ruckus

[wank]

[hv=pc=n&n=sq632h32djt7cq832&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2cp2dd3np]133|200[/hv]

 

3NT was described as "25-27, but he once had 28".

 

double of 2D was natural.

 

south thought for quite a while before 3NT (screens but agreed). at the table north bid 4NT and they made slam. i think we can all agree that pass is a logical alternative, but what does the hesitation suggest?

 

the director ruled result stands and the committee upheld it. quite a ruckus has ensued. opinions?

[weejonnie]

The hesitation suggests South did not have an obvious 3NT call on the auction. For example: -

 

He could have been wondering whether to just rebid 2NT on a lousy 25 points. (If such a call was available)

He could have been wondering whether to bid 4NT on 28 points (If such a call was available)

He could have been wondering whether to XX and hope North could make 2♦ XX + n

He could have a good suit and a diamond stop and wondering whether to bid his good suit

 

So I would say that there is nothing demonstrably suggested by the call - so no adjustment.

[helene_t]

I think it is problematic. South might have been thinking about bidding 2 or 3 but in that case 4NT is safe. 4NT caters to both a weak boarderline 3NT and a strong borderline 3NT. It doesn't cater so well to a run-of-the-mill 3NT but that is what the BIT suggests that South did not have.

 

OTOH, the BIT could also be based on several other things, like bidding a 5-card suit, passing or XX. And with the diamond suit now giving at least two tricks (JTx has improved) I am not even sure if pass is an LA although it probably is.

[blackshoe]

I think your logic is flawed. I would start with "what, from the legal auction and North's hand, are North's logical alternative calls?" Pass certainly qualifies. They figure to have at most 32 total points so I don't really see another. And yet North chose to bid 4NT. In practice, this is deemed to make 4NT a logical alternative for this North. Can it be demonstrated that 4NT might have been suggested over pass? I suppose that depends on what 4NT would mean in their system, but let's say the answer is yes. In that case, the criteria of Law 16 are met. It doesn't matter how many other calls might have been suggested, or what those other calls might have been suggested over, unless it can be demonstrated that pass might be suggested over some other LA. If the only LAs are pass and 4NT, and we can demonstrate that 4NT might have been suggested over pass (because South might have a little more than 27) and that pass might have been suggested over 4NT (because South might have been wondering whether to bid only 2NT) then if we cannot demonstrate that one choice or the other is significantly more likely than the other to result in a good score, then it doesn't matter which alternative is chosen. So we arrive at the same conclusion, but by a slightly different route. Or maybe the same route, and you just skipped a step or two. B-)

[eagles123]

I think it is problematic. South might have been thinking about bidding 2 or 3 but in that case 4NT is safe. 4NT caters to both a weak boarderline 3NT and a strong borderline 3NT. It doesn't cater so well to a run-of-the-mill 3NT but that is what the BIT suggests that South did not have.

 

OTOH, the BIT could also be based on several other things, like bidding a 5-card suit, passing or XX. And with the diamond suit now giving at least two tricks (JTx has improved) I am not even sure if pass is an LA although it probably is.

 

Completely agree with the first paragraph. an in tempo 3n you would surely pass in a flash with this hand opposite 25-27. Whatever the hesistation suggests (min/max/unbalanced) they all point to an essentially risk free 4n. The ruling that result stands seems crazy.

[blackshoe]

Did they actually bid the slam? If they played it in 4NT, the table result would be the same as if they had played it in 4NT, so "result stands" would be reasonable in that case.

[wank]

Did they actually bid the slam? If they played it in 4NT, the table result would be the same as if they had played it in 4NT, so "result stands" would be reasonable in that case.

 

yes south bid 6 and it made.

[wank]

Completely agree with the first paragraph. an in tempo 3n you would surely pass in a flash with this hand opposite 25-27. Whatever the hesistation suggests (min/max/unbalanced) they all point to an essentially risk free 4n. The ruling that result stands seems crazy.

