Acceptance of game invitation

[VixTD]

The Tollemache is the national (England and Wales) inter-county teams-of-eight competition. Each competing county organisation sends a team to the qualifier where they are drawn into four groups of (usually) eight or nine teams. After a round robin, the top two teams of each group compete in the final in the spring.

[hv=pc=n&s=saq53h842daj83c96&w=skjt94hqj73dca753&n=s82hak6dqt9542cqj&e=s76ht95dk76ckt842&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p1c(11-13%20bal%20or%20any%2016%2B)1s1n(5%2B%20diamonds%2C%208%2B%20pts)p2d(11-13%20bal%20with%204cM)p3d(nat.%2C%20inv.%2C%20slow)p3nppp]399|300[/hv]

Lead: ♠7. Result: 3NT(N)=, NS+600

 

NS play a two-way club: 1♣ was either a weak NT (11-13) with a four-card major [correction] or any 16+ hand; 1NT showed diamonds, usually 8+ points and forcing; 2♦ showed 11-13 balanced with a four-card major, 3♦ was invitational.

 

I was called at the end of play by EW, who queried South's bid of 3NT after the agreed slow 3♦ bid. EW argued that South has a minimum hand with a poorly-placed ♠Q. South said he had a huge undisclosed fit for North's obviously good diamond suit, that pass is not a logical alternative to 3NT (or 4♦, or some other action), and even if it were, it's not "demonstrably suggested" by the break in tempo.

 

How would you rule?

[WellSpyder]

Two small clarifications on the NS system:

1) The 11-3 balanced option in the 1♣ opening always includes at least one 4-card major, so the information in the 2♦ bid was that opener had the weak option, not that he additionally had a 4-card major.

2) With a maximum weak NT and a good ♦ fit, south also had the option over 1NT of "breaking the transfer" by bidding 3♦ rather than 2♦, so he has already denied this possibility.

[blackshoe]

Seems to me that south's 2♦ doesn't necessarily deny a good diamond fit, it only denies both a good diamond fit and a maximum. So either he has a bad fit, or he's not maximum, or both. Also, what, demonstrably, could north's BIT suggest? It might suggest a borderline invitation, but on which border? Was he considering passing, or was he considering bidding some game? I don't think the BIT necessarily shows one over the other. After all, while 1NT shows a minimum of 8 points, it's unlimited on the high end.

[barmar]

I agree with everything South said, so result stands.

 

Mrs. Guggenheim would have set it: 4th best from longest and strongest.

[billw55]

I agree with everything South said, so result stands.

 

Mrs. Guggenheim would have set it: 4th best from longest and strongest.

In fairness, I expect east led a spade due to west's bid of the suit.

 

 

 

[keylime]

Results stand, and a private discussion with EW about the fact that you still have to play bridge.

[Trinidad]

EW seem to be a little fixed on HCP. Fit is simply more important than HCP.

 

Other than that, I agree with Blackshoe that it is difficult to tell whether North has the high end or the low end of his invitation.

 

Rik

[Aardv]

Result stands, but Pass is certainly a logical alternative.

 

Swap DK and C3, the first three tricks are the same, but the defence wins the diamond finesse and takes eight more tricks. Would you still be telling us that fit is more important than high-card points?

 

Personally I feel aggrieved that N-S should get a good board with these horrible wrong-siding methods.

[WellSpyder]

Personally I feel aggrieved that N-S should get a good board with these horrible wrong-siding methods.

LOL. Personally I feel aggrieved that N-S should have had a good board taken away from them here!

 

I was north at the table. I agreed that I had paused for thought over 2♦ (my partner hadn't noticed) because I was aware that I had been wondering whether to pass. In the end I felt that the possibility of a vulnerable game at imps still existed and couldn't be ignored. My view about the ruling was that partner couldn't possibly know what I was thinking about here, and if by any chance he did guess that I was considering passing then surely that would suggest he should pass rather than bid on. In fact I was 90% confident that the ruling would be in our favour. When it wasn't, I was 95% confident that we would win the appeal! Clearly I need to do something about my confidence levels. (Those involved in pre-project appraisal will be familiar with the concept of optimism bias....)

 

Hopefully I will learn something when the AC's write-up of the case becomes available (though I don't suppose I will see this for several months), because whether or not one accepts that pass was a LA, I have still heard nothing to suggest that the UI suggests bidding on. In fact, my partner and I suggested to the AC that if he had passed then he might have been accused of using the hesitation to decide that I only had a marginal invite and that therefore he should pass rather than bid on. So the NOS could argue after a pass that we should have been in 3N, which they would obviously have taken off with a club lead.... One member of the AC did respond that both pass and 3N couldn't both be suggested over the other, so I await with interest their reasoning that 3N was the bid suggested.

