you;re one of the best players in the world

[beatrix45]

Seems like a normal auction given the players you describe. One NT gets the play in the right hand. Three diamonds gets the play in the right hand, plus it calls for the right lead against three hearts. Hard to believe you called the director. Playing with a weak partner who is paying you plenty for the experience is a somewhat different game.

[the hog]

Your expert should be absolutely ashamed oh himself. Pass is a definite alternative. I would have had a private word to him after this event.

[paulg]

It seems to me that you'd like to do something with this hand and partner's hesitation doesn't really tell you very much. Even so, 3♦ seems the call least suggested by the hesitation so I would permit it.

[Fluffy]

Anyway, my experience also tells me that it is a mistake to expect higher ethics from the best players, ethics has nothing to do with skill level.

[beatrix45]

At what point in this thread did the partner of the 3♦ bidder suddenly turn out to have hesitated? It certainly wasn't in the original post. Wank never said so. If no hesitation, then the concept of a logical alternative is not relevant.

[aguahombre]

At what point in this thread did the partner of the 3♦ bidder suddenly turn out to have hesitated? It certainly wasn't in the original post. If no hesitation, then the concept of a logical alternative is not relevant. Weak players hesitate all the time since so many situations are new to them.

For the new folks, click on the yellow part of the bidding diagrams.

[ahydra]

FWIW I'd bid 3D. Then again I'm no expert.

 

I'm expecting to make it or pick up -100 vs -110, but I'll admit it is very close. My usually conservative partner once opened 1C on ♣AKQJx and out so we could easily lose 6 major suit tricks off the top, though that would be somewhat unlucky. More likely is -200 through no fault of our own, eg defensive ruffs.

 

ahydra

[rhm]

It's not relevant to the ruling, but personally I can't see why anyone would bid 3♦ instead of double. If partner leaves it in you're delighted, and if he takes it out to a black suit you can convert to 3♦ if you want to.

 

I say it's not relevant because the fact that South chose 3[di[ makes it a logical alternative for the purpose of the ruling.

I can.

North did not double 2♥, so should not have 4 good cards in hearts and a solid opening with defensive prospects.

If partner passes the reopening double, the fate of the contract and my delight will likely depend on, whether declarer is short in diamonds, a live possibility.

Also what is opener supposed to bid over a reopening DBL? He knows we have no spade fit. If he holds a balanced hand nothing will look attractive to him.

Not my cup of tea to gamble on when opponents are not even vulnerable.

I also think if the hesitation suggests something it is to reopen with a DBL not with 3♦.

I would bid 3♦.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

I can.

North did not double 2♥, so should not have 4 good cards in hearts and a solid opening with defensive prospects.

If partner passes the reopening double, the fate of the contract will likely depend, whether declarer is short in diamonds, a live possibility.

Also what is opener suppose to bid over a reopening DBL? He knows we have no spade fit. If he holds a balanced hand nothing will look attractive to him.

Not my cup of tea to gamble on when opponents are not even vulnerable.

In post no 11 Wank tells us that double by either hand would be for takeout.

 

I also think if the hesitation suggests something it is to reopen with a DBL not with 3♦.

Yes, the pause certainly suggests double over 3♦. I did say that my preference for double was not relevant to the ruling.

[jogs]

Why should LA apply to this board? They are vul and opened. South holds 9 points(AKQ). He knows his side holds the balance of points. He is allowed to bid anyway he chooses.

[RMB1]

Why should LA apply to this board?

 

The bidding diagram in OP shows a BIT

[jogs]

The bidding diagram in OP shows a BIT

 

 

Not relevant. With or without BIT, South knows his side holds the balance of points.

[Zelandakh]

Not relevant. With or without BIT, South knows his side holds the balance of points.

You never open 11 counts? or even 10 counts? You like the holding of Txx in the opponents' suit when partner could not act? The vulnerability? There are plenty of ways that some players could convince themselves not to act here. Amongst intermediates, it would not surprise me if Pass was the majority action without knowing about the BIT. After it, almost every club player is going to find another call.

[cherdano]

It's not relevant to the ruling, but personally I can't see why anyone would bid 3♦ instead of double. If partner leaves it in you're delighted, and if he takes it out to a black suit you can convert to 3♦ if you want to.

I can see why. If they compete to 3♥, you are certainly happier having bid 3♦ than having doubled. I know it's not very likely that they take the push, but it's also not very likely that partner passes. I don't think there is any point in doubling unless you want to pass one of partner's black suit rebids.

[jogs]

This board is NS vul and EW non-vul. Only open 11 or less with long suits or two suiters. Those hands would have found a call over 2♥. When flat North would always have more than 12 points. Therefore there are no hands with this bidding sequence and vulnerability where NS does not hold the balance of power.

[Poky]

Bidding anything in this spot with three small hearts is very bad. Whoever thinks 3♦ is better than pass is far from being an expert.

 

What is the plan? Partner passes, the "expert" bids 3♦ and feels unlucky when the dummy tables:

4324, or

4315, or

3316, or

4216, or

anything similar?

