A Choice of Kings

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjtha7632dkt92ckt&w=skq9754ht5dj6cj42&n=sa86hkj4d743caq83&e=s32hq98daq85c9765&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p2sp(long%20hesitation)pdp3nppp]399|300[/hv]

Matchpoints; lead ♠3; table result 3NT=

 

I was directing on this hand, a few months ago at a North London Club, and was surprised that my ruling was severely questioned by E-W, who were experienced players. North's pass over 2S was slow, and he selected 3NT on the second round, which made in some comfort. The BIT was agreed. I consulted three "kings", of a similar standard to the Souths in question, and all would have bid, two doubling and one bidding three hearts. They did not seriously consider pass. When I then told them of the BIT and asked them what they thought partner's hesitation suggested, two of them said, "Well you can't bid now, can you?", or words to that effect, not really understanding Law 16B.

 

My partner opened the South hand, as would I have done. If I had passed I would not have dreamt of passing it out in 2S and I ruled no adjustment. What do readers think? The field were generally in 4H, all going off, as my partner did, although it should be made with correct play. 3NT= was therefore a top, no doubt a contributory factor to the TD call.

[weejonnie]

I can understand the Souths' attitude given the UI.

 

Balancing is a percentage issue: you assume that the points are evenly spread and you take the risk that East could have quite a strong hand. (he could have up to 16 points - or more with a spade shortage, and there is no evidence that EW have a fit).

 

North's extended BIT indicates that he is the one with extra values and thus reduces the chance that East is at the stronger end of the point count. This significantly makes balancing more attractive and since you must carefully avoid making use of the extra information then you pass.

 

So I am not ruling under 16B I am ruling under 73C, which is more general in nature.

 

Note that I would rule the other way if North had passed very quickly. i.e. I would make South protect.

 

(I am also a 'king' whether that makes me an aggressive 'king' is another matter.)

[lamford]

So I am not ruling under 16B I am ruling under 73C, which is more general in nature.

Then I think you also misunderstand Law 16B. If you don't think Pass is a logical alternative, then you should not apply 73C, as no "advantage" has been taken from the BIT, in that you are making the identical bid to that which you would have made after an in tempo pass. At least that is how the last 23 Appeal Panels I have been on have ruled. Maybe they were all wrong, and in the words of the proverb:

 

"Look, everyone but little Johnny's out of step".

[barmar]

The way I've frequently explained it is that 73C is how the player should think at the table, since they can't feasibly determine what LAs are (they can only conduct a 1-person poll, themselves), while 16B is how the TD should determine whether or not they were successful.

 

Unfortunately, this can have exactly the effect we see in this discussion. Once you actually have the UI, bending over backwards to avoid using it changes your thinking. Even if you think balancing is clear, you know it's a minimum. There's no way for you to know that none of the pollees would consider passing, but you do know that the hesitation suggests bidding. If a poll would find that passing is an LA, that's what you have to do. And bending over backwards suggests that you have to be pessimistic about what would be considered an LA.

[HardVector]

Just as an aside, did you ask how long the BIT was? After jump bids, you are actually required to take about 10 seconds to make a call. If they actually hesitated longer than that, I wouldn't cut them a lot of slack, myself. If the BIT was a fast bid, I'd be a little more lenient.

[lamford]

Even if you think balancing is clear, you know it's a minimum maximum.

FYP, as you are a passed hand.

[lamford]

Just as an aside, did you ask how long the BIT was? After jump bids, you are actually required to take about 10 seconds to make a call. If they actually hesitated longer than that, I wouldn't cut them a lot of slack, myself. If the BIT was a fast bid, I'd be a little more lenient.

I was told that there was an agreed significant hesitation. I don't know if the stop card was held the requisite amount of time. I don't think that the length of the BIT is relevant. We all agree that any BIT demonstrably suggests bidding. However, to adjust, one also requires Pass to be an LA, and my poll suggested that it is not.

 

And in response to barmar, I would be surprised if any "king" without the UI would pass. I shall poll the others at my club. Even seriously considering pass does not make it an LA if you consider that none of your peers would select it.

[barmar]

FYP, as you are a passed hand.

There is that, but we're also forcing partner to bid on the 3 level. Are you really saying you'd consider balancing if the A were a Q?

 

Preempts work, that's why people have gotten more aggressive when opening.

[Cyberyeti]

You could suggest that X is suggested over 3♥ (which can pretty much only be a 5 card suit if playing weak 2s) in that it covers the "is my partner going to protect my penalty double when I'm just shy of 2N" type pass, but that is more unlikely given the 2nd in vulnerable weak 2.

 

I think if a player's peers were going off in 4♥ even if it should make, there is a case for ruling it to part of 4♥ making, a part of 4♥-1 if you feel the hesitation makes X look better than 3♥.

[Tramticket]

And in response to barmar, I would be surprised if any "king" without the UI would pass.

 

Currently ranking as "ace of clubs", so smuggly looking down on those lowly "kings"! 😀😀

 

If I forgot to bid on the first round, I would definitely protect.

[BudH]

At matchpoints, having passed as dealer, and able to correct 3♣ to 3♦ if desired, I can't imagine 10 to 15% (or more) selecting pass, so I don't believe passing is a logical alternative.

[lamford]

You could suggest that X is suggested over 3♥ (which can pretty much only be a 5 card suit if playing weak 2s) in that it covers the "is my partner going to protect my penalty double when I'm just shy of 2N" type pass, but that is more unlikely given the 2nd in vulnerable weak 2.

 

I think if a player's peers were going off in 4♥ even if it should make, there is a case for ruling it to part of 4♥ making, a part of 4♥-1 if you feel the hesitation makes X look better than 3♥.

