Brighton 4 (EBU)

[VixTD]

Still in the Swiss Pairs:

[hv=pc=n&s=sq952hk8dk97642ck&w=st74h542dcjt87632&n=sjhaj763da853cq94&e=sak863hqt9dqjtca5&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1dp1h1np2c3dpp4cppp]399|300[/hv]

All bids were natural. There was an agreed pause before East's pass over 3♦.

 

Result: 4♣(W)=, lead ♦A, NS -130.

 

I was called at the end of the auction to note West's bid of 4♣ after the agreed hesitation. I was called back at the end of play.

 

I asked West why she had bid 4♣. She said she thought the opponents had values in diamaonds and she thought it would be a good sacrifice. I'd guess all four players at the table were fairly solid club players, established partnerships, wouldn't be called upon to represent their county, but otherwise pretty competent.

 

Would you rule out West's 4♣ bid?

[barmar]

Why didn't NS double it? Then then don't need to find the perfect defense (the heart ruff) to get +200, any reasonable defense should set it 1.

[billw55]

Why didn't NS double it? Then then don't need to find the perfect defense (the heart ruff) to get +200, any reasonable defense should set it 1.

Does that mean your ruling is no adjustment due to serious error subsequent to infraction?

[barmar]

Does that mean your ruling is no adjustment due to serious error subsequent to infraction?

Essentially. If the NOS were damaged, it seems to me that it was mostly their own fault. West handed them an opportunity for a top, they responded "No, thanks".

[sfi]

Why didn't NS double it? Then then don't need to find the perfect defense (the heart ruff) to get +200, any reasonable defense should set it 1.

 

The contract looks cold after leading the A of partner's first suit. Although it turns out to be a dreadful lead on the actual layout, the choice doesn't seem bad enough defence to deny any potential redress to North-South.

 

To me it's not clear that West knows what East might have been thinking about. Maybe East was contemplating a double, which suggests not bidding 4C? I would rule no adjustment for that reason.

[CSGibson]

No adjustment. East has the worst possible hand for his bid/this action, it is clear he was not thinking of bidding on, therefore bidding on is not suggested opposite this player's hesitation in that situation.

[VixTD]

No adjustment. East has the worst possible hand for his bid/this action, it is clear he was not thinking of bidding on, therefore bidding on is not suggested opposite this player's hesitation in that situation.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Is it really clear to West that East is not thinking of bidding on? How does she know her partner has the worst possible hand for this auction?

[CSGibson]

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Is it really clear to West that East is not thinking of bidding on? How does she know her partner has the worst possible hand for this auction?

 

 

If we were to adjust, we would have to say that bidding on was suggested by the break in tempo, and we would typically do that by saying that the break in tempo showed that partner was thinking about bidding because of extra values.

 

Here, it is clear that overcaller was not thinking about bidding because of extra values or a decent fit. Therefore I think he has demonstrated that for this player, his break in tempo does not suggest bidding on, and advancer can do as he pleases.

[blackshoe]

I suspect that East was considering bidding 3♠, but it really doesn't matter, because all West can infer is that East has some reason to consider a call other than pass. However, West also has AI that East has around 16 HCP and a balanced hand, which means he has at least two clubs. This means the opponents have around 23 points and not more than four clubs. South's hand is clearly not great, and hasn't heart support, since he passed. North probably doesn't have much either. So is pass a logical alternative for West? Maybe, maybe not. He has no defense to 3♦, and he can't expect his side will get many club tricks unless clubs are trumps. If I were West, I'd expect to go down 2 in 4♣ (doubled if my opponents know what they're doing). That argues for pass at this vulnerability, unless I'm pretty sure they won't double. so I'd rule it's an LA. As for the failure to double, that's an error, true, but not a serious one in my view. Hell, I have partners who never double unless it's absolutely obvious. So I would adjust, and I would not consider letting NS keep their table result. Note that if I judged the failure to double to be a serious error, NS would not get back all of the damage the table result did, whether that's "keep the table result" or something else (I haven't looked at it), but EW would still get their score adjusted due to violation of Law 16.

