Tollemache BIT ?

[Cyberyeti]

[hv=pc=n&s=s3hkt87dj987c9543&w=skqt972hj95dk64c2&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d(4+%20cards)p(Slight%20hesitation)3d(0-4%205%20diamonds)]266|200[/hv]

 

Our 1♦ is very likely to be a strong NT, but shows at least 4 (we open 1♦ with all 4♦4other(32) or (41))

 

I was south, I picked up a slight twitch from east over 1♦, so bid 3♦ (which denies 4M) instead of 1♥ to try to make W's life awkward.

 

Do you think pass is a LA to 3♠ on the W hand ? W bid 3♠, E raised to 4.

 

W said he didn't pick up the twitch from E, I play with a partner who never picks up twitches from me or opps, I could pretty much exactly call the dummy before it hit the deck.

 

Any thoughts.

[billw55]

Scoring and vuls? White at matchpoints I would consider 3♠ automatic, otherwise maybe not.

[paulg]

I'd have thought pass was automatic opposite a hand that cannot bid over 1♦ holding a singleton.

[lamford]

Scoring is teams of 8, cross-IMPed with two other pairs. It is up to the TD to establish whether there was a BIT. If there were, I would say that Pass is an LA, but the TD should poll some peers. And partner is not sure to have a singleton diamond. Given that North opens 4-4s with 1♦, he is quite likely to have only four, perhaps odds-on. If partner has something like Jx KQxx Qx Axxxx (from our point of view) he won't take any action over 1D, and 4S is excellent, so I would bid 3S without a BIT, pass with one.

[Cyberyeti]

Scoring and vuls? White at matchpoints I would consider 3♠ automatic, otherwise maybe not.

 

W/W IMPs

[Cyberyeti]

Scoring is teams of 8, cross-IMPed with two other pairs. It is up to the TD to establish whether there was a BIT. If there were, I would say that Pass is an LA, but the TD should poll some peers. And partner is not sure to have a singleton diamond. Given that North opens 4-4s with 1♦, he is quite likely to have only four, perhaps odds-on. If partner has something like Jx KQxx Qx Axxxx (from our point of view) he won't take any action over 1D, and 4S is excellent, so I would bid 3S without a BIT, pass with one.

 

Partner WAS certain to hold a singleton diamond, while opener promised 4, I promised 5 with the raise (annotated on the bid) I just didn't happen to have them.

 

Your sample hand was very close to what I thought he had before I saw dummy, 5 or 6 clubs unsuitable for an overcall, 2425 ish and 11-12.

 

If there is a hesitation it tells you that opener has 16 rather than 22 and you're not going to find xx, Axxx, x, Q10xxxx opposite.

[barmar]

I was south, I picked up a slight twitch from east over 1♦, so bid 3♦ (which denies 4M) instead of 1♥ to try to make W's life awkward.

Do you mean you deliberately put him in an ethical no-win situation? Do you really enjoy playing the game this way?

[Cyberyeti]

Do you mean you deliberately put him in an ethical no-win situation? Do you really enjoy playing the game this way?

 

I didn't put him in an ethical no-win situation, if he had a really clear bid, he'd have no problem, from my hand and the twitch, I thought it was quite likely opps had a spade fit, and the hand with the spade suit was behind me so I simply tried to make it as difficult to find as possible by removing the easy 1♠ overcall.

[barmar]

But from the twitch, you had a good idea that West would not have a hand strong enough to act over 3♦. So what kind of "really clear bid" could have have that would have allowed him to act?

[dburn]

East didn't actually have a twitch. If 3♦ had worked worse than 1♥, would you have called the Director because you were misled?

[billw55]

W/W IMPs

In that case pass is probably an LA, and bidding is certainly suggested over pass. So as lamford says, director will have to determine whether there was in fact any UI.

[barmar]

East didn't actually have a twitch. If 3♦ had worked worse than 1♥, would you have called the Director because you were misled?

Ooh, a great double shot. If East has values, you call the TD on West. If East doesn't have values, you call the TD on East.

 

Is the first round of bidding after an unspectacular opening a situation "when variations may work to the benefit of their side"? That's the time that 73D1 says you should be particular careful about tempo.

[Cyberyeti]

East didn't actually have a twitch. If 3♦ had worked worse than 1♥, would you have called the Director because you were misled?

 

No, you use that sort of thing at your peril, if he hesitated a couple of minutes on a 5 count you would have a case, but I've seen 2♣ or 1♥ bid on worse hands than he had, I'd probably have overcalled 1♥ (which we do on 4 occasionally).

