, or crockfords final, something like that) with exactly the same auction at a number of tables, sometimes with a slow pass and sometimes with an in tempo pass.

 

It was ruled - and I agreed with the ruling - that there was no LA to bidding 5H. This is in line with my usual rule for 'bidding again' rulings: if you have 2 cards more than you have shown, you usually bid.

[lamford]

I don't see the 9th heart as much defence

Nor do I. Which is why I would bid 5H.

[Codo]

I am with Nigel and Frances et al- I would rebid my suit.

But I understand that there are LAs, too many posters said so.

 

But anyway- the only bid a slow pass would suggest is double, because that covers all bases, so where is the problem?

 

Or is a partner who is unable to decide whether to pass or double quicker then a partner who needs to decide between pass and 5 ♥?

[Fluffy]

I have played a 5♥ opening as a pre-empt for 40+ years. It is very slightly more common than the slam try version!

 

As to the weighting, you decide what you think the likelihood is of making nine or ten tricks in spades dependent on your judgement and that of the people with whom you consult. Having decided, perhaps, that ten tricks will be made about two times in three, you then might give a small benefit of doubt swing, so rule something like

 

.. 70% of 4♠ =

+ 30% of 4♠ -1

 

Especially if you are unsure or the consultants disagree with each other a lot, you might make it 75%/25%. On the other hand if you think it will make ten tricks one time in three, then you might rule:

 

.. 35% of 4♠ =

+ 65% of 4♠ -1

 

or even 40%/60% as before.

since 4♠-1 is worse than 5♥-1 would it make sense to rule 4♠= 70% 5♥-1 30%? is this ilegal ruling? (in case we ruled that pass is a LA)

[Lanor Fow]

Asusming pass is an LA and 5H is suggested, then yes it is an illigal ruling (this type known as a reveley ruling). As we have deemed 5H to be an illigal bid (in teh situatino given by Fluffy), we can't include any part of it in the adjustment.

 

If, though, there was a legal way to get to 5H, as there sometimes is in these cases, then it can be part of an adjustment.

[VixTD]

since 4♠-1 is worse than 5♥-1 would it make sense to rule 4♠= 70% 5♥-1 30%? is this ilegal ruling? (in case we ruled that pass is a LA)

There's nothing wrong in including in the weighting a proportion of a score that would be less favourable to the non-offenders, if that's what you're worried about, so long as the weighted average you calculate works out better overall for the non-offenders than the result achieved in play.