Could 6NT demonstrably have been suggested

[pescetom]

This one came up during a MP tournament yesterday.

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sak5hakdkjt5cakq6&e=sh965432dq8cjt954&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=ppp2c(%22Strong%2C%204%20or%20less%20losers%22)p2d(%22%3C8%20HCP%2C%20no%20A%20or%202%20K%22)p3np4h(%5Bslow%20bid%5D.%20%22Natural%22)p6nppp]300|240[/hv]

 

EW are both very experienced players although not regular partners, see above for explanations provided.

North reserved his rights at the end of the auction. East conceded that she had taken some time.

West made 6NT and the Director who had observed play confirmed the result.

 

Do you agree with the decision?

At other tables 37 made 3NT+3 and 27 made 6NT which was the PAR, 42 made 4♥+2 and 24 made 6♥.

[Cyberyeti]

There are several things E might have been thinking about, P/4♥ 4♥/something more and what do I do with 5♥/6m being 3 of them.

 

It's probably marginally suggested over 6♥ which would be right opposite say xxxx, QJxxxx, Q, xx.

[pescetom]

There are several things E might have been thinking about, P/4♥ 4♥/something more and what do I do with 5♥/6m being 3 of them.

 

6♥/5m you mean. I wondered also if E might have been thinking about whether transfers were on here or not, although W is of the same generation and had no such doubt so probably that is out of the question (even though they would have played transfers over 2NT).

[Tramticket]

Was there a poll?

 

I don't think the hesitation suggests anything specific to me.

[weejonnie]

Was there a poll?

 

I don't think the hesitation suggests anything specific to me.

All it suggests is that East didn't think he had an obvious 4H bid. I can's see how it demonstrably suggests a 6NT response.

[Cyberyeti]

6♥/5m you mean. I wondered also if E might have been thinking about whether transfers were on here or not, although W is of the same generation and had no such doubt so probably that is out of the question (even though they would have played transfers over 2NT).

 

No I didn't mean 6♥/5m what do you do with 13 small cards, 11 of them being 5♥/6m ? Particularly at MP

[nige1]

Was there a poll?I don't think the hesitation suggests anything specific to me.

Only the hesitator can be sure of the reason for the hesitation. Here he might have been trying to remember whether transfers applied . Or he may have been wondering where he parked his car. But it doesn't much matter what the hesitator actually holds. . What matters more is what the hesitation suggests. In general,

• Regular partners are better at reading their hesitations than directors or opponents.
• Hesitations tend to suggest values.

Hence, it's a matter of judgment, and a poll would be a good idea, but IMO, the director would be justified in rolling the contract back to 4♥.

[Cyberyeti]

Only the hesitator can be sure of the reason for the hesitation. Here he might have been trying to remember whether transfers applied . Or he may have been wondering where he parked his car. But it doesn't much matter what the hesitator actually holds. . What matters more is what the hesitation suggests. In general,

• A regular partnership are better at reading their hesitations than directors or opponents.
• Hesitations tend to suggest values.

Hence, it's a matter of judgment, and a poll would be a good idea, but IMO, the director would be justified in rolling the contract back to 4♥.

 

There is no way in this world I'm passing 4♥, I don't even consider it, but it is possible to stop short of a slam. What did 3N show ? was kokish being played etc ?

 

I would think more likely is to adjust to a lower scoring slam making.

[blackshoe]

I would let the score stand.

[helene_t]

I hate the expression "could have demonstrably been suggested". Maybe it's just because I'm not a native speaker but I really have no clue what it is supposed to mean.

 

Anyway, given that E is a passed hand, a fast 4♥ could presumably only mean a 6-card hearts and too weak for a 2♥ opening.

 

The slow 4♥ could mean lots of things. Very weak with five hearts, mild slam interest with five hearts, another biddable suit, or uncertainty about whether 4♥ would be natural here.

 

W would certainly have passed after a slow 4♥ if he took it as to play, but then again, 6NT is such a bizarre bid that it can only mean that he didn't think 4♥ was to play.

 

So I dunno. It might be helpful to know why W bid 6NT. Based on the information that they are both very experienced but not a regular partnership, the most likely explanation is that W had no clue what 4♥ meant and was sure that if he didn't pass it, further confusion and UI would arise so he might as well end the auction. If that is the case, of course, the score stands.

[blackshoe]

Confusion over the meaning of that expression may be why it’s no longer in the law. The current wording: “is demonstrably suggested”.

