Slow insufficient bid

[Aardv]

[hv=pc=n&s=st432h9dkq754c975&w=sa9haqt75djt96cj8&n=sk875h2da832cq632&e=sqj6hkj8643dcakt4&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1hp4hp4np5sp]399|300[/hv]

 

This is from a club pairs evening. At this point in the auction East thought for a while and bid 5♥. South, the playing director, who is familiar with Law 27, elected to pass. West, after some discussion of the legal position, bid 6♥.

 

At the end of the evening South (who would never make a judgment ruling in his own favour) asked a couple of us for a view on the implications of East's tempo. We declined to adjust.

 

I wonder whether there's any precedent for a ruling on the implications of a slow insufficient bid.

[mgoetze]

East was probably just reflecting on how terrible it was to bid 4NT, how horrible it was in the first place to play that 4♥ showed values, and whether it could possibly be better to go slow with strong hands.

[RMB1]

I wonder whether there's any precedent for a ruling on the implications of a slow insufficient bid.

Not that I am aware of.

 

In this case, I suggest that the hesitation was unrelated to the insufficiency and that this reduces to a hesitation blackwood case.

I imagine that 5♥ was bid was if the previous bid showed 2A+TQ but was below 5♥. A slow 5♥ shows doubt about signing off, so suggests slam.

 

Judging logical alternatives is harder. In the absence of the hesitation, 5♥ is a sign-off which rules out bidding but South's decision to accept 5♥ suggests slam is making.

[Cyberyeti]

Normally I'd rule that E wouldn't have bid 4N if he wasn't going to bid 6♥ over 5♠, but having seen the rest of the auction ...

 

I actually think with weak players, it's more likely E would be thinking either "Oh sh1t we've just gone past the last playable slot, why did I just use BW", or missaw the response and was signing off so to raise is not necessarily suggested.

 

Was E asked whether this was simply a mechanical error ?

[campboy]

FWIW I would never pass after an in-tempo 5♥. We know partner's made one incorrect call (the IB), but I see no reason to play for him having made two.

[weejonnie]

In fact I could argue that the AI/UI almost forces West to bid 6♥. East has bid 4NT knowing that a 5♠ bid would force him to bid 6♥ - so any doubt would suggest that 6♥ is not the right contract, thus passing is contraindicated.

[lamford]

FWIW I would never pass after an in-tempo 5♥. We know partner's made one incorrect call (the IB), but I see no reason to play for him having made two.

Well, should West not interpret 5H as a grand-slam try, as anything other than 6H must be? I don't think there is an LA to 7H. For a 4H raise West could not be much better, and he has a third-round control in both black suits. Opposite Kxx(x) Kxxxx A AKx(x), grand is cold, and East must be better than this for his GS-try. And declarer is deemed to try to ruff out the queen of clubs before taking the spade finesse in 7. So 100% of 7H-1 for me.

[sanst]

Here you see what happens if the director directs at his own table. The TD should have checked wether the 5♥ could be changed under 25A. If not, and S should have passed, I don't see any option for W but to bid slam, since E had by his 4NT bid with its possible 5♠ answer already closed the door on ending in 5♥ were this answer given.

[campboy]

As I see it, there are four possibilities for partner's intention:

 

1. He thought I responded 5♣ or 5♦, and intended to sign off below slam;

2. He knows I bid 5♠, but still intended to sign off below slam;

3. He intended to bid a slam, but got confused;

4. He intended some sort of grand-slam try.

 

As I said earlier, I don't consider #2 worth catering for, as it requires partner to have made two mistakes rather than one. But of the four options, I think #4 is the least likely to be bid in tempo, so the UI suggests 7♥ if anything.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=st432h9dkq754c975&w=sa9haqt75djt96cj8&n=sk875h2da832cq632&e=sqj6hkj8643dcakt4&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1hp4hp4np5sp]399|300|

This is from a club pairs evening. At this point in the auction East thought for a while and bid 5♥. South, the playing director, who is familiar with Law 27, elected to pass. West, after some discussion of the legal position, bid 6♥.

At the end of the evening South (who would never make a judgment ruling in his own favour) asked a couple of us for a view on the implications of East's tempo. We declined to adjust.