 

i think 4nt is far from risk free.

a slow 3nt could well be a run of the mill 3NT bid with a dodgy diamond suit. [hv=pc=n&s=skj3hakqda2cakj32]133|100[/hv]

 

here 3NT is cold but 4NT is in jeopardy.

 

or perhaps partner was considering XX or pass to allow the possibility of 2DXX. in that case if you bid 4NT you run the risk of partner accepting the invitation and your dummy will be a disappointment.

 

i wasn't on either team and the result makes no difference to me in the rankings, but i think the common 'slow bids are normally extras' approach isn't appropriate after the double. now there are so many other things partner could have been thinking about that the odds that it's based on extras have dived.

[lamford]

Given that partner could, presumably, do something else without a solid diamond stop, your hand has gone up enormously, and, assuming partner can do plenty of other things other than 3NT, I would expect him to have as a minimum something like AKx AKx K98x AKx. That hand would bid 3NT quickly, of course, but that is what you are supposed to pretend did occur. I am not sure if this is a claim on the double squeeze, assuming that the doubler has the AQ of diamonds and they lead one, but it is pretty close. Give him a random "blackjack" and you don't even need the squeeze. I don't agree that Pass on the authorised auction is an LA, except for a complete novice. And it is not even clear that partner will bid 6NT on the hand I gave him. I would retain the deposit on this one.

[barmar]

Looks like there's now a BW thread discussing this same hand.

 

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/how-would-you-rule-2-7ckut8691n/

[Poky]

Neither a slow 3NT suggests 28 HCP, nor bidding is "suggested" when you know your partner's got 28 HCP. They just got lucky.

[lamford]

Neither a slow 3NT suggests 28 HCP, nor bidding is "suggested" when you know your partner's got 28 HCP. They just got lucky.

As Gary Player said, or was it the late Arnold Palmer, "the more I practise the luckier I get." I actually think 4NT is correct and normal. I did the following simulation. Partner 26-27 (when he may well accept), doubler with 4-6 points in diamonds, opener with 3-4 points in diamonds. The distribution of tricks in NT was:

10 11 12 13

8 28 63 1

To explain, 4NT made 100% of the time. Grand made once. 6NT made a whopping 63% of the time.

[weejonnie]

As Gary Player said, or was it the late Arnold Palmer, "the more I practise the luckier I get." I actually think 4NT is correct and normal. I did the following simulation. Partner 26-27 (when he may well accept), doubler with 4-6 points in diamonds, opener with 3-4 points in diamonds. The distribution of tricks in NT was:

10 11 12 13

8 28 63 1

To explain, 4NT made 100% of the time. Grand made once. 6NT made a whopping 63% of the time.

Well of COURSE I know what to do when partner bids with 25-27 point hands - they come up every week at the club. However the problem with UI is not whether the call you make is 'correct' it is whether the BIT makes it demonstrably suggested over another LA. The fact that other players will consider a pass a LA even though it turns out to be (non-intuitively) the anti-percentage line, makes the raise to 4NT contra-indicated.

[lamford]

Well of COURSE I know what to do when partner bids with 25-27 point hands - they come up every week at the club. However the problem with UI is not whether the call you make is 'correct' it is whether the BIT makes it demonstrably suggested over another LA. The fact that other players will consider a pass a LA even though it turns out to be (non-intuitively) the anti-percentage line, makes the raise to 4NT contra-indicated.

I do not think the BIT demonstrably suggests extras (although the majority think it does). I think that it suggests a stretch to 3NT, worried that 2NT will get the dummy, or wondering what redouble followed by 3NT would be, or unsure what 3D would mean, or worry that partner can have a 5-card major and 3NT will shut him out. All sorts of reasons. The player actually had a 28-count. If the two players had an agreement that a slow 3NT showed a 28-count then they merit being hung, drawn and quartered. One needs more evidence, however, than a "correct" raise of 3NT to 4NT on this hand.

[blackshoe]

Hanged. They're players, not pictures.

[nige1]

IMO a tank almost always shows doubt and is quite likely to show extras.

 

With a balanced 25-27 HCP and ♦AQ (say) South would bid 3N quickly and then slam would be risky. Hence, IMO, with no South hitch, most Norths would pass South's 3N.

