A bit

[affe82]

Just a quick check if I am sane.

(sorry if this is too an easy problem - wanted a second opinion)

 

Mostly the complaint seem to be concentrated on the fact that non-offenders bidding bad.

When strange bidding coincides with BIT and success there is however often a need to investigate.

 

S

AKxxx

Qx

Jxxx

AJ

 

N

xx

AJxxx

-

Qxxxxx

 

West deals and the bidding goes:

 

W N E S

2S* p p 2N**

p 4C p 4H***(BIT)

p 5C X p

p p

 

Result: 5CXN 11 550

 

* 5spades and a 4+minor, weak

**"Natural"

***explained as Q-bid

 

No questions are asked during the bidding from EW. Tabling the dummy explanation of 2N and 4H are given upon inquiries.

 

TD questions:

- was there a BIT? - Yes. S tanked over 4C.

- What is system over a nat 2N?

- 3level bids nat here. All Nat.

-On opening 2N puppet stayman and transfers. No SouthAfricanTexas/Namyats.

-NS do not play 4minor as a TRF to corresponding Major

-NT bidding over 1N is stayman and 2level TRF, 2S showing weak/strong minor one-/twosuiter.

 

Souths 4H looks like a bid designed to cover up if North has intended 4C as a H-trf.

North claims this was cue. This is a statement delivered after seeing dummy.

4minor as a TRF to corresponding Major is common in the area although NS claim not to use the convention.

EW claims damage and want a rollback to 4H - why no pass? Or at least a removal of the X.

 

My ruling: result stands. No evidence of UI affecting result. I do not like the motivation for seeking a ruling which further strenghtens my inclination not to adjust (first statement fromEW "How can he not pass 4H with 5c sup?").

 

 

Do you adjust?

And:

Did I miss anything in my investigation?

 

Thankful for thoughts and comments.

 

/fredrik

[campboy]

Easy bit first. Passing partner in a cuebid isn't an LA, and the BIT doesn't suggest bidding on anyway -- if partner didn't intend to make a cuebid then that makes going back to clubs less attractive.

 

What is N/S cuebidding style? If it is possible for South to be cuebidding a king then the BIT suggests he was thinking of doing something less encouraging (or had forgotten the system), so 5♣ is suggested over 6♣, and 6♣ is likely to be an LA. Consequently I would be inclined to adjust to 6♣ going off (unless it's not going off).

 

If it should be a first-round control then South knows from his hand that something has gone wrong, so I don't think the BIT demonstrably suggests anything further.

[blackshoe]

[hv=pc=n&s=sak5432hq2dj32caj&n=s76haj543dcq65432&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2s(S%20%26%20m%2C%20wk)pp2n(natural)p4cp4h(BIT, explained as Qbid)p5cdppp]266|200[/hv]

[iviehoff]

Edit: North's South's call is "Unauthorised Panic" - bid longest suit at lowest available level in presence of UI of possible misunderstanding. As to what the LAs might be, a poll would be suitable to discover. Polled players should not be given an explanation of 4H.

[WellSpyder]

South's call is "Unauthorised Panic" - bid longest suit at lowest available level in presence of UI of possible misunderstanding.

I'm a bit confused by this. First, ♥s don't look like south's longest suit to me! Second, if I have understood correctly, South didn't have any UI at the time he bid 4♥ - his partner may have done thereafter since south took a long time to make this bid.

[CamHenry]

I'm a bit confused by this. First, ♥s don't look like south's longest suit to me! Second, if I have understood correctly, South didn't have any UI at the time he bid 4♥ - his partner may have done thereafter since south took a long time to make this bid.

 

Look at Blackshoe's hand diagram, not the OP: the OP has South above North, which thoroughly bewildered me for a while.

[paulg]

How good are North and South? Are they a pair that you'd expect to have no agreement about the 4♣ bid? If they have no agreement, why did North bid it?

 

If North is going to hear the most advantageous cue bid and not bid slam, why did he not bid 5♣ directly?

 

I am suspicious of North, as a fast 4♥ would be typical of someone accepting a transfer and a slow 4♥ typical of someone not knowing the system, but it's a judgement that's easier to make speaking to the players.

[spaderaise]

Look at Blackshoe's hand diagram, not the OP: the OP has South above North, which thoroughly bewildered me for a while.

 

I am looking at Blackshoe's diagram, and still hearts are not South's longest suit. Also, there is no indication that South was in receipt of UI before bidding 4H. I guess that iviehoff meant that North's 5C bid was the "unauthorised panic".

[iviehoff]

I guess that iviehoff meant that North's 5C bid was the "unauthorised panic".

That's what I meant.

[blackshoe]

The TD at the table does not seem to have asked South what he meant by 4♥. It doesn't look like a control bid to me. My first instinct was "Gerber response", but {a} it's the wrong response and {b} North shouldn't have a hand for Gerber, since he passed over 2♠. I suspect it's "if you have ♥ and ♣, I prefer ♥".

 

It looks like 4♣ is what I would call a "strange bid" — one about which the partnership has no agreement. Does the pair have a meta agreement about strange bids? The one I've heard most frequently is "all strange bids are forcing", but in Roy Hughes' recent book on competitive bidding, he suggests "all strange bids are natural and non-forcing". In the former case, South must bid something - and 4♥ is also a strange bid, so North must bid over it. It may be they were thinking that way, even though they don't (if they don't) have such a meta agreement. If they have the second agreement, then 4♣ is non-forcing, and South probably should have passed.

 

There's a player here who insists that "all jumps are weak". Repeatedly. Playing with him one day, he jumped on the second or third round to 4♣. I passed. After the hand, he asked me why I passed. "You keep saying all jumps are weak", I said. "Not that one!" he replied. B-)

[bluejak]

I do not like the motivation for seeking a ruling which further strenghtens my inclination not to adjust (first statement from EW "How can he not pass 4H with 5c sup?").

I am not happy with this. North and South have an auction with a hesitation in it, and some very strange bidding, and strange reasons for such bidding. To call the TD and ask for a ruling is completely automatic. Furthermore, a TD should never be affected by the motivation for a ruling, unless there clearly cannot possibly be an infraction of any sort, however minor.