[c_corgi]

Given that West is void in Diamonds he has reason to suspect that partner's hesitation is based on a marginal penalty double. That being the case he is perhaps obliged to choose 4C (if it is an LA) over pass. Looking at East's hand it seems quite likely that he valued it as four and a bit defensive tricks and a marginal penalty double. As marginal penalty doubles go, the East hand is relatively suitable for play in clubs, but I don't see how that is West's fault.

[campboy]

It seems to me the most likely reason for a hesitation in this auction is that partner has club support and was considering bidding, so bidding on yourself is demonstrably suggested. The fact that partner doesn't actually have club support, or indeed anything to think about at all, on the actual layout is irrelevant. The question has to be: what does the hesitation suggest to a West who can't see his partner's hand?

 

Obviously there is no reason to deny redress here. It is hardly an error at all to fail to double a contract you are going to let through, and leading the ace of partner's suit is far from ridiculous. I would think it is also certainly an LA to pass. Without UI, I would pass at this vulnerability but probably bid if I was NV.

[lamford]

It seems to me the most likely reason for a hesitation in this auction is that partner has club support and was considering bidding, so bidding on yourself is demonstrably suggested.

No, the test is not what it seems to you is the most likely reason for the hesitation. It is what a larger sample think, and the same for deciding if Pass is an LA. When you have a diamond void, as others say, the most likely explanation seems that partner was considering doubling. I think Pass is an LA, but bidding 4C is not demonstrably suggested. But we need a poll for this one.

[Cyberyeti]

N is at least partly the architect of his own misfortune, he has a monster fit for partner and has let the hand drop, 5♦ requires only a 2-1 trump break (that it probably won't get on the auction although some people play that 1N only guarantees a stop in RHO's suit) and that's with partner holding only 6 working points. N has bid a 2443 9-10 rather than the nice hand he has, if he bids 4♦ either initially or over 4♣ he avoids this problem.

 

I think X is just as likely as a raise for the hesitation so although pass is a LA, 4♣ is not suggested, so no adjustment there either.

[campboy]

No, the test is not what it seems to you is the most likely reason for the hesitation. It is what a larger sample think, and the same for deciding if Pass is an LA. When you have a diamond void, as others say, the most likely explanation seems that partner was considering doubling. I think Pass is an LA, but bidding 4C is not demonstrably suggested. But we need a poll for this one.

Well, I would do a poll if I was actually going to make a ruling. I don't feel the need to conduct a poll before posting an opinion on the internet.

[nige1]

It seems to me the most likely reason for a hesitation in this auction is that partner has club support and was considering bidding, so bidding on yourself is demonstrably suggested. The fact that partner doesn't actually have club support, or indeed anything to think about at all, on the actual layout is irrelevant. The question has to be: what does the hesitation suggest to a West who can't see his partner's hand?

Obviously there is no reason to deny redress here. It is hardly an error at all to fail to double a contract you are going to let through, and leading the ace of partner's suit is far from ridiculous. I would think it is also certainly an LA to pass. Without UI, I would pass at this vulnerability but probably bid if I was NV.

Agree with campboy. Here, East has no reason to tank. Perhaps a cow flew by. Nevertheless, his tank is still UI to West. A likely reason for a tanking is extra values or a ♣ fit. Thus the UI suggests bidding 4♣ rather than passing. The NS failure to double isn't a SEWOG.

[StevenG]

Agree with campboy. Here, East has no reason to tank. Perhaps a cow flew by.

Do you think so? It's not a situation I remember ever being in, and there are a lot of options to be considered (especially at pairs - easier to pass quickly at IMPS, I think). From East's point of view, West must have a lot of possible hand types. Maybe it's easy enough for rhe grandmaster types, but as has been said in other threads, Brighton contains a wide experience range.