 

The tank polarises the likely meanings of South's 3N. It implies that either

• South is stretching with a sub-minimum -- for instance, a good 24 HCP or
• South is underbidding with a super-maximum -- for example, he might have 27 HCP and a non-systemic long-suit trick-source or even 28 HCP.

In either case, North's quantitative 4N makes sense:

• If South is stretching with a sub-minimum, then he'll pass 4N. N.B. 4N is relatively safe. Lamford demonstrates that it's overwhelmingly likely to make.
• If South is super-maximum, then he'll bid 6N -- likely to be an excellent contract.
• N.B. South's hesitation makes it unlikely that he holds a mid-range maximum (26 HCP) for his 3N bid -- when slam might have been more risky.

Hence, IMO: Pass and 4N are LAs for North. South's tank makes 4N safer. The UI suggests 4N over pass. East-West were damaged when 6N made. The TD should adjust to 3N+3 and consider a PP.

[lamford]

IMO a tank almost always shows doubt and is quite likely to show extras.

 

With a balanced 25-27 HCP and ♦AQ (say) South would bid 3N quickly and then slam would be risky. Hence, IMO, with no South hitch, most Norths would pass South's 3N.

 

The tank polarises the likely meanings of South's 3N. It implies that either

• South is stretching with a sub-minimum -- for instance, a good 24 HCP or
• South is underbidding with a super-maximum -- for example, he might have 27 HCP and a non-systemic long-suit trick-source or even 28 HCP.

In either case, North's quantitative 4N makes sense:

• If South is stretching with a sub-minimum, then he'll pass 4N. N.B. 4N is relatively safe. Lambert demonstrates that it's overwhelmingly likely to make.
• If South is super-maximum, then he'll bid 6N -- likely to be an excellent contract.
• N.B. South's hesitation makes it unlikely that he holds a mid-range maximum (26 HCP) for his 3N bid -- when slam might have been more risky.

Hence, IMO: Pass and 4N are LAs for North. South's tank makes 4N safer. The UI suggests 4N over pass. East-West were damaged when 6N made. The TD should adjust to 3N+3 and consider a PP.

The SIM showed that 4NT was overwhelmingly likely to make opposite 26-27, not opposite 24. So your conclusions are erroneous. I did not do a SIM opposite 24, but opposite 25, 4NT went off 7% of the time. How can someone get a PP for what appears to be the correct bid opposite 25-27 balanced, which partner is assumed to have for an in-tempo 3NT?

[blackshoe]

How can someone get a PP for what appears to be the correct bid opposite 25-27 balanced, which partner is assumed to have for an in-tempo 3NT?

I'm not sure that whether it's the correct bid is relevant to the question of a PP. It may be relevant to the question whether it's an infraction to bid it. If it is an infraction to bid it, then a PP may be, probably is, warranted. If it's not an infraction to bid it, then of course there's no basis for a PP.

[jallerton]

Given that partner could, presumably, do something else without a solid diamond stop, your hand has gone up enormously, and, assuming partner can do plenty of other things other than 3NT, I would expect him to have as a minimum something like AKx AKx K98x AKx. That hand would bid 3NT quickly, of course, but that is what you are supposed to pretend did occur. I am not sure if this is a claim on the double squeeze, assuming that the doubler has the AQ of diamonds and they lead one, but it is pretty close. Give him a random "blackjack" and you don't even need the squeeze. I don't agree that Pass on the authorised auction is an LA, except for a complete novice. And it is not even clear that partner will bid 6NT on the hand I gave him. I would retain the deposit on this one.

 

If you'll excuse a question from a complete novice, why would AKx AKx K98x AKx bid 3NT quickly "of course"? Pass, redouble and 2NT would all merit consideration. Come to think of it, I prefer all of these three calls to 3NT on this particular hand.

[lamford]

If you'll excuse a question from a complete novice, why would AKx AKx K98x AKx bid 3NT quickly "of course"? Pass, redouble and 2NT would all merit consideration. Come to think of it, I prefer all of these threen calls to 3NT on this particular hand.