[PhilKing]

You know there is zero chance of getting a slight twitch agreed, right?

 

Just let it go and move on. Sometimes a (sub)conconscious advantage is gained, but there is really no point calling for a ruling.

[Cyberyeti]

You know there is zero chance of getting a slight twitch agreed, right?

 

Just let it go and move on. Sometimes a (sub)conconscious advantage is gained, but there is really no point calling for a ruling.

 

I thought there was sufficient evidence that I was sure I'd picked it up by the strange bid that I made, (I felt it was a definitive BIT at the time) and wanted to see what the director did.

[dburn]

For the record, the auction went in identical fashion at our table. Mind you, our opponents were playing four-card majors, so that 3♦ rather than 1♥ was the obvious move anyway. Even playing the methods espoused by the OP, 3♦ is the obvious move anyway, but I do not expect him to be able to see that.

[Cyberyeti]

For the record, the auction went in identical fashion at our table. Mind you, our opponents were playing four-card majors, so that 3♦ rather than 1♥ was the obvious move anyway. Even playing the methods espoused by the OP, 3♦ is the obvious move anyway, but I do not expect him to be able to see that.

 

We've had the situation enough times where partner has a big 4441/3451 and 4♥ is the only making game not to want to bid 3♦ (or 2N which is what we do with a slightly better hand) with 4M as a matter of routine. Admittedly the stiff spade here makes it much more attractive.

[iviehoff]

The futility of arguing over whether there were twitches is why screens were brought in.

[billw55]

I thought there was sufficient evidence that I was sure I'd picked it up by the strange bid that I made, (I felt it was a definitive BIT at the time) and wanted to see what the director did.

You tease, you're going to make me ask? :P OK fine. What *did* the director do?

[Cyberyeti]

You tease, you're going to make me ask? :P OK fine. What *did* the director do?

 

Nothing, he couldn't be sure there was a BIT so didn't consider the LA issue.

[mycroft]

I thought there was sufficient evidence that I was sure I'd picked it up by the strange bid that I made, (I felt it was a definitive BIT at the time) and wanted to see what the director did.

There was a "slight twitch", which you thought was a definite BIT, but wasn't worried about confirming it at the time, knowing that your partner doesn't notice, and you expect the TD to rule BIT because *you* thought you saw one? "but my bid makes it obvious" - why? Why does it not show someone needing a swing that decided to push, or someone who plays things differently from you and this is systemic?

 

Yes, there's a problem with twitches, and it's somewhat unsoluble. But I can't imagine, given what I didn't do at the table, a TD ruling that there was, in fact, a BIT. There might have been a twitch, true - but we're not proving it (even "preponderance of the evidence") after the fact.

[Cyberyeti]

There was a "slight twitch", which you thought was a definite BIT, but wasn't worried about confirming it at the time, knowing that your partner doesn't notice, and you expect the TD to rule BIT because *you* thought you saw one? "but my bid makes it obvious" - why? Why does it not show someone needing a swing that decided to push, or someone who plays things differently from you and this is systemic?

 

Yes, there's a problem with twitches, and it's somewhat unsoluble. But I can't imagine, given what I didn't do at the table, a TD ruling that there was, in fact, a BIT. There might have been a twitch, true - but we're not proving it (even "preponderance of the evidence") after the fact.

 

It was clear I made a bid that was not part of our system for 2 reasons (shows 5 diamonds and less than 4 hearts) all documented on the system card and I thought the twitch was more than slight, all that was agreed by the opp that did it was maybe a very slight twitch.

[gordontd]

I thought the twitch was more than slight, all that was agreed by the opp that did it was maybe a very slight twitch.

This is not what you said in your original post.

[ArtK78]

I don't see what the problem is as far as South is concerned. East's "twitch" is AI to South but UI to West. South can do anything that he likes (at his own peril, of course). This may place pressure on West, but it, in and of itself, does not put West in an ethical dilemma. East's twitch is what puts West in an ethical dilemma. One should not put South under any scrutiny for East's possible transmission of UI to West.

 

This is one of those stiuations where if NS get a double shot, they are entitled to it. The problem is not of their making.

 

As far as the original question is concerned, I think that West has a clear pass. To say that it is a logical alternative to bidding 3♠ is an understatement.

[Cyberyeti]

This is not what you said in your original post.

 

I said that on the OP because that was what the director was probably going to have to go on as the nearest thing to agreed facts we had.