[VixTD]

There's a fair body of opinion here saying that pass and 4♣ are logical alternatives for West, but that bidding 4♣ is not suggested over pass because East is more likely to have been thinking of making a penalty double than competing further in clubs.

 

If West had passed and NS been left to make 130 in 3♦+1, would you be adjusting the score if NS had called you to complain that West had not bid 4♣ after the hesitation (assuming it will be doubled and defeated some appreciable amount of the time)?

[sfi]

If West had passed and NS been left to make 130 in 3♦+1, would you be adjusting the score if NS had called you to complain that West had not bid 4♣ after the hesitation (assuming it will be doubled and defeated some appreciable amount of the time)?

 

This is not a necessary corollary of ruling that the hesitation does not suggest 4C. If the hesitation clearly suggests passing over bidding then it's right to adjust. But UI does not always demonstrably suggest any particular course of action.

[c_corgi]

There's a fair body of opinion here saying that pass and 4♣ are logical alternatives for West, but that bidding 4♣ is not suggested over pass because East is more likely to have been thinking of making a penalty double than competing further in clubs.

 

I am not sure that anyone has claimed 4C is an LA. Personally I am not sure that it is. But I do think Pass was suggested over 4C by the UI.

 

If West had passed and NS been left to make 130 in 3♦+1, would you be adjusting the score if NS had called you to complain that West had not bid 4♣ after the hesitation (assuming it will be doubled and defeated some appreciable amount of the time)?

 

If 4C did transpire to be an LA, then I think a weighted score including 4C=, 4C-1, 4CX=, 4CX-1 and 4D= should be considered. I have no idea if that would be more favourable to the NOS than their hypothetical 3D+1.

[VixTD]

This is not a necessary corollary of ruling that the hesitation does not suggest 4C. If the hesitation clearly suggests passing over bidding then it's right to adjust. But UI does not always demonstrably suggest any particular course of action.

I agree it's not a necessary corollary, but the arguments do seem to be saying that the hesitation suggests defending. Is nothing really suggested, or is it perhaps an example of a "non-demonstrable" suggestion?

[sfi]

I am not sure that anyone has claimed 4C is an LA. Personally I am not sure that it is. But I do think Pass was suggested over 4C by the UI.

 

Isn't the chosen action a logical alternative by definition? I'm sure someone on this forum provided case law or a rules committee clarification to that effect.

[c_corgi]

Isn't the chosen action a logical alternative by definition? I'm sure someone on this forum provided case law or a rules committee clarification to that effect.

 

Probably. But in deciding whether the UI makes it obligatory to bid 4C we must determine whether it would be an LA if it had not been chosen. For instance in the hypothetical case of 3D+1 being the table result. I should have said "I am not sure that anyone has claimed 4C would have been an LA if it had not been chosen at the table."

[gnasher]

Isn't the chosen action a logical alternative by definition? I'm sure someone on this forum provided case law or a rules committee clarification to that effect.

 

Yes, there's a WBFLC minute that says that. This may mean that 4♣ is an LA in the case in the original post, but not in the scenario where West passes out 3♦.

[sfi]

I agree it's not a necessary corollary, but the arguments do seem to be saying that the hesitation suggests defending. Is nothing really suggested, or is it perhaps an example of a "non-demonstrable" suggestion?

 

To me it's unclear - I would have to be at the table to read what partner was thinking. As a committee member I would be leaning towards a slight suggestion of wanting to bid 4C (despite my earlier questioning of what the hesitation shows). But it's pretty hard to construct a hand that would be genuinely conflicted about either doubling or bid 4C in this auction. I have no idea what this particular East was thinking about - maybe wondering if 2C was Stayman?

[blackshoe]

There's a fair body of opinion here saying that pass and 4♣ are logical alternatives for West, but that bidding 4♣ is not suggested over pass because East is more likely to have been thinking of making a penalty double than competing further in clubs.

I'm not sure I buy this argument. The law says "could demonstrably have been suggested", not "is suggested". Nor does the law distinguish possible LAs by likelihood.