To be honest, I think 3H is an awful bid, as it could be opposite a singleton, despite the fact that one of the three polled selected it. I don't think the person polled was proud of it the next day. It clearly is an LA, however, under the wording of Law 16B. Where do you draw the line? If someone polled would have bid 4H (which seems to blatantly use the UI) would you include that as an LA? Bridge World occasionally gave an embarrassing 0 to a bid selected by one of the expert panel!

 

And North was no king (South was). An eight in fact, which is why he thought and realised that there was no suitable bid on his hand.

[Cyberyeti]

To be honest, I think 3H is an awful bid, as it could be opposite a singleton, despite the fact that one of the three polled selected it. It clearly is an LA, however, under the wording of Law 16B. Where do you draw the line? If someone polled would have bid 4H would you include that as an LA?

 

I don't think it's a terrible bid, I think it's better than pass. You haven't opened 1 or 2 and haven't doubled so it's very likely to be 25(24) or similar.

[lamford]

I don't think it's a terrible bid, I think it's better than pass. You haven't opened 1 or 2 and haven't doubled so it's very likely to be 25(24) or similar.

I think being "better than pass" is being damned with faint praise, despite the protestations of East-West in the pub afterwards. Regular teammates and friends of mine, but they thought along the lines of WeeJonnie. If partner has ♠xxx ♥x ♦AQxxx ♣AQxx for his "in-tempo pass", 3♥ looks pretty silly. Is he expected to move with 4♦?

 

And out of interest, what should a passed hand 2NT be? Minors or reds, perhaps.

[Cyberyeti]

I think being "better than pass" is being damned with faint praise, despite the protestations of East-West in the pub afterwards. Regular teammates and friends of mine, but they thought along the lines of WeeJonnie. If partner has ♠xxx ♥x ♦AQxxx ♣AQxx for his "in-tempo pass", 3♥ looks pretty silly. Is he expected to move with 4♦?

 

And out of interest, what should a passed hand 2NT be? Minors or reds, perhaps.

 

He assumes I have a 4 card minor and moves with something, doesn't matter what.

[pescetom]

Currently ranking as "ace of clubs", so smugly looking down on those lowly "kings"! 😀😀

 

The difference being that you recognise 12.95 points K&R when you see it? B-)

[Tramticket]

The difference being that you recognise 12.95 points K&R when you see it? B-)

 

Don't worry, normal service will be resumed and I will 've back down to "KING" soon enough! 😣🤐

[weejonnie]

Well I don't uderstand how a player who would pass on that South hand is now allowed to take action possibly at the three level. Isn't 'class of player' important.

 

So I am still sticking to my position 9and with the two kings polled - and firmly believe that everyone else is out of step.

[lamford]

Well I don't uderstand how a player who would pass on that South hand is now allowed to take action possibly at the three level. Isn't 'class of player' important.

 

So I am still sticking to my position 9and with the two kings polled - and firmly believe that everyone else is out of step.

All three kings polled would have bid without the UI. When I poll I ask them what is demonstrably suggested by the UI as a supplementary question. They answered the wrong question, misunderstanding the Law, as "what would I bid with the UI?".

There is no need for the supplementary question if I establish that Pass is not an LA, but I have to ask it anyway, as I do not know what king2 and king3 will answer. So, you are not sticking to the position of the two kings polled which is that Pass is not an LA, you are going against the poll, and against every AC I have stood on. A weejonnie very much out of step.

[lamford]

He assumes I have a 4 card minor and moves with something, doesn't matter what.

Why doesn't he assume you have a flawed weak two (maybe too much outside or two aces) when the 4-level could be ridiculous?

[Cyberyeti]

Why doesn't he assume you have a flawed weak two (maybe too much outside or two aces) when the 4-level could be ridiculous?

 

Depends on style on the weak 2, if it's flawed it's probably not a good idea to bid now either.

[weejonnie]

All three kings polled would have bid without the UI. When I poll I ask them what is demonstrably suggested by the UI as a supplementary question. They answered the wrong question, misunderstanding the Law, as "what would I bid with the UI?".

There is no need for the supplementary question if I establish that Pass is not an LA, but I have to ask it anyway, as I do not know what king2 and king3 will answer. So, you are not sticking to the position of the two kings polled which is that Pass is not an LA, you are going against the poll, and against every AC I have stood on. A Weejonnie very much out of step.

 

Three kings all bidding does not meet the qualification - even if I allow that they all would have passed on the first hand.

 

If there is an 80% chance that they would bid - and 20% that they would not then the probability that passing is an LA is still 50% (near enough)

[lamford]

Three kings all bidding does not meet the qualification - even if I allow that they all would have passed on the first hand.

 

If there is an 80% chance that they would bid - and 20% that they would not then the probability that passing is an LA is still 50% (near enough)

Ideally one should poll five, but at the end of the bridge evening that is not always possible and the TD has to judge. All we can say is that 100% of those polled did bid. I did ask one of the best players in the club in the pub afterwards, and he thought balancing was automatic, but he was somewhat stronger than the South at the table.

[lamford]

Depends on style on the weak 2, if it's flawed it's probably not a good idea to bid now either.

More risky if anything to bid 3H on a 5-card suit. But that is by the by; I don't think double is demonstrably suggested over 3H by the UI. It is demonstrably suggested over Pass, but then I have concluded that Pass is not an LA. Double may work less well than 3H when partner has three hearts, but I don't think that is more likely after the BIT.

[Cyberyeti]

More risky if anything to bid 3H on a 5-card suit. But that is by the by; I don't think double is demonstrably suggested over 3H by the UI. It is demonstrably suggested over Pass, but then I have concluded that Pass is not an LA. Double may work less well than 3H when partner has three hearts, but I don't think that is more likely after the BIT.

 

I think it is suggested, if partner has a borderline 2N call he may well wish to pass the X