Could 6NT demonstrably have been suggested

[Cyberyeti]

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’. :)

 

I have a potentially cold slam opposite a yarborough and partner can have a lot more than that

[sanst]

I have a potentially cold slam opposite a yarborough and partner can have a lot more than that

So you’re final call will be 10NT. I don’t know what you considered a ‘cold slam’, but nine tricks don’t count as one in my book. Or means cold -800?

[BudH]

Bidding 6NT after an in tempo 4H, likely because of not being certain if 4H is natural, is "authorized panic" and is legal.

 

However, after a long hesitation before the 4H bid, opener is going to find it difficult to justify the 6NT bid as not being "unauthorized panic".

[Cyberyeti]

So you’re final call will be 10NT. I don’t know what you considered a ‘cold slam’, but nine tricks don’t count as one in my book. Or means cold -800?

 

xx, xxxxxx, void, xxxxx is an EXCELLENT 6♣ (and pretty good 7), partner is known to hold 6 hearts for the 4♥ bid, you can underwrite 10 tricks in hearts if they break (and he only has 6) and would be unlucky not to have 11.

 

Don't be ridiculous also, I said I wouldn't bid 6, but I would make a try and partner would bid 6.

[weejonnie]

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.

Yes - so West took steps to ensure that a slam wasn't missed, no matter what the bid meant nor of what east was thinking. that is not 'carefully avoiding' making use of the UI.

 

I don't know the system being used and it is quite possible that 4♥ meant - "I don't have a bust partner" in which case I accept that 6NT looks perfectly reasonable missing an Ace since there are plenty of smaller cards East may have that makes the contract reasonable. (and west may not be able tofind out what they are).

[pescetom]

I don't know the system being used and it is quite possible that 4♥ meant - "I don't have a bust partner" in which case I accept that 6NT looks perfectly reasonable missing an Ace since there are plenty of smaller cards East may have that makes the contract reasonable. (and west may not be able tofind out what they are).

 

I know the system quite well (it was inflicted on me for a couple of years) and I am fairly sure that 4♥ is unexpected (strong partner's bid of game/slam following the opening convention is nominally and almost always a signoff) but nevertheless legitimate and natural non-forcing. So the implication is certainly "we are not in the usual situation partner", but not necessarily "I don't have a bust partner", although some might argue that the latter is a due inference from normal bridge logic.

[weejonnie]

I know the system quite well (it was inflicted on me for a couple of years) and I am fairly sure that 4♥ is unexpected (strong partner's bid of game/slam following the opening convention is nominally and almost always a signoff) but nevertheless legitimate and natural non-forcing. So the implication is certainly "we are not in the usual situation partner", but not necessarily "I don't have a bust partner", although some might argue that the latter is a due inference from normal bridge logic.

OK - so partner says (bridge logically) "I know I am supposed to shut up but I really don't like NT, let's play hearts". I am now more predisposed to allow 6N ("When facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" JM Keynes)

[pescetom]

A doubt about the application of 12C1b - if the Director were to assign a score based upon a contract of 4♥, should he assume 12 tricks taken as the probable outcome at the table, even if this exceeds the 11 trick maximum listed on his tournament notes (calculated double-dummy)?

 

I imagine yes, but prefer to be sure.

[lamford]

A doubt about the application of 12C1b - if the Director were to assign a score based upon a contract of 4♥, should he assume 12 tricks taken as the probable outcome at the table, even if this exceeds the 11 trick maximum listed on his tournament notes (calculated double-dummy)?

 

I imagine yes, but prefer to be sure.

If the facts were different, you might well adjust to 4H, but you would poll Souths of similar ability and find out how many of them led a diamond against 4H. Just because 6H made does not mean 4H will make +2 and some weighting of +1 might well be appropriate.

[pescetom]

If the facts were different, you might well adjust to 4H, but you would poll Souths of similar ability and find out how many of them led a diamond against 4H. Just because 6H made does not mean 4H will make +2 and some weighting of +1 might well be appropriate.

Makes sense.

But I was wondering about what would happen if some unsatisfied hothead appealed to have 4H+1 because 4H+2 cannot be made against optimal defence (an unlikely diamond from the hand I posted earlier). I trust it would be thrown out.

[weejonnie]

Makes sense.