I wonder whether there's any precedent for a ruling on the implications of a slow insufficient bid.[/hv]

As a playing-director, South should rule himself or ask somebody else to rule, at the time. A likely meaning of East's slow 5♥ (in the knowledge that partner has ♥Q and 2 key-cards) is that 6♥ is a poor contract. The slowness of the bid usually indicates a borderline decision but the hesitation is UI to West. Pass is a legal call for West and, especially after South deliberately condoned 5♥, there's no moral obligation for West to bid on. IMO, pass is also an LA. and a poll would confirm this. So West should pass unless he has some undisclosed feature like a void. The fact that 5♥ is insufficient seems irrelevant to UI implications.

[lamford]

The fact that 5♥ is insufficient seems irrelevant to UI implications.

The fact that an insufficient 5H was slow is relevant.

[PhilKing]

No doubt signing off in Four Hearts would have been an even stronger grand slam try for the hang 'em high posse.

[gordontd]

As I see it, there are four possibilities for partner's intention:

 

1. He thought I responded 5♣ or 5♦, and intended to sign off below slam;

2. He knows I bid 5♠, but still intended to sign off below slam;

3. He intended to bid a slam, but got confused;

4. He intended some sort of grand-slam try.

 

As I said earlier, I don't consider #2 worth catering for, as it requires partner to have made two mistakes rather than one. But of the four options, I think #4 is the least likely to be bid in tempo, so the UI suggests 7♥ if anything.

I'm not sure what you mean about "two mistakes". I'd have thought that 2. was actually the most likely explanation. I've seen this sort of thing several times: when someone wants to do something they can't, they think about what else to do, find nothing and then make the prohibited action anyway. Most commonly seen from a declarer who is stranded in the wrong hand and repeatedly tries to lead out of turn.

[campboy]

I'm not sure what you mean about "two mistakes". I'd have thought that 2. was actually the most likely explanation. I've seen this sort of thing several times: when someone wants to do something they can't, they think about what else to do, find nothing and then make the prohibited action anyway. Most commonly seen from a declarer who is stranded in the wrong hand and repeatedly tries to lead out of turn.

I meant that his earlier 4NT bid would have been a mistake if he now wants to sign off in 5♥. I prefer not to play for that, but you may be right that it's more likely.

 

Again, though, it seems to me that #2 is more consistent with the BIT than #1 or #3, so we should assume one of those after a slow 5♥ (if it is an LA to do so).

[pgrice]

Normally I'd rule that E wouldn't have bid 4N if he wasn't going to bid 6♥ over 5♠, but having seen the rest of the auction ...

 

I actually think with weak players, it's more likely E would be thinking either "Oh sh1t we've just gone past the last playable slot, why did I just use BW", or missaw the response and was signing off so to raise is not necessarily suggested.

 

Was E asked whether this was simply a mechanical error ?

 

I was south here ...

 

I did not ask E explicitly if it was a mechanical error, my strong impression at the table was that it was not. Having passed his partners splinter bid on the previous board E might have been somewhat distracted. After a very brief discussion W (also a director) concluded that PASS was suggested by the BIT and so bid 6H. I made sure I had a record of the auction and that the BIT was agreed and later asked OP for an opinion.

 

Peter

[Finch]

Given the evidence about the quality of the EW pair from their actions on this hand, I would also think that a slow 5H bid suggests that the 4NT bidder suddenly realised that a 5S bid was inconvenient and that they were off two keycards. He was sitting there thinking he wished he could sign off, and then tried to do so (consciously or subconsciously). So I agree that the BIT suggests passing and West did right to bid on.

 

Separately, if enough people think that the BIT suggests bidding, then we have demonstrated that the BIT doesn't demonstrably suggest anything.

[nige1]

Given the evidence about the quality of the EW pair from their actions on this hand, I would also think that a slow 5H bid suggests that the 4NT bidder suddenly realised that a 5S bid was inconvenient and that they were off two keycards. He was sitting there thinking he wished he could sign off, and then tried to do so (consciously or subconsciously). So I agree that the BIT suggests passing and West did right to bid on. Separately, if enough people think that the BIT suggests bidding, then we have demonstrated that the BIT doesn't demonstrably suggest anything.