[sanst]

I also think that it was a lucky shot, but, on the other hand, it’s the question whether W would have made this call if E had put 4♥ on the table without hesitation. Which makes a poll desirable. If that’s impossible I would probably decide for an AS based on 4♥. W has shown his nine trick hand and E didn’t tell anything than that he has a very weak hand (no weak opening call), so ‘pass’ is a logical alternative. From W’s point of view E can have the same hearts and no honours at all.

It has nothing to do with directing, but I’m quite surprised by the auction. Why didn’t W call 2NT, which would have given E the opportunity to show his hearts?

[weejonnie]

I hate the expression "could have demonstrably been suggested". Maybe it's just because I'm not a native speaker but I really have no clue what it is supposed to mean.

 

Anyway, given that E is a passed hand, a fast 4♥ could presumably only mean a 6-card hearts and too weak for a 2♥ opening.

 

The slow 4♥ could mean lots of things. Very weak with five hearts, mild slam interest with five hearts, another biddable suit, or uncertainty about whether 4♥ would be natural here.

 

W would certainly have passed after a slow 4♥ if he took it as to play, but then again, 6NT is such a bizarre bid that it can only mean that he didn't think 4♥ was to play.

 

So I dunno. It might be helpful to know why W bid 6NT. Based on the information that they are both very experienced but not a regular partnership, the most likely explanation is that W had no clue what 4♥ meant and was sure that if he didn't pass it, further confusion and UI would arise so he might as well end the auction. If that is the case, of course, the score stands.

If West had no clue what the call meant due to the BIT then taking such an action as jumping to 6NT is not 'carefully avoiding' making use of the UI - and hence should be proscribed (despite my comment above). I am sure there is a case somewhere in the EBU appeals casebooks where something similar happened (a jump to a slam to avoid any possibility of partner not understanding a subsequent call) - and was so interesting that it has been used on an EBU TD course.

[weejonnie]

I hate the expression "could have demonstrably been suggested". Maybe it's just because I'm not a native speaker but I really have no clue what it is supposed to mean.

 

Anyway, given that E is a passed hand, a fast 4♥ could presumably only mean a 6-card hearts and too weak for a 2♥ opening.

 

The slow 4♥ could mean lots of things. Very weak with five hearts, mild slam interest with five hearts, another biddable suit, or uncertainty about whether 4♥ would be natural here.

 

W would certainly have passed after a slow 4♥ if he took it as to play, but then again, 6NT is such a bizarre bid that it can only mean that he didn't think 4♥ was to play.

 

So I dunno. It might be helpful to know why W bid 6NT. Based on the information that they are both very experienced but not a regular partnership, the most likely explanation is that W had no clue what 4♥ meant and was sure that if he didn't pass it, further confusion and UI would arise so he might as well end the auction. If that is the case, of course, the score stands.

If West had no clue what the call meant due to the BIT then taking such an action as jumping to 6NT is not 'carefully avoiding' making use of the UI - and hence should be proscribed (despite my comment above). I am sure there is a case somewhere in the EBU appeals casebooks where something similar happened (a jump to a slam to avoid any possibility of partner not understanding a subsequent call) - and was so interesting that it has been used on an EBU TD course. (County course 2015 apologies if regarded as a breach of copyright)

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s753hak63dj6ca986&n=sakjt2hjdatcqt542&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1sp2cp3h(Not%20alerted)p4n(RKCB)p6cppp]266|200[/hv]

 

(I think the decision was to amend the score to 6♠ -1 and throw the book at North, since it was felt that passing 6♥ was not a LA if South bid it, and South might have just forgotton to alert)

[sanst]

BTW, I don’t think the diagram is correct. Together N and S have five hearts including Q, J and ten, therefore there is a loser in hearts, plus the diamond ace, which makes it impossible that there are twelve tricks in 6♥, but there are in 6NT.

[Cyberyeti]

BTW, I don’t think the diagram is correct. Together N and S have five hearts including Q, J and ten, therefore there is a loser in hearts, plus the diamond ace, which makes it impossible that there are twelve tricks in 6♥, but there are in 6NT.

 

Only if you lead a diamond, anything else and the ♠AK get rid of them, it appears nobody led one (prob leader had something obv like ♠ QJ10 and one or two more)

[pescetom]

BTW, I don’t think the diagram is correct. Together N and S have five hearts including Q, J and ten, therefore there is a loser in hearts, plus the diamond ace, which makes it impossible that there are twelve tricks in 6♥, but there are in 6NT.

 

 

Only if you lead a diamond, anything else and the ♠AK get rid of them, it appears nobody led one (prob leader had something obv like ♠ QJ10 and one or two more)

Exactly. The diagram is correct, and 6♥ can go down unlike 6NT (or 6♣).