[lamford]

I think most agree that Pass is an LA, and the poll conducted by the TD confirmed that it was, as was my (subsequent) informal poll of a few strong players. We already "think" we have wrong-sided 3NT. The sole decision is what is demonstrably suggested. In most partnerships one will have experience of whether partner is conservative or aggressive, so a slow bid will always indicate whether the alternative bid of which he was thinking, when he invites, was a sign-off or a game bid. Such is the case after 1S-(Pass)-3S(slow) for example. That could be a 2.5 spade bid or a 3.5 spade bid, so it could be argued that neither 4S nor pass is demonstrably suggested, but in practice it will be and we adjust if a non-obvious 4S is successful, and should adjust if an obvious 4S bid would fail. In my experience, most players are thinking of bidding game (or forcing to game) when they invite slowly, rather than thinking of passing. And, for sure, a regular partnership will have experience of whether partner was previously light or heavy for a slow invite and this is also UI.

 

I believe that there was an old edict, possibly promulgated by an erstwhile L&E Chairman, that a slow Pass and a slow Double both indicate that you do not want the bidding to end. By the same token, I think that a slow invite usually indicates that you want partner to accept. I think I am supposed to declare that I was on the AC and also that this opinion does not replace the official write-up, which I think is available immediately from the TD rather than in a few months time.

[Lanor Fow]

... but in practice it will be and we adjust if a non-obvious 4S is successful, and should adjust if an obvious 4S bid would fail. ...

 

If I am reading this correctly, or correctly taking your meaning, this would seem to imply that if one has a 50/50 guess on whether to pass or bid, one will get ruled against whatever one does, on the assumption that one knows what ones partner normally hesitates one. That surely cannot be correct?

[lamford]

If I am reading this correctly, or correctly taking your meaning, this would seem to imply that if one has a 50/50 guess on whether to pass or bid, one will get ruled against whatever one does, on the assumption that one knows what ones partner normally hesitates one. That surely cannot be correct?

Not at all. If there is no LA to the chosen bid it is always allowed. If it is also believed that the UI does not demonstrably suggest one action over another, for example when partner could have been thinking of a whole host of things, then one allows any action. And the hand and action will usually tell the discerning TD what the player expected for the BIT.

[Lanor Fow]

But in this particular case, you seem to be saying that a partnership will always know what a slow invite suggests, and if there is a non obvoius call we rule against it.

 

in a 50/50 case obvoiusly both passing and accepting are LAs, and both are non obvoius as there is a reasonable alternative. Thus if I am reading your post correctly (for the specific case of invites, or even more specifically this particular invite) we would adjust whatever action is taken. This to me seems wrong.

[WellSpyder]

In most partnerships one will have experience of whether partner is conservative or aggressive, so a slow bid will always indicate whether the alternative bid of which he was thinking, when he invites, was a sign-off or a game bid. Such is the case after 1S-(Pass)-3S(slow) for example. That could be a 2.5 spade bid or a 3.5 spade bid, so it could be argued that neither 4S nor pass is demonstrably suggested, but in practice it will be and we adjust if a non-obvious 4S is successful, and should adjust if an obvious 4S bid would fail.

Is that independent of what responder actually has for his 3♠ bid? So you would adjust for a successful non-obvious 4♠ bid that turned out to be opposite a 2.51 ♠ bid, or for a successful non-obvious pass that turned out to be opposite a 3.49 ♠ bid?

 

It is one thing to argue that you should adjust if opener apparently correctly reads which of 2.5 or 3.5 spades responder has, but it seems incredibly harsh to adjust when opener makes a decision that apparently misreads which responder has but still turns out to be successful! That really does seem to imply that you are completely stuffed as soon as partner hesitates.

[lamford]

But in this particular case, you seem to be saying that a partnership will always know what a slow invite suggests, and if there is a non obvoius call we rule against it.

 

in a 50/50 case obvoiusly both passing and accepting are LAs, and both are non obvoius as there is a reasonable alternative. Thus if I am reading your post correctly (for the specific case of invites, or even more specifically this particular invite) we would adjust whatever action is taken. This to me seems wrong.