I hope the IB was an attempt not to cheat but just to sign-off and the BIT suggested doubt about that decision. If the director judges the IB was a deliberate attempt to cheat, then different considerations might apply.

[ggwhiz]

The fact that an insufficient 5H was slow is relevant.

 

ONLY when the 5♥ bid is accepted (Why?). Smells like a dumb 4nt bid and now we have hearts but are off 2 key cards (I've done it!).

 

If a Director was called I would say yes, there was a hesitation but no thinking was involved.

[lamford]

I'm not sure what you mean about "two mistakes". I'd have thought that 2. was actually the most likely explanation. I've seen this sort of thing several times: when someone wants to do something they can't, they think about what else to do, find nothing and then make the prohibited action anyway. Most commonly seen from a declarer who is stranded in the wrong hand and repeatedly tries to lead out of turn.

I agree that 2 is the most likely explanation for the IB, but that is not the infraction. It is clear from 27A that the IB is "treated as legal" when it is accepted, and therefore is AI. I would hope that my conjecture as to why partner made a legal call is always allowed in bridge! The infraction is the BIT. The reason for any BIT is always assumed to be that partner was thinking of bidding something other than 5H. All of 5NT, 6C and 6D were GS-tries, so to adjust to 7H-1, we only have to decide that bidding 7H is an LA which would be selected by some peers. And for many poor pairs, 4H shows a high-card raise to game.

[PhilKing]

I agree that 2 is the most likely explanation for the IB, but that is not the infraction. It is clear from 27A that the IB is "treated as legal" when it is accepted, and therefore is AI. I would hope that my conjecture as to why partner made a legal call is always allowed in bridge! The infraction is the BIT. The reason for any BIT is always assumed to be that partner was thinking of bidding something other than 5H. All of 5NT, 6C and 6D were GS-tries, so to adjust to 7H-1, we only have to decide that bidding 7H is an LA which would be selected by some peers. And for many poor pairs, 4H shows a high-card raise to game.

 

The reason for the BIT may have been that which you suggest, but to adjust we would need to demonstrate that the BIT suggests a grand slam try over other explanations. IMO the bit in itself does not really suggest anything at all.

 

To quote GGWhizz, "there was a hesitation but no thinking was involved."

[lamford]

The reason for the BIT may have been that which you suggest, but to adjust we would need to demonstrate that the BIT suggests a grand slam try over other explanations. IMO the bit in itself does not really suggest anything at all.

 

To quote GGWhizz, "there was a hesitation but no thinking was involved."

No. To adjust all we need to establish is that bidding 7H is an LA to 6H (or Pass), that it is less successful (it will go down in practice), and that a significant number of peers would seriously consider 7H and some would select it. Not bidding 7H is demonstrably suggested by the BIT, as an immediate 5H could equally have been a failed attempt to bid 6H.

[PhilKing]

No. To adjust all we need to establish is that bidding 7H is an LA to 6H (or Pass), that it is less successful (it will go down in practice), and that a significant number of peers would seriously consider 7H and some would select it. Not bidding 7H is demonstrably suggested by the BIT, as an immediate 5H could equally have been a failed attempt to bid 6H.

 

No. You first have to establish that the BIT demonstrably suggests the chosen action over less successful choices. LA's are not relevant until then.

 

Besides, only a lunatic would bid a grand slam here.

[gordontd]

Not bidding 7H is demonstrably suggested by the BIT, as an immediate 5H could equally have been a failed attempt to bid 6H.

My emphasis. I don't think your conclusion results from your premise.

[blackshoe]

The reason for any BIT is always assumed to be that partner was thinking of bidding something other than 5H.

Always? Why?

[pgrice]

ONLY when the 5♥ bid is accepted (Why?). Smells like a dumb 4nt bid and now we have hearts but are off 2 key cards (I've done it!).

 

If a Director was called I would say yes, there was a hesitation but no thinking was involved.

 

It seemed to me that if I didn't accept the 5♥ bid it would be made good with 6♥ … and give me less justification to ask the question in the OP.