The Osoyoos hand - UI, LA?

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=skthakq93dat92ca4&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1h2np3c3h4cpp]133|200[/hv]

 

On the second round of bidding, NORTH asks 'how strong is partner for her 2N bid'? then passes.

 

Should this question put any restrictions on South?

[Cyberyeti]

What was the answer to the question ?

 

Also I wonder if the question influenced the 3♥ bid.

 

I said in the other thread that I thought X was normal at MPs (which I believe this is from stuff in that thread) with no real LA.

 

My suspicion is that partner has an indifferent hand with spades, so it's not clear what's suggested as a bad 4♠ might well be the result of a double.

[nige1]

Somehow the director must determine what LAs are available for South, what if anything North's question suggests, and if South chose such an LA, whether East-West were damaged. Few would find South's second bid, so It may be hard to find suitable peers for South but, If the the poll in jillybean's other thread is any indication then, although double is the popular choice, pass might be an LA. It's heresy to some ACBLers but, IMO, unless you always ask questions, asking a question might well indicate values. Any interest whatsoever shown by North would suggest that South double rather than pass.

[gordontd]

Also I wonder if the question influenced the 3♥ bid.

That's unlikely since the question came on the second round of bidding.

 

The problem is to decide what alternatives now are logical for a player who thought 3H was a sensible rebid.

[Cyberyeti]

 

The problem is to decide what alternatives now are logical for a player who thought 3H was a sensible rebid.

 

Even the player in question may not have thought it was sensible by the time the auction reached the next round, and I'll be surprised if you can find anybody else who would agree with it, so as I said in the other thread, you're really going to struggle to poll this or get into the mind of the player.

[blackshoe]

Hm. If we can't figure out how to apply Law 16B in this case, can we use Law 73C? Should we?

[jillybean]

Was there Unauthorized information - yes.

 

Why shouldn't we follow the laws and apply 16b?

[RMB1]

Should this question put any restrictions on South?

 

To address the OP: Yes. South is restricted by Law 16B and Law 73C.

 

The problem, as others have said, is for the TD to apply Law 16B: in particular in determining whether Pass is a logical alternative. There might also be an issue of deciding whether Double is suggest over bidding or vice versa.

[blackshoe]

If we can determine the LAs and so rule on the basis of 16B, that's what we should do. What I'm asking is, if that is not feasible, may we then turn to Law 73C?

[jillybean]

Declarer bid 4♥/4♣ and was allowed to play there.

 

I didn't seem right but if it can't be resolved here, there is no hope that it would be resolved at the table.

[helene_t]

It may be ok. Pass may not be an LA and it is not clear if the question suggests 4♥ over double.

[blackshoe]

The inference from the question, it seems to me, is that North has a little something, but no clear cut call. So he probably doesn't have heart support. As someone else suggested, he may have a poor hand with some spades. It looks like West has the weak two-suiter, and East probably doesn't have much either. South has half the deck all by himself, so the question is "what are South's LAs?" Let's say pass is not an LA. That leaves double and 4♥. Either could work out poorly or well. Can we demonstrate how "North has a little something" might suggest that South double, or bid 4♥? Sure. Can we demonstrate how "North has a little something" might suggest double over 4♥ or vice-versa? That's much more difficult. I'm certainly open to such a demonstration, but if I were the table TD, I think I would rule that the answer to that question is no, and let the result stand. The question now (particularly in a world where we're apparently trying to do away with committees) is whether I should apply Law 83, either advising the players of their right to appeal, or sending the case to committee myself.

 

"North asked in the second round" implies to me that he asked after the 4♣ bid. If he asked after the 2NT bid, does that change anything? Either way, it would be good to know, as someone upthread suggested, what the answer was.

[c_corgi]

...

The problem is to decide what alternatives now are logical for a player who thought 3H was a sensible rebid.

 

I assume that a player who thought 3H was a sensible rebid also thought that 3H was NF and was content not to describe the hand any further. That means that pass is an L/A. South should be given the opportunity to explain why the assumption is not valid in this case (e.g. 3H was F, must protect expected +140 etc), but I doubt that any such explanation would sway my judgement.

[jillybean]

 

"North asked in the second round" implies to me that he asked after the 4♣ bid. If he asked after the 2NT bid, does that change anything? Either way, it would be good to know, as someone upthread suggested, what the answer was.

 

North asked his question after the 4♣ bid and before his 2nd pass. East response was" 55 in the minors, could be as weak as 6-8"

Edited May 30, 2014 by jillybean

[Zelandakh]

I think pass and X are LAs and X is suggested by the UI. Is hard to know what to make of the 4♥ call - what does South say when asked why they chose this? And what would a double of 4♣ by North have meant for this pair? And what was the answer to the question? If the answer was weak and double is penalty, it improves the odds on 4♥ working out quite a lot, probably enough for it to be deomonstrably suggested over pass.

[jillybean]

North asked his question after the 4♣ bid and before his 2nd pass. East response was" 55 in the minors, could be as weak as 6-8"

 

The director asked no questions, looked at Souths hand said "call me back after the hand if you like but it won't be a problem". He came back after the hand was completed, said "South had no logical alternative" and walked away. I feel that it is a waste of time calling about this type of thing.

[blackshoe]

North asked his question after the 4♣ bid and before his 2nd pass. East response was" 55 in the minors, could be as weak as 6-8"

 

The director asked no questions, looked at Souths hand said "call me back after the hand if you like but it won't be a problem". He came back after the hand was completed, said "South had no logical alternative" and walked away. I feel that it is a waste of time calling about this type of thing.

Maybe it is, but you can't really know that until the director has made his ruling. Better, IMO, to call him and get it over with.

 

If you have a problem with the ruling, and the director is "walking away", call him back and explain your problem. If it comes to it, tell him you want to appeal.