But I was wondering about what would happen if some unsatisfied hothead appealed to have 4H+1 because 4H+2 cannot be made against optimal defence (an unlikely diamond from the hand I posted earlier). I trust it would be thrown out.

I think a poll would be done and if there is evidence that some players would find the diamond lead then a weighted decision made.

[barmar]

Makes sense.

But I was wondering about what would happen if some unsatisfied hothead appealed to have 4H+1 because 4H+2 cannot be made against optimal defence (an unlikely diamond from the hand I posted earlier). I trust it would be thrown out.

When you assign an adjusted score, you're generally supposed to assume the likely result. That doesn't necessarily mean optimal defense if it would be hard to find.

 

Weighted scores can be assigned when you think multiple results are reasonably likely. E.g. if there's a 2-way finesse and you can't predict which way declarer would go, you can give each result 50% weight.

[gordontd]

I have a potentially cold slam opposite a yarborough and partner can have a lot more than that

"Opposite a yarborough" doesn't usually mean "opposite a truly remarkably-shaped yarborough"!

[Cyberyeti]

"Opposite a yarborough" doesn't usually mean "opposite a truly remarkably-shaped yarborough"!

 

OK, maybe I should have said opposite the right yarborough, and it's not that remarkable given that he's known to hold 6 or more hearts and it's only a very minor variation on the shape he actually held.

 

More seriously, QJxxxx and out is at least a 50% 6♥ and could be a lot better than that (Q 7th and out, you have to find the diamond lead to make it 50% IF the heart hand has as many as 2). My contention is that the hesitation suggests 6N over 6♥ as 6♥ is better on many hands that have an auto 4♥ bid rather than one with a hesitation.

[Trinidad]

I have a potentially cold slam opposite a yarborough and partner can have a lot more than that

That potentially cold slam you also had the round before... yet you chose to bid a non-forcing 3NT.

 

The problem is to demonstrate that the hesitation suggested to bid 6NT.

 

The problem is not to demonstrate that pass is an LA to someone who was willing to play 3NT the round before.

 

I can see only one reason for bidding 6NT: If West doesn't know the meaning of 4♥ (natural/transfer ?!?), then 6NT is a reasonable shot to run from a disaster to something that just might work out well. But then I would expect West to tell that immediately to the TD.

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

That potentially cold slam you also had the round before... yet you chose to bid a non-forcing 3NT.

 

The problem is to demonstrate that the hesitation suggested to bid 6NT.

 

The problem is not to demonstrate that pass is an LA to someone who was willing to play 3NT the round before.

 

I can see only one reason for bidding 6NT: If West doesn't know the meaning of 4♥ (natural/transfer ?!?), then 6NT is a reasonable shot to run from a disaster to something that just might work out well. But then I would expect West to tell that immediately to the TD.

 

Rik

 

The facts change with the 4♥ bid, the chance of a slam MASSIVELY improves in the knowledge that partner has a 6 card heart suit.

 

I outlined the other reason that suggested 6N over 6♥, many of the hands where 6♥ is the right slam would stem from an in tempo 4♥.

[pescetom]

I can see only one reason for bidding 6NT: If West doesn't know the meaning of 4♥ (natural/transfer ?!?), then 6NT is a reasonable shot to run from a disaster to something that just might work out well. But then I would expect West to tell that immediately to the TD.

I imagine that if West had jumped to 6NT on such a basis the TD would take a dim view, whether or not West volunteered the information immediately.

But here West denied that there was any doubt that the bid might not be natural.

[Trinidad]

That potentially cold slam you also had the round before... yet you chose to bid a non-forcing 3NT.

 

The problem is to demonstrate that the hesitation suggested to bid 6NT.

 

The problem is not to demonstrate that pass is an LA to someone who was willing to play 3NT the round before.

 

I can see only one reason for bidding 6NT: If West doesn't know the meaning of 4♥ (natural/transfer ?!?), then 6NT is a reasonable shot to run from a disaster to something that just might work out well. But then I would expect West to tell that immediately to the TD.

 

Rik

 

 

 

The facts change with the 4♥ bid, the chance of a slam MASSIVELY improves in the knowledge that partner has a 6 card heart suit.

 

I outlined the other reason that suggested 6N over 6♥, many of the hands where 6♥ is the right slam would stem from an in tempo 4♥.

The facts did change by the 4♥ bid... But not in favor of bidding 6NT.