Each case is judged on its merits. I think most players tend to have extra values when they invite. Here we have North having extra values and South having a minimum with two unguarded suits and a poorly placed queen of spades, but accepting. That suggests he did not expect partner to have scraped up an invite. If South had, for example, Axx JTxx Axxx Ax and passed, and the obvious 3NT failed because partner had a shabby invite, then there would be grounds for a potential adjustment to 3NT-x. And this answers Wellspyder's point too. If you successfully guess whether partner is light or heavy for a slow invite, you will tend to be using previous experience.

[Lanor Fow]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

I disagree with basing 'could demostrably be suggested' on the hand that hestitated (either fully or partially), but I disagree with it less than what I thought you were advocating.

 

editted for clarity

[lamford]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

I disagree with basing 'could demostrably be suggested' on the hand that hestitated (either fully or partially), but I disagree with it less than what I thought you were advocating.

 

editted for clarity

The hand that hesitated is part of the evidence of what his partner might expect for a slow invite. The main point of focus is the hand opposite. I also think that Law 73 comes into play. Bidding 3NT here is not "carefully avoid(ing) taking any advantage from that unauthorised information". The emphasis on "any" is mine.

[WellSpyder]

Here we have North having extra values

I wonder just what extra values you are seeing in the North hand? Partner has already shown 11-3 balanced and denied a maximum with a diamond fit. The only alternative to 3♦ that I thought was worth considering was passing, as I made clear at the appeal and was accepted by the NOS. I do think if the AC felt they should disbelieve this disregard this as a self-serving statement then the least they should have done was ask me to explain why I thought I had a minimum invite. As the discussion went, it seemed that everyone accepted this.

 

and South having a minimum with two unguarded suits and a poorly placed queen of spades.

With anything more, partner would have bid 3♦ on the previous round! And as Trinidad said earlier, fit can matter more than points. As my partner explained, he can "see" 6 ♦ tricks (he expected me to have K to 6 rather than Q to 6) and ♠A, so he only needs 2 more tricks from me from a likely 7 or so points outside these 2 suits to be able to count 9 tricks, despite ♠Q being of little value. And the two unguarded suits are less significant when oppo are likely to lead spades.

 

The NOS suggested that since my partner chose not to break the transfer to 3♦ on the previous round then he had no reason to change his mind on the next round. But that seems completely back to front, to me. If you are on the dividing line between two bids and choose to go for the weaker one, surely it is routine to accept a subsequent invite???

[lamford]

I wonder just what extra values you are seeing in the North hand? Partner has already shown 11-3 balanced and denied a maximum with a diamond fit. The only alternative to 3♦ that I thought was worth considering was passing, as I made clear at the appeal and was accepted by the NOS. I do think if the AC felt they should disbelieve this disregard this as a self-serving statement then the least they should have done was ask me to explain why I thought I had a minimum invite. As the discussion went, it seemed that everyone accepted this.

 

 

With anything more, partner would have bid 3♦ on the previous round! And as Trinidad said earlier, fit can matter more than points. As my partner explained, he can "see" 6 ♦ tricks (he expected me to have K to 6 rather than Q to 6) and ♠A, so he only needs 2 more tricks from me from a likely 7 or so points outside these 2 suits to be able to count 9 tricks, despite ♠Q being of little value. And the two unguarded suits are less significant when oppo are likely to lead spades.

 

The NOS suggested that since my partner chose not to break the transfer to 3♦ on the previous round then he had no reason to change his mind on the next round. But that seems completely back to front, to me. If you are on the dividing line between two bids and choose to go for the weaker one, surely it is routine to accept a subsequent invite???

All the above are arguments about whether there is an LA to 3NT. That is decided by the poll of the TD, and the opinion of the AC. Others, including all three of the AC, agree that Pass is an LA. Opposite xxx Kxx KQxxxx Kx, for example, you would not expect to make 3NT. I ran a simulation with Bridge Analyser opposite a presumed 11-12 with six diamonds, very generous to NS (as many would punt 3NT with that in view of the lack of a spade raise), and 3NT made only 12.8% of the time. I actually think 3NT was an awful bid, and the idea that there was no LA to it, as stated by NS on the appeal form, was misplaced optimism. The question as to whether it was demonstrably suggested was more difficult. However, the AC has little way of knowing what North might have had for a slow invite on a previous occasion, so whether 3NT is demonstrably suggested has to be viewed to some extent by how likely we think South is to bid 3NT opposite an in-tempo invite. That has to be a value judgement.

