[daveharty]

---

West was dealer with the hand shown. EW held the following uninterrupted auction:

1H 1S
2D 3C
3S 3NT*
4S

3C was not alerted, and was explained prior to the opening lead as "natural and forcing". There was a long hesitation prior to East's 3NT bid, agreed to by everyone at the table. The director was called to the table after West's 4S bid, and again at the end of the play of the hand. Declarer made eleven tricks in 4S; only ten tricks were available in NT.

The director ruled that there was no damage, because passing 3NT was not a logical alternative to bidding 4S, given that West had opened a weak distributional hand with a void. Polling other players would not have been a feasible option; it was a small club game and everyone had either seen the hand already or would see it in a subsequent round.

Thoughts?

[wyman]

I don't have a huge problem with the director's ruling, except I would like to see a poll of what the (potential) offender's peers would do with the hand in question. If this is a flight A player, I have no problem with the ruling. I suspect strongly that's not the case.

These type of situations feel dirty, because west now has UI that 4S is a safe spot (and the right spot, no doubt). But 3N just isn't an option with this hand on this auction imo. And it's always hard to determine, sans poll, what a beginner thinks is reasonable. Also, if east would have made all sorts of faces and cringes and shook his head as 3N hit the table, PP to EW, but I still agree with the ruling.

[BunnyGo]

 wyman, on 2011-February-25, 12:57, said:

I don't have a huge problem with the director's ruling, except I would like to see a poll of what the (potential) offender's peers would do with the hand in question. If this is a flight A player, I have no problem with the ruling. I suspect strongly that's not the case.

These type of situations feel dirty, because west now has UI that 4S is a safe spot (and the right spot, no doubt). But 3N just isn't an option with this hand on this auction imo. And it's always hard to determine, sans poll, what a beginner thinks is reasonable. Also, if east would have made all sorts of faces and cringes and shook his head as 3N hit the table, PP to EW, but I still agree with the ruling.

I agree in general with wyman, but knowing the club I know there won't be a PP offered for any infraction.

[wyman]

 BunnyGo, on 2011-February-25, 13:57, said:

I agree in general with wyman, but knowing the club I know there won't be a PP offered for any infraction.

This is true at pretty much any club.

[AlexJonson]

Has to be 4S.

Looks like a 5-3 fit on a weak hand.

If partner has a slam interest hand where 3NT is a better resting place, too bad.

[jallerton]

 daveharty, on 2011-February-25, 11:47, said:

West was dealer with the hand shown. EW held the following uninterrupted auction:

1H 1S
2D 3C
3S 3NT*
4S

3C was not alerted, and was explained prior to the opening lead as "natural and forcing". There was a long hesitation prior to East's 3NT bid, agreed to by everyone at the table. The director was called to the table after West's 4S bid, and again at the end of the play of the hand. Declarer made eleven tricks in 4S; only ten tricks were available in NT.

The director ruled that there was no damage, because passing 3NT was not a logical alternative to bidding 4S, given that West had opened a weak distributional hand with a void. Polling other players would not have been a feasible option; it was a small club game and everyone had either seen the hand already or would see it in a subsequent round.

Thoughts?

The TD should ask West to explain why he bid 4♠.

[nigel_k]

Obviously the director has to poll people and ask the right questions.

But it looks to me that pass is definitely a logical alternative. Partner knows quite a lot about our hand at the point he chose 3NT, much more than we know about his. Maybe he has xxxx x AQJx KQJ10

[AlexJonson]

 nigel_k, on 2011-February-26, 17:31, said:

Obviously the director has to poll people and ask the right questions.

But it looks to me that pass is definitely a logical alternative. Partner knows quite a lot about our hand at the point he chose 3NT, much more than we know about his. Maybe he has xxxx x AQJx KQJ10

What are the 'right questions' if I may ask.

[aguahombre]

After the long hitch, it would seem that 4D would be the LA suggested by the UI. Passing 3NT is not logical at all. So, West's choice of 4S is the only alternative of the two not suggested by the hesitation. Not having five spades is the most likely, IMO. So 4S must be bid. Nigel's example hand would follow thru with 4D/3S in tempo, but might bid 3NT out of tempo, IMO.

4S stands.

[Phil]

I have no idea what is suggested by a slow 3N.

1. Maybe partner is interested in a spade contract but thought he'd do better in 3N. Imagine a weak spade suit, great clubs and some diamond fillers.
2. Maybe partner is interested in 6♦ and wanted to raise diamonds, but didn't want to go past 3N.
3. Perhaps he was wondering how to make a quantitative call over 3♠.

The fact that this player got lucky and picked the right one doesn't give rise to an adjustment in my mind.

[daveharty]

 Phil, on 2011-February-26, 18:38, said:

I have no idea what is suggested by a slow 3N.

Doubt that 3NT is the right contract?

I agree that the hesitation could be based on several scenarios, and West has no way of knowing which of them actually exists. But the common factor that most of those scenarios share is that bidding on is more successful than passing 3NT. So if the only question is whether passing 3NT is a logical alternative to "keeping the auction open", which the UI seems to suggest, then it seems a little murky. Nigel seems to think pass IS a LA, others think not. Obviously a poll would be ideal to determine this, but isn't this a pretty common scenario where it just isn't possible because the game is so small or everyone has seen/will see the board? What is normally done in these cases?

[gordontd]

 AlexJonson, on 2011-February-26, 15:41, said:

Has to be 4S.

Looks like a 5-3 fit on a weak hand.

Why does responder need to have a five-card spade suit for this sequence?

