Nat Pairs 7 - more Michaels

[VixTD]

The last ruling from the event:

[hv=pc=n&s=st7h74d87ckt65432&w=s8hjt5dakjt53caqj&n=sakj9642hkq986dc9&e=sq53ha32dq9642c87&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1d(4%2B)2d(both%20M)3dpp4sp(slow)p5d5sdppp]399|300[/hv]

1♦ promised four, playing strong NT, 5cM

2♦ was Michaels, both majors, either weak or strong

East's pass was agreed to be slow.

 

Result: 5♠X(N)-1, lead ♦4, NS -100

 

North called the director to question West's 5♦ bid after the slow pass by East.

 

What do you think?

[barmar]

I allow the bid. You have a known 10+ fit, shortness in the opponent's suit, extra values, and a likely making finesse in the clubs. The only flaw in the whole hand is ♥ JTx. I don't think passing or doubling are LAs.

[WellSpyder]

I allow the bid. You have a known 10+ fit, shortness in the opponent's suit, extra values, and a likely making finesse in the clubs. The only flaw in the whole hand is ♥ JTx. I don't think passing or doubling are LAs.

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion. But are you suggesting West should be bidding 5♦ to make? If so, which of the plus features you list didn't he have on the previous round of bidding?

[blackshoe]

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion. But are you suggesting West should be bidding 5♦ to make? If so, which of the plus features you list didn't he have on the previous round of bidding?

I don't presume to speak for Barry, but it seems to me that West cannot be bidding 5♦ to make. After all, he has four losers in the majors, and no real expectation that his partner can cover any of them. That is why I, at least, would not bid 5♦ on the previous round. After all, if North has the weak Michaels variant, I would expect that 3♦ will become the final contract, and that we might well make, even with four losers in the majors.

[barmar]

I admit that I hadn't really considered that he didn't bid it earlier.

 

But I think North's 4♠ bid gives him additional information that this has multiple ways to work. North either has extreme shape or extra strength to bid 4♠ on his own. So this may either make (it does), be a good save (it would be), or push the opponents too high (it did).

[barmar]

I guess I owe an explanation of why I went one way in this thread, but in another thread I was in the "why didn't he bid slam the first time?" camp. I think the difference is that the decisions in each thread were by a different player in the partnership, with different information from their partner's previous bids. In the other thread, his partner was known to have strength, so he had a reasonable case for bidding slam before being pushed there. In this thread, as blackshoe points out, there was nothing in the earlier auction that suggested that 5♦ might be reasonably bid without being pushed there.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=st7h74d87ckt65432&w=s8hjt5dakjt53caqj&n=sakj9642hkq986dc9&e=sq53ha32dq9642c87&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1d(4%2B)2d(both%20M)3dpp4sp(slow)p5d5sdppp]399|300|

The last ruling from the event:

1♦ promised four, playing strong NT, 5cM

2♦ was Michaels, both majors, either weak or strong

East's pass was agreed to be slow.

Result: 5♠X(N)-1, lead ♦4, NS -100

North called the director to question West's 5♦ bid after the slow pass by East.

What do you think?

[/hv]

After partner's raise, some West players might have continued the ♦ pre-empt, in an attempt consult with partner. This player didn't, so he is on his own (ignoring his partner's BIT which seems to suggest going on). IMO, if a poll confirmed that pass is a logical alternative to 5♦, then the director should adjust.

[paulg]

Hard to think that East was considering a save, double seems far more likely. So even though pass is likely to be a LA, I don't think 5D was suggested by the hesitation. Result stands.

[blackshoe]

When North bids 4♠ he clearly shows the stronger Michaels variant. Now East has a problem. I'm assuming that the skip bid regulation is irrelevant here, that East's pause was undue as was agreed. So he took a little too long to think about it. So okay, UI. But what is the I? He's already shown a competitive raise (he didn't cue bid, so probably less than a full limit raise). To me, the pause suggests more than minimum values for his 3♦ bid, but still not enough for a limit raise. Now sit in West's chair. From West's viewpoint, it doesn't matter how good East's hand is. The only pertinent information from East is that he (probably) has five diamonds. So EW have an 11 card diamond fit, and West expects to go down no more than two in 5♦, while NS might well make 4♠. I don't think there's any LA to 5♦. Not at matchpoints. So my table ruling is that there is no LA to bidding 5♦, so there has been no infraction of Law 16B3, and the table result stands.

[VixTD]

A poll of players revealed no logical alternative to 5♦ so the score was left unchanged.