[VixTD]

At the EBU's mixed pairs championship, played simultaneously at several venues across the land:

---

1NT = 12-14
2♣ = Stayman

The 3♠ bid was game invitational, and made after an agreed pause. EW queried North's pass with a maximum hand when it turned out that nine tricks was the limit.

How would you rule?

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2015-March-23, 07:51, said:

The 3♠ bid was game invitational, and made after an agreed pause. EW queried North's pass with a maximum hand when it turned out that nine tricks was the limit.

I would rule no adjustment, just as I would rule no adjustment if North had the same hand without the queen of clubs and chose to bid game, and found, this time, that the queen of hearts was onside and trumps were 2-2. For an adjustment, the BIT would have to demonstrably suggest passing or bidding game, and, despite some people arguing that it always demonstrably suggests the winning action, that is not what the law says. For what it is worth, I completely agree with Pass at MPs but would bid game at teams. Axxx Kx AQxx xxx would be a much better hand, and I would then bid game.

[nige1]

VixTD, on 2015-March-23, 07:51, said:

At the EBU's mixed pairs championship, played simultaneously at several venues across the land: The 3♠ bid was game invitational, and made after an agreed pause. EW queried North's pass with a maximum hand when it turned out that nine tricks was the limit.

---

In practice, experienced pairs always seem to judge correctly, in such contexts.
In theory, the hesitation suggests either a stretched invitation or near game-values, without distinguishing between those two extremes. South is a passed-hand, however. If NS open aggressively, then the invitation is more likely to be stretched, suggesting a cautious pass, rather than the probable LA of 4♠.
The director's decision seems a toss-up.

[aguahombre]

The UI seems to be matched by the AI available to North. The game invite we are given tells us South doesn't know what he is doing. North probably already knew that; I don't think North should have disclosed this CPU.

[Cyberyeti]

Do you want to be in game with the N hand opposite a normal invite with the N hand given that partner is a passed hand ?

K10xx, Axxx, Kxx, Jx for example ? Game might make, but trumps better break, the Q♥ better be onside and the hearts might need to be 3-3 as well if they lead a diamond. I just think the 4333 and honour structure is not great when you know partner can't be right at the top of the invite spectrum due to his initial pass. If you invite cautiously and accept boldly then it might be a 4♠ bid, certainly not if you do the reverse. Good luck getting an honest answer to that question.

For bad players it's also possible responder was thinking about what 3♥ would mean over 2♠ and whether that was also an invite and if so what the difference between that and 3♠ was.

I think I would rule no adjustment, and if polling I would be particularly careful to try to get peers of the pair concerned as I think the hand valuation of the N hand will vary more than in most situations.

[billw55]

If south wasn't a passed hand, I would say that the hesitation might just as easily mean "almost a game force" as it could "almost a pass". With south already passing though, this is less convincing.

On the other hand, north's hand is not so good. 4333, scattered honors, and no spots ... I think this justifies the pass. But it is still 14 for point counters, so perhaps bidding on would be an LA. I would poll north's peers.

[NickRW]

FWIW, I think I'd rule result stands as the UI, in this case, doesn't particularly suggest bidding or passing. Also FWIW, at MP, I would not accept as that opening hand is minimum to me for play in a suit contract. If it were IMPs I would hate the hand - I would still be inclined to pass, but have had point counting partners who would insist on winning the post mortem if 10 tricks came in.

[aguahombre]

billw55, on 2015-March-23, 09:18, said:

But it is still 14 for point counters, so perhaps bidding on would be an LA. I would poll north's peers.

I might be in a minority on this, but IMO when merely asked to accept or decline game we don't need a poll to tell us accepting or declining are logical alternatives. We can just go directly to whether the UI could have suggested one choice over the other.

Playing that range of NT, I wouldn't accept a game invite by a passed hand; Cyber's example is just barely an invite and game is anti-percentage. South's actual hand isn't one at all. I don't think I can construct a hand which failed to open, invited game, and then would produce game opposite that 1NT opening. I can think of South hands which would just plain bid game after passing originally.

So, I would rule in this case that there is overwhelmingly enough AI for North to reject game. Of course, I also have a perhaps unique way of looking at "could have suggested".

Any UI could have suggested one thing or the other. I believe the criterion should be whether the player in receipt of the UI could have used the UI in making his choice. In this case I vote no. Result stands.

[Lanor Fow]

Personally I've been taught that when determining LAs you should poll. If you are talking about AI, then that is to do with determining LAs so what you personally would do based on the AI is not sufficient.

If you are talking about what is suggested, a poll isn't necessary to determine that (though I was taught to always consult in judgement rulings).

In the first part of your post Aqua, you speak about going directly to what's suggested, and so don't need to poll, but in the rest you are talking about AI and whether to accept the invite, which seems much more to do with LAs than what's suggested by the UI.

[aguahombre]

Lanor Fow, on 2015-March-23, 10:53, said:

Personally I've been taught that when determining LAs you should poll. If you are talking about AI, then that is to do with determining LAs so what you personally would do based on the AI is not sufficient.

If you are talking about what is suggested, a poll isn't necessary to determine that (though I was taught to always consult in judgement rulings).