I presume 2NT was non-forcing in this partnership, or that would be preferred. Presumably pass denied a stop and we do not know what redouble was. We are told that 3NT was 25-27 balanced. My main point is that hands that are a complete minimum and technically outside the range make slam reasonable. There is a more detailed simulation on Bridgewinners.

[nige1]

The SIM showed that 4NT was overwhelmingly likely to make opposite 26-27, not opposite 24. So your conclusions are erroneous. I did not do a SIM opposite 24, but opposite 25, 4NT went off 7% of the time. How can someone get a PP for what appears to be the correct bid opposite 25-27 balanced, which partner is assumed to have for an in-tempo 3NT?

IMO, the results of a simulation should be backed up with the dealer-script code. For bridge-law purposes, a peer-poll would be more relevant than a simulation.

 

South's hesitation implies doubt.

 

He is less likely to hold 25-27 balanced.

 

He is likely to be stretching with a sub-minimum or underbidding with a super-maximum (e.g. 28 HCP). He'll pass 4N with 24 HCP, bid 6N with 28 HCP.

 

• If South holds 26 or a good 25 HCP, then many would prefer to stay out of 6N with a combined 30-31 HCP. The hesitation makes these holdings less likely.
• If South holds 24 HCP. then 4N should be OK with a combined 29 HCP. Of course, if South goes one down, then you'll regret that decision.
• If South holds a good 27 or 28 HCP, then 6N on a combined 32-33 HCP is likely to be an acceptable contract,

Hence, the UI makes a quantitative 4N safer.

.

[sfi]

[hv=pc=n&n=sq632h32djt7cq832&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2cp2dd3np]133|200[/hv]

 

3NT was described as "25-27, but he once had 28".

 

double of 2D was natural.

 

south thought for quite a while before 3NT (screens but agreed). at the table north bid 4NT and they made slam. i think we can all agree that pass is a logical alternative, but what does the hesitation suggest?

 

the director ruled result stands and the committee upheld it. quite a ruckus has ensued. opinions?

 

It sounds like their effective agreement really is 25-28, and the explanation supports this. I would find this range unmanageable, but it seems like 4NT is reasonable under these circumstances.

 

How many 28 counts has South held in this partnership when they chose a different action?

[barmar]

It sounds like their effective agreement really is 25-28, and the explanation supports this. I would find this range unmanageable, but it seems like 4NT is reasonable under these circumstances.

 

How many 28 counts has South held in this partnership when they chose a different action?

Another way to look at it is that they don't have an agreement about what to do with 28. The one time it came up, he had to improvise, and he chose 3NT. Does that really make it an agreement from then on? What if the other partner would choose a different action?

 

Or maybe his action that one time was influenced by other factors (perhaps it was a flat 28, so he downgraded it). Is this any different from people who play 15-17 1NT, but choose to open Q32 QJ2 AQ32 AQJ with 1NT? There's a good chance they have more partnership experience with the latter type, too.

 

I don't think you can really conclude anything about their agreements from something that happened just once. About the only thing that supports your idea is that it seems like his action this time catered to a repeat of it.

[lamford]

It sounds like their effective agreement really is 25-28, and the explanation supports this. I would find this range unmanageable, but it seems like 4NT is reasonable under these circumstances.

 

How many 28 counts has South held in this partnership when they chose a different action?

Given that the distribution of hands with 25 to 28 is as follows:

28 0.00

27 0.00

26 0.02

25 0.05

With the figures being to two decimal places, I expect the answer to your question is a round number. I would also think that the 28 count recalled was the only time this partnership had a 28-count. And I don't think it is unmanageable at all, 4C could be fit-finding with partner bidding 4NT with 27-28 and otherwise he bids a 4-card suit.

[lamford]

IMO, the results of a simulation should be backed up with the dealer-script code. For bridge-law purposes, a peer-poll would be more relevant than a simulation.

I did not write the code myself, but used bespoke software, and I am nowhere near competent enough to generate the code! A peer poll is useful, but I, for now, often change my mind when "Computer says no", as David Walliams would say.