Yet another UI - amusingly low standard club game

[lmilne]

[hv=pc=n&s=skq6hk9852da54ct5&w=s984htd9862cj8432&n=sa72h6dkqjt3ckq96&e=sjt53haqj743d7ca7&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1d1h1npp(hesitation)2h3nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

The auction speaks for itself, I believe. 3NT makes in comfort.

 

Thoughts?

[pran]

[hv=pc=n&s=skq6hk9852da54ct5&w=s984htd9862cj8432&n=sa72h6dkqjt3ckq96&e=sjt53haqj743d7ca7&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1d1h1npp(hesitation)2h3nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

The auction speaks for itself, I believe. 3NT makes in comfort.

 

Thoughts?

What on Earth is the partnerhip agreement on the 1NT bid?

 

If North is allowed (by agreement) to pass then South should bid 3NT directly.

[wank]

if i play club bridge i consider this to be well within acceptable levels of cheating.

[lmilne]

What on Earth is the partnerhip agreement on the 1NT bid?

 

If North is allowed (by agreement) to pass then South should bid 3NT directly.

 

No special agreement - definitely not forcing!

[pran]

No special agreement - definitely not forcing!

At this apparent level I would then allow him to gracefully accept the given opportunity to reach game and let the table result stand.

 

I generally resent any use of the word "cheating" (or "cheat"), and especially in situations like this.

We want players to enjoy the game of bridge, and if this is their current level then so be it.

[gordontd]

I wouldn't allow the 3NT bid, and in a club context I'd welcome it as a good opportunity to explain how these things work.

 

However, I would allow South to bid 2NT, and North might well then bid 3NT, so I'd expect to give them at least part of the table result, reached by another route.

[ArtK78]

I would certainly allow the 3NT bid. South could have bid 3NT on the first round. This has nothing to do with the hesitation.

 

Unrelated, you have to put up with more at the club level than you do in a higher level tournament. Many players at the club level do not understand and will never understand proper conduct.

[pran]

I was once summoned to a table by a player who also happened to be one of the best Directors we had in Norway at that time (she certainly outranked me then). I no longer remember the actual case other than that it was a matter of judgement - what I tolerated and what not, and my ruling could well have gone either way.

 

This was a regional (open) event "above average" and my ruling went against this player, but I added: "This is a situation where I rule differently in Masters' League and here.

 

She burst into laughter and exclaimed that she had absolutely no problem with that!

[Vampyr]

I think it is quite possible that after his first bid South found another ace. I would probably, like Gordon, give a weighted ruling.

[ggwhiz]

I directed games of this stripe a long time ago and tried my best to rule as if it was a stronger game and gently explain why using "may" and "might" a lot in the attempt to raise the bar a bit and no, it never worked.

 

Not allowing the 3nt bid I would award avg+ and avg- or 10% of 10 different landing spots.

[ArtK78]

Come on, people. You are allowed to make a bid that your hand demands that you make. Just because your partner hesitates, it does not mean that you can't take into account what is in front of your face.

 

Did anyone notice that partner opened the bidding, and that South holds 12 HCP and K98xx in the suit RHO bid twice?

 

I would also accept double as a reasonable action suggested by partner's opening bid and what is in front of your face, and it would have nothing to do with partner's hesitation.

 

Now, if South were to do something odd like pass over 2♥, or make some other bid, then I might have a problem. I might have a problem with 2NT, as this hand is clearly worth a game bid.

 

Any ruling other than 3NT stands is absurd.

 

By the way, the only peculiar bid made in the auction was 1NT, and that was made before the hesitation. East had a chance at a good score by passing out 1NT, but, quite understandably, he didn't do that. North's pass of 1NT is also far from clear, but that is probably why he hesitated.

[billw55]

Come on, people. You are allowed to make a bid that your hand demands that you make. Just because your partner hesitates, it does not mean that you can't take into account what is in front of your face.

 

Did anyone notice that partner opened the bidding, and that South holds 12 HCP and K98xx in the suit RHO bid twice?

 

I would also accept double as a reasonable action suggested by partner's opening bid and what is in front of your face, and it would have nothing to do with partner's hesitation.

 

Now, if South were to do something odd like pass over 2♥, or make some other bid, then I might have a problem. I might have a problem with 2NT, as this hand is clearly worth a game bid.

 

Any ruling other than 3NT stands is absurd.

 

By the way, the only peculiar bid made in the auction was 1NT, and that was made before the hesitation. East had a chance at a good score by passing out 1NT, but, quite understandably, he didn't do that. North's pass of 1NT is also far from clear, but that is probably why he hesitated.