In the first part of your post Aqua, you speak about going directly to what's suggested, and so don't need to poll, but in the rest you are talking about AI and whether to accept the invite, which seems much more to do with LAs than what's suggested by the UI.

I don't understand how what I said differs from what you believe.

If my bid offers you two choices, the logical alternatives are to answer yes or to answer no. I don't need a poll to tell me there are two alternatives. So, we can go directly (in my words) to whether one of those "given" alternatives could have been suggested by the UI to the degree that it might have influenced your decision to say yes or to say no.

My conclusion was that it did not. Others will say it doesn't matter -- as long as the UI is available it could have suggested one over the other, so shoot it. North would like me on his AC, though others would not.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2015-March-23, 07:59, said:

I would rule no adjustment, just as I would rule no adjustment if North had the same hand without the queen of clubs and chose to bid game, and found, this time, that the queen of hearts was onside and trumps were 2-2. For an adjustment, the BIT would have to demonstrably suggest passing or bidding game, and, despite some people arguing that it always demonstrably suggests the winning action, that is not what the law says. For what it is worth, I completely agree with Pass at MPs but would bid game at teams. Axxx Kx AQxx xxx would be a much better hand, and I would then bid game.

In principle, I agree with this. South hesitated and invited. Normally with these invitations, we don't know whether he was considering passing, or whether he was considering jumping to game.

However, this case is different: South is a passed hand. That makes it unlikely that he was considering jumping to game. This means that the UI demonstrably suggests pass over 4♠.

You should poll whether 4♠ is an LA, but I think it is hard to find many players who think that with 14 HCPs 4♠ would not be an LA.

The damage seems clear.

That means all the conditions for an AS are there.

Rik

[Lanor Fow]

My apologies for not being clear.

I don't think that there are automatically two LAs in an invite situation. Based on the hand (and AI of the auction) there may only be one option. There are two alternatives, but one doesn't have to be logical.

I don't think that we should consider AI when looking at what is suggested by the hesitation, only when considering what LAs there are.

[aguahombre]

Lanor Fow, on 2015-March-23, 11:43, said:

I don't think that there are automatically two LAs in an invite situation. Based on the hand (and AI of the auction) there may only be one option. There are two alternatives, but one doesn't have to be logical.

O.K. It seems in this case, I am the one not being clear. Rightly or wrongly, I would assume without a poll that 1) when given two choices players polled would consider both choices and 2) some of them might count their points and accept. Others might want a poll to come to this conclusion; I don't believe I need one.

It would be much easier to justify my decision here to not adjust, if a poll showed nobody would accept...and thus there were no LA.

[Cyberyeti]

A key question to ask is "what do you open ?" and this needs to be part of what the polled peers are told. I can't think of a hand we wouldn't open where game is better than 50:50 opposite the N hand.

Edit: maybe KQxx, Q10xx, x, K109x, hadn't considered 4441s but I might bid 4 with that rather than invite.

[Aardv]

Is accepting the game try a logical alternative? Yes, give partner KQxxx Qxxx Kx xx or the same hand with the minors swapped. At pairs partner will often have 5 spades to justify inviting, and therefore 4 hearts, which improves our KJx.

Does the UI demonstrably suggest the pass? Yes, a passed partner is more likely to be minimum than maximum.

I don't really want to adjust - I'd prefer a recording system - but there's a good case for it.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2015-March-23, 12:11, said:

O.K. It seems in this case, I am the one not being clear. Rightly or wrongly, I would assume without a poll that 1) when given two choices players polled would consider both choices and 2) some of them might count their points and accept. Others might want a poll to come to this conclusion; I don't believe I need one.

It would be much easier to justify my decision here to not adjust, if a poll showed nobody would accept...and thus there were no LA.

Suppose North's hand were a 4333 12-count with poor spot cards. Everyone just passes the invitation without much thought -- accepting is not an LA when you have a dead minimum. Note: I'm not talking about unusual circumstances like the state of the match requires swingy actions -- that's when lots of non-LAs start being considered.

[lamford]

Aardv, on 2015-March-23, 18:12, said:

Yes, a passed partner is more likely to be minimum than maximum

That is irrelevant. The test is whether a BIT(t)er (on a linguistic note, does the "T" get doubled when it is part of an acronym?) is more likely to be minimum than maximum. For you to adjust, it would have to be demonstrably suggested that partner was more likely to have a marginal invite rather than a conservative raise. At matchpoints he could have either.

There is no question that 4S is an LA and the Walrus would accept instantly, so a poll achieves nothing.

[VixTD]

I didn't adjust the score, as North gave some convincing reasons why his hand was not worth another bid, which were echoed by the players I consulted. I thought it was a difficult problem, though, and would have been much easier if South had not been a passed hand.

[helene_t]

I fail to see how pass is suggested. A passed hand could easily have a gf. 4405 ten points for example. Usually when people decide to use stayman they already decide whether it's an invitational hand or a garbage hand so if anything the hesitation is more likely to suggest bidding on.

[weejonnie]

This seems to be a case of intelligence transfer - you have to poll people of North's ability to find out whether a reasonable number would consider bidding four spades and some actually do