 

Come on.

 

I mean - even putting an 8-carder fit on the 3rd level would be bad. But this is pure randomizing, since the diamond fit may easily be 7-carder or even 6-carder.

 

As to the BIT, I think there's a bigger probability it was caused with some 13-15 4216 hand than a 12-14 4135/3136 hand. The latter would double 2♥ easily, knowing partner will never pass it out. But that is pretty much player depending.

 

I could understand if director disallows a successful 3♦ balancing.

[jdeegan]

Bidding anything in this spot with three small hearts is very bad. Whoever thinks 3♦ is better than pass is far from being an expert.

 

What is the plan? Partner passes, the "expert" bids 3♦ and feels unlucky when the dummy tables:

4324, or

4315, or

3316, or

4216, or

anything similar?

 

Come on.

 

I mean - even putting an 8-carder fit on the 3rd level would be bad. But this is pure randomizing, since the diamond fit may easily be 7-carder or even 6-carder.

 

As to the BIT, I think there's a bigger probability it was caused with some 13-15 4216 hand than a 12-14 :P 4135/3136 hand. The latter would double 2♥ easily, knowing partner will never pass it out. But that is pretty much player depending.

 

I could understand if director disallows a successful 3♦ balancing.

:P Hmm.......... The OP stipulates that the 3♦ bidder is one of the best players in the world. You say he/she cannot be even as much as a mere 'expert' player. Somebody has got to be wrong here. One wonders just who might that be?

 

There is a possible ethical issue involved in this situation. Such a breach may have been an issue. Evidently some kind of hesitation was revealed in the OP if one clicked on some part of the hand diagram. My own browser did not reveal this - a computer glitch, perhaps. Glitch or no glitch, professional bridge players make their living helping customers win something. God knows what that is. God only knows why the customers want whatever that might be. If you really want to play this game, you need to come to terms with all of this.

[lamford]

If pass is an LA too, I think 3♦ and double are both suggested over pass, so pass is the only legal action.

I think Pass is an LA, but believe 3♦ is not demonstrably suggested over Pass. If partner was thinking of doubling for penalties, but was unsure what it would mean, it could work badly, and if partner is 4-3-1-5 it could be very poor. If partner was thinking of doubling 2H for takeout, it may work well. Double seems the bid that is demonstrably suggested by the UI.

 

And with this partner, the only LAs may be the ones that get him to be dummy.

[RSClyde]

My partner and I play that double (or at least some call) by opener is mandatory with 2 or less hearts since it is he who knows that they have an 8 card fit: responder's just guessing. In that case, passing 2♥ after partner fails to double is automatic.

 

I'm sure they had no such agreement. Even so, I'm blown away by how many people think bidding is automatic: I think passing is automatic. Partner could have 4 hearts and 0 diamonds or a whole raft of less dramatic competitive disasters. What law of total tricks are you using? You're putting all your chips in partner having 3/4 diamonds after opening 1♣ and 2 or fewer hearts. There seems to be no reason to believe this is the case.

[gnasher]

What law of total tricks are you using?

Why should they be using any law of total tricks?

[aguahombre]

Why should they be using any law of total tricks?

I think RSClyde's post was in agreement with you that the Law is not applicable here. There is no valid total trick estimate available to use. He just worded it with a rhetorical question.

[Fluffy]

I think Pass is an LA, but believe 3♦ is not demonstrably suggested over Pass.

You are wrong, pass is always the least suggested bid with an action hand in a partscore.

[RSClyde]

I think RSClyde's post was in agreement with you that the Law is not applicable here. There is no valid total trick estimate available to use. He just worded it with a rhetorical question.

I meant that the law of total tricks only supported bidding when partner has 2 hearts and 3+ diamonds. Which isn't particularly indicated. To claim, as some have, that bidding is automatic, seems to suggest that they believe it will be ok even if partner holds a less favorable fit, which is a law violation.

 

If someone had claimed that partner rates to have 2 or less hearts and 3 or more diamonds, I think we'd be a little suspicious of why they thought this and request an explanation (admittedly I haven't added up the probabilities of all the combinations, it may be the case but this would indeed be a cumbersome task). So why look any more favorably on someone who says that bidding is automatic? Aren't these statements synonymous? That is, unless one wants to claim that the law of total tricks rates to underscore the total tricks on this hand: but I'm not really seeing any reason why.

[benlessard]

Responder probably choose 1NT to show 8-10 if 1C-1D-1M-1nt tend to show 6-7.

 

I think pass is LA and if the hesitation is acknowledged I would adjust score. If opener had 3H its clearly possible that 2H is our last plus score and with 2H he might double. So a SLOW pass suggest 3 little hearts and a max or Hx in hearts and a min wich make bidding on tempting. As for the 3D or double I dont think its that relevant, I prefer double but its so unlikely to be passed that 3D is really an equivalent. However double might lead you to 2NT wich Ill happily pass.