[gordontd]

 jallerton, on 2011-February-26, 16:00, said:

The TD should ask West to explain why he bid 4♠.

Indeed. I would have thought pass was a logical alternative to bidding on, and that the pause suggested doubt about 3NT. However I would probably not have rebid 2D, so perhaps I'm not the right person to judge this.

[aguahombre]

 gordontd, on 2011-February-27, 03:37, said:

Why does responder need to have a five-card spade suit for this sequence?

Maybe it doesn't, but for us it either has five spades or is very strong in diamonds --and responder will show which over 3S. If she wanted to play in NT (with only 4S) she would have bid NT, rather than fourth suit force. So, 3NT would have been slammish for spades.

The BIT suggests that is not the case, so 4S is the only LA not suggested by the tempo in that context. I am not saying the people involved had that thought process; we don't know unless we ask. but that is where my opinion is coming from.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-February-27, 10:42

[cherdano]

I must be living on a different planet than everyone else:
1. I have shown 3540, and my additional card is a diamond rather than the expected club.
2. Partner doesn't have to have 5 spades. E.g. he could have Jxxx Kx Axx AQxx (why should he jump to 3NT when that would look extremely silly opposite 1642 or 0643?). In fact, since he didn't bid 4♠ after we showed 3 spades, I think he is rather likely not to have 5 spades.
3. Passing is definitely a logical alternative to me. In fact, I would pass!
4. It's not clear what a slow 3NT suggests exactly, but it definitely suggests doubts about 3NT being the right contract! Or maybe it shows doubt about whether 3♠ promised three spades - I wouldn't know, but maybe this partnership can guess. Therefore, the UI definitely suggests bidding on over passing.

I really don't understand why anyone would let 4♠ stand, given the information we have up to now.

[jallerton]

 jallerton, on 2011-February-26, 16:00, said:

The TD should ask West to explain why he bid 4♠.

 gordontd, on 2011-February-27, 03:37, said:

Indeed. I would have thought pass was a logical alternative to bidding on, and that the pause suggested doubt about 3NT. However I would probably not have rebid 2D, so perhaps I'm not the right person to judge this.

I suspect that you don't play 3♣ as "natural and forcing" either.

When 3♣ is played as 4th suit forcing, there are two schools of thought about this sequence.

School 1: Opener has described his hand closely so it it up to Responder to select the final contract.
School 2: If Responder had definitely wanted to play in 3NT opposite hearts and diamonds, he would have bid that over 2♦. Bidding fourth suit forcing and following up with 3NT suggests doubt about strain and/or level.

For School 1, Pass is clearly a logical alternative.

For School 2, partner's failure to bid 3NT earlier, whether he was concerned about holding only a single club stop, fishing for spade support, or thinking about the merits of 5♦/6♦, seems to make pulling 3NT clear. Personally I would prefer to pull to 4♦ which I think has to be this shape as 2551 would bid 3♦ over 3♣.

cherdano said:

I must be living on a different planet than everyone else:
1. I have shown 3540, and my additional card is a diamond rather than the expected club.

How would you bid with a 2542 shape?

[bluejak]

 daveharty, on 2011-February-25, 11:47, said:

Polling other players would not have been a feasible option; it was a small club game and everyone had either seen the hand already or would see it in a subsequent round.

I do not understand why that makes polling not feasible. At an EBU event we poll players without worrying when they will see the hand. A poll of players who have seen the hand seems much better than no poll at all.

 gordontd, on 2011-February-27, 03:37, said:

Why does responder need to have a five-card spade suit for this sequence?

I suppose for much the same reason that 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♦ shows five hearts: why bid the clubs with 4-4?

[daveharty]

 bluejak, on 2011-February-28, 18:22, said:

At an EBU event we poll players without worrying when they will see the hand. A poll of players who have seen the hand seems much better than no poll at all.

This really surprises me, I'd have thought that any knowledge of the hand would render results by future players of the hand problematic, and any opinions by players that had seen the hand already would be tainted.

[bluejak]

We do not poll them when they are going to play the hand, obviously.

Yes, it might be better if they have not played the hand, but the suggestion that it is better not to poll seems an over-reaction to me.

No doubt it would be better to have a group of players always at hand who are not playing and are just there for when the TD wants to conduct a poll. Seems a reasonable BLML type approach.

But in the real world, polls of players who have seen the hand are very useful, and better than no polls at all.

[Vampyr]

 jallerton, on 2011-February-27, 15:12, said:

I suspect that you don't play 3♣ as "natural and forcing" either.

When 3♣ is played as 4th suit forcing, there are two schools of thought about this sequence.

School 1: Opener has described his hand closely so it it up to Responder to select the final contract.
School 2: If Responder had definitely wanted to play in 3NT opposite hearts and diamonds, he would have bid that over 2♦. Bidding fourth suit forcing and following up with 3NT suggests doubt about strain and/or level.

For School 1, Pass is clearly a logical alternative.

For School 2, partner's failure to bid 3NT earlier, whether he was concerned about holding only a single club stop, fishing for spade support, or thinking about the merits of 5♦/6♦, seems to make pulling 3NT clear. Personally I would prefer to pull to 4♦ which I think has to be this shape as 2551 would bid 3♦ over 3♣.

Why is the "School 2" player now interested only in strain and not level? Why can't 3♣ followed by 3NT show extra values? The reasons given above seem more like reasons for the hesitation rather than reasons for not bidding 3NT earlier.

Quote

How would you bid with a 2542 shape?

With a slow 3NT?