That is one way to think of it.

 

Another way is to consider that this south has already demonstrated that he did not consider his hand a game force. Then later, he does. And partner did nothing in the meantime to encourage this, other than hesitate.

 

Is pass a logical alternative for a good player? Obviously not. Is pass a logical alternative for this player? Perhaps.

 

Overall I am on the fence. Good one to post.

[weejonnie]

Is 3NT demonstrably suggested by partner's tank?

 

No!

 

Next case please.

[barmar]

That is one way to think of it.

 

Another way is to consider that this south has already demonstrated that he did not consider his hand a game force. Then later, he does. And partner did nothing in the meantime to encourage this, other than hesitate.

 

Is pass a logical alternative for a good player? Obviously not. Is pass a logical alternative for this player? Perhaps.

Basically, all we can really tell from this is that South doesn't know what he's doing, as his 1NT bid was a huge underbid. East could have passed and won the board (I'm not saying he should have, given what he holds), but reopening gave South a second bite at the apple, and he then noticed the extra king that he didn't count on the previous round.

 

I vote rub of the green, result stands. Sometimes you get fixed by idiots.

[billw55]

Is 3NT demonstrably suggested by partner's tank?

 

No!

Perhaps. But in cases like this, it is reasonable to group possible calls into pass and not-pass. The latter is certainly "demonstrably suggested" over the former.

 

I wouldn't allow the 3NT bid, and in a club context I'd welcome it as a good opportunity to explain how these things work.

 

However, I would allow South to bid 2NT, and North might well then bid 3NT, so I'd expect to give them at least part of the table result, reached by another route.

And even if you enforce a pass on south, several final contracts are still possible, including 3NT. I like the idea of a weighted ruling.

[Trinidad]

The simple solution, particularly at a club game, might well be to simply ask South why bid 3NT, and why he bid 1NT. You may get an honest answer that solves the problem.

 

Rik

[dburn]

You might also ask him why he didn't double 2♥. Maybe it would have been for takeout.

[nige1]

I wouldn't allow the 3NT bid, and in a club context I'd welcome it as a good opportunity to explain how these things work.

 

However, I would allow South to bid 2NT, and North might well then bid 3NT, so I'd expect to give them at least part of the table result, reached by another route.

If 1N was not forcing and the director judges that South's re-evaluation was suggested over pass by North's hesitation, I think the director should roll the contract back to 2H undoubled (assuming that contract is likely to have been reached without the use of UI)

 

Current director practice rewards and encourages players, who break the law, and increases the damage suffered by their victims. Inevitably, the standards of the game sink lower and lower.

[whereagles]

South's hand is borderline between 2NT and 3NT, yet 1NT was (under)bid. Hesitation removes any doubt of carrying on: either North has extras or shape/length tricks (in this case he has both).

 

I think this is a rollback.

[Cascade]

if i play club bridge i consider this to be well within acceptable levels of cheating.

 

 

I don't

[Bbradley62]

You have signed up as a sub in an online individual tournament... You are inserted at a table mid-auction, and are faced with this situation:

[hv=pc=n&s=skq6hk9852da54ct5&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1d1h1npp2h]180|270[/hv]

What possible actions do you think are logical alternatives?

[gordontd]

You have signed up as a sub in an online individual tournament... You are inserted at a table mid-auction, and are faced with this situation:

[hv=pc=n&s=skq6hk9852da54ct5&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1d1h1npp2h]180|270[/hv]

What possible actions do you think are logical alternatives?

I think 2NT or 3NT are possible. Or a double if that is for penalties. If I expect to be replaced by the original player after I make this call, I would bid 2NT since he obviously didn't think it was worth 3NT.

[gordontd]

Did anyone notice that partner opened the bidding, and that South holds 12 HCP and K98xx in the suit RHO bid twice?

Did South notice that when he judged on the previous round that it was just worth a 1NT bid?

[aguahombre]

The question to club TD's implied here is, "How far are you willing to go in sullying the game of sanctioned Duplicate Bridge to coddle the clientele?"

 

This is beyond my threshold. I would word the ruling with my alleged best people skills while rolling back.

[ArtK78]

Did South notice that when he judged on the previous round that it was just worth a 1NT bid?

So South made an error on the first round of the bidding. He is allowed to correct that error later as long as he is not influenced by UI. The hand was worth a game bid earlier and it is still worth a game bid, hesitation by partner or not.

 

IMHO, if this hand were presented to a reputable appeals committee, everyone would have a good laugh. No adjustment. Possible frivilous appeal warning.