 

That is easy to see since the actual dummy provided 0 (zero) tricks in hearts. The fact that 6NT made was due to dummy's values in diamonds and dummy's length and values in clubs. I do not believe that 4♥ showed those.

 

If dummy would have shown up with ♥QJxxxx and out (3 more HCPs than he promised) declarer would have gotton what he deserved: An absolutely silly and unmakeable slam. In that case, 6♥, would make on a winning diamond finesse and a bit of luck in the breaking of the other suits.

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

The facts did change by the 4♥ bid... But not in favor of bidding 6NT.

 

That is easy to see since the actual dummy provided 0 (zero) tricks in hearts. The fact that 6NT made was due to dummy's values in diamonds and dummy's length and values in clubs. I do not believe that 4♥ showed those.

 

If dummy would have shown up with ♥QJxxxx and out (3 more HCPs than he promised) declarer would have gotton what he deserved: An absolutely silly and unmakeable slam. In that case, 6♥, would make on a winning diamond finesse and a bit of luck in the breaking of the other suits.

 

Rik

 

You massively miss the point. If dummy turned up with QJxxxx and out, he would not have been thinking before bidding 4♥, so he doesn't have that.

[Trinidad]

You massively miss the point. If dummy turned up with QJxxxx and out, he would not have been thinking before bidding 4♥, so he doesn't have that.

Probably I misunderstood. So, we agree that pass is an LA (and perhaps the only "A")?

 

So, your reasoning is that since dummy cannot have QJxxxx and out (due to the BIT), the odds for slam increase and you have demonstrated that the 6NT bid could be inspired by the BIT. Do I understand that right?

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

Probably I misunderstood. So, we agree that pass is an LA (and perhaps the only "A")?

 

So, your reasoning is that since dummy cannot have QJxxxx and out (due to the BIT), the odds for slam increase and you have demonstrated that the 6NT bid could be inspired by the BIT. Do I understand that right?

 

Rik

 

Odds of a slam increase massively by the 4♥ bid with or without BIT, sufficiently for me that I DON'T consider pass a LA, I would always make some sort of try.

 

Odds of 6N being better than 6♥ increase by the BIT.

[pescetom]

Odds of a slam increase massively by the 4♥ bid with or without BIT, sufficiently for me that I DON'T consider pass a LA, I would always make some sort of try.

 

Odds of 6N being better than 6♥ increase by the BIT.

 

That's the way I would figure too, if I was in West and just looking for the best contract.

[sanst]

What anyone here might or might not do, is totally irrelevant. The real question is whether there is a logical alternative as defined in Law 16B1(b): “A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select.” To me it seems that that’s the case, since 42 out of 130 pairs ended in 4♥. But here a poll would have been necessary and I’m surprised that this wasn’t done in a tournament of this size.

[Cyberyeti]

What anyone here might or might not do, is totally irrelevant. The real question is whether there is a logical alternative as defined in Law 16B1(b): “A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select.” To me it seems that that’s the case, since 42 out of 130 pairs ended in 4♥. But here a poll would have been necessary and I’m surprised that this wasn’t done in a tournament of this size.

 

You can't tell purely from the final contract, could be a variety of different auctions/point ranges shown. I agree you should poll.

[Trinidad]

Odds of a slam increase massively by the 4♥ bid with or without BIT, sufficiently for me that I DON'T consider pass a LA, I would always make some sort of try.

 

Odds of 6N being better than 6♥ increase by the BIT.

 

The only reason why odds for slam increase by the 4♥ bid is that there seems to be a fit. (Or an other way of looking at it: The difference between contracting for 12 tricks and 9 = 3. The difference between contracting for 12 tricks and 10 = 2. 2 < 3. So if we can play 4♥ we are closer to slam than if we can play 3NT.)

 

Nevertheless, the odds for slam (without a BIT) should be poor. Partner has seen your bids, you have described your hand (Balanced, 25-27) and partner signs off in 4♥. Partner knows that she needs very little to try for slam. She doesn't try for slam, therefore she shouldn't have that very little.

 

When I bid 6♥ with that West hand, my partner will turn out to have the hand that the 4♥ bid actually shows:

♠Jxx

♥xxxxxx

♦xx

♣xx

 

Then I have turned a good (but not cold) 4♥ contract into a no play 6♥ contract.

 

So, East is the one who should suggest slam. Her bid didn't, but her BIT did.

 

Rik