[VixTD]

As you may have gathered, the ruling and subsequent appeal both went against Wellspyder, and the score was changed to 3♦(S)=, NS+110.

 

I carefully selected some good players from other sections of the competition (who were playing different boards) who I thought would not find the NS action alien, and asked what they would do over an in tempo 3♦.

 

If I remember correctly, two thought that pass was clear, two that 3NT was clear, two others could have gone either way. When I asked them what they thought a slow 3♦ suggested, they both thought it suggested bidding on over passing. The appeals committee wanted to know if I'd asked why they thought it suggested this, but I hadn't asked. Lamford makes the point that partnerships will get to learn to read each others' tempo breaks correctly, and I suppose if partner is uncertain that 3♦ is the correct bid there's more to gain from bidding 3NT than there is from passing.

 

I agree that the question of what is suggested over what is the weak part of this ruling, and I wouldn't have been surprised if the appeals committee had overturned the ruling. In their comments they said that they were persuaded by the TD's poll of players.

[WellSpyder]

I actually think 3NT was an awful bid, and the idea that there was no LA to it, as stated by NS on the appeal form, was misplaced optimism.

There seems to be a curious misunderstanding here of how appeals are conducted in England these days. The players rarely get to state anything on an appeal form, and indeed NS on this occasion never even saw one. It is true that south clearly felt that pass would have been a very poor bid, and perhaps the second-best alternative to 3NT would have been 4♦. But as we made clear in response to a direct question from the AC chairman, the basis of the appeal was that if anything was suggested by the UI it was pass rather than 3N.

 

You were very clear at the appeal that 3N and pass couldn't both be suggested by the hesitation, but it seems to me that you are suggesting that in practice they can indeed both be regarded as suggested.

[lamford]

You were very clear at the appeal that 3N and pass couldn't both be suggested by the hesitation, but it seems to me that you are suggesting that in practice they can indeed both be regarded as suggested.

I stated that they could not both be suggested over each other on the same hand. On this hand, we thought that 3NT was demonstrably suggested over Pass, it was more successful, and Pass was an LA. On another hand, Pass could be suggested over 3NT.

[WellSpyder]

I agree that the question of what is suggested over what is the weak part of this ruling, and I wouldn't have been surprised if the appeals committee had overturned the ruling. In their comments they said that they were persuaded by the TD's poll of players.

Thanks, VixTD, that is helpful to hear. The result of the appeal starts to make a little sense to me if the AC have chosen to rely on your statement that a couple of the people you polled said they thought 3N was suggested. I think it is slightly unfortunate that the AC should choose to do this, since the whole point of an AC is that they have much more opportunity to get to grips with the nuances of the auction than those polled by the TD will have, but if they were undecided otherwise then I can see the attraction of using this aspect of the poll. (For future reference, is there any reason why you only asked those who were undecided about what they would bid what they thought a hesitation would suggest, rather than also asking those who knew what they would have done?)

 

One other thing that I find slightly curious - though I don't see really see how it can be avoided - is the juxtaposition of on the one hand relying on the views of those polled about what is suggested with on the other hand lamford's argument that you can't actually say in a vacuum what is suggested but you can nevertheless assume that something is suggested for any particular pair.

[WellSpyder]

I stated that they could not both be suggested over each other on the same hand. On this hand, we thought that 3NT was demonstrably suggested over Pass, it was more successful, and Pass was an LA. On another hand, Pass could be suggested over 3NT.

Do you mean on a different North hand? Or a different South hand?

[Trinidad]

Each case is judged on its merits. I think most players tend to have extra values when they invite. Here we have North having extra values and South having a minimum with two unguarded suits and a poorly placed queen of spades, but accepting. That suggests he did not expect partner to have scraped up an invite.

 

This is putting the cart before the horse. You use the player's hand to determine the logical alternatives. And you use the UI to determine what LAs is suggested. You do not use the fact that South chose a successful LA as evidence for the fact that he must have known what the UI suggested. Otherwise it is impossible to do anything right.

 

What if South drew the conclusion that the slow invite exactly did indicate a "scraped up invite"? Now, he takes the right action by accepting the invite and he gets punished "because he must have known that North's BIT showed extra's".

 

In this case a poll of players on site indicates that 3NT is suggested by the UI, and then the TD has to work with that. I happen to disagree with those polled, but such is life. Too bad for WellSpyder, next board. But getting the evidence out of South's action ("he must have known") is plain wrong.

 

Rik