But if the ♥ are not transferred then South is on lead and will not pick a diamond from ♠JT9876 ♥QT ♦6432 ♣7 unless North taps his ring.

[pescetom]

Some more detail about the agreements of EW that may help put things in focus.

 

They don't have a CC, but agreed to play a well known 4-card major system which is habitual for W and occasional for E (who usually plays a strong club system but has much the same agreements once past game level). Few and antiquated conventions.

 

 

It has nothing to do with directing, but I’m quite surprised by the auction. Why didn’t W call 2NT, which would have given E the opportunity to show his hearts?

 

What did 3N show ? was kokish being played etc ?

The 2♣ opening here is the Crodo convention, not mentioned by name but correctly described in the explanations. The 2♦ reply is a weak negative (denies any of 7/8 HCP, an Ace, 2 Kings), 2NT is a stronger negative (one or more of previous) and suit shows an Ace. After a negative reply, the asker is expected to either signoff in game/slam, or ask kings (no use here) or show a suit (not necessarily the longest) in which she requests help in honours. So her options were 3NT to play or 3♦ looking for the Q (but maybe she forgot that detail of the convention or thought her partner would have done).

The convention ends when she places game or slam, so partner's 4♥ is a natural free bid and somewhat unexpected.

 

There is no way in this world I'm passing 4♥, I don't even consider it, but it is possible to stop short of a slam.

With their agreements it's not easy to see any middle ground between pass and slam. 4NT would be plain Blackwood, 5♥ would invite to bid slam with 2 top honours, 5NT probably a grand slam try - all inapplicable here, at least if taken literally.

 

So I suspect that if a poll had been held among peers (without mentioning the BIT) the bids that emerge as logical would be just Pass, 6♥ and 6NT. Although I too would never pass 4♥ and nor do I think West would.

[pescetom]

I also think that it was a lucky shot, but, on the other hand, it’s the question whether W would have made this call if E had put 4♥ on the table without hesitation. Which makes a poll desirable. If that’s impossible I would probably decide for an AS based on 4♥. W has shown his nine trick hand and E didn’t tell anything than that he has a very weak hand (no weak opening call), so ‘pass’ is a logical alternative. From W’s point of view E can have the same hearts and no honours at all.

 

No poll was made about either the logical alternatives or any possible information from the pause.

 

I have some doubt that "from W’s point of view E can have the same hearts and no honours at all". I think that W would always expect some values other than just six spot cards in a suit. But even if the pause was ininfluential in this sense perhaps it might draw attention to the possibility that those values are located outside of the suit bid.

[sanst]

No poll was made about either the logical alternatives or any possible information from the pause.

 

I have some doubt that "from W’s point of view E can have the same hearts and no honours at all". I think that W would always expect some values other than just six spot cards in a suit. But even if the pause was ininfluential in this sense perhaps it might draw attention to the possibility that those values are located outside of the suit bid.

Why would W expect any values at all? Passing in NT with a long suit and no values means that there are no tricks to be made, whereas there are in a suit contract.

[Cyberyeti]

OK, their convoluted agreements make this more awkward. I have no experience with this sort of system.

 

4N cannot be straight blackwood sensibly when an ace has been denied. I'd be inclined to bid that, and partner should bid 6♣ where we would rest for a touch above average, and would be the right spot from W's POV if E was lacking Q♦.

[sanst]

There is no way in this world I'm passing 4♥, I don't even consider it, but it is possible to stop short of a slam.

Why? What makes you think that your hand is worth more than you’ve already shown? Partner can be without values and only have a long hearts suit. Or are you a descendant of king Charles II, who, according to Jenny Uglow in her book on the Restoration, was ‘A Gambling Man’. :)

[lamford]

I don't think anything is suggested, nor, more relevantly, demonstrably suggested. All the slow 4H bid tells West is that East was thinking of bidding something else.

[pescetom]

Why would W expect any values at all? Passing in NT with a long suit and no values means that there are no tricks to be made, whereas there are in a suit contract.

 

That is certainly sound reasoning in general, but maybe more borderline here where W is promising (and has) enough strength to make 3NT on her own. The opponents might have 5 trumps and some potential to ruff too.

[pescetom]

I don't think anything is suggested, nor, more relevantly, demonstrably suggested. All the slow 4H bid tells West is that East was thinking of bidding something else.

 

Ok but here we are at the crux of the matter.

How should or can the hypothesis of suggestion be demonstrated?

Does demonstration require a poll of peers who affirm it, at least if this is practical to organise?

Should the Director poll first to establish the LAs and only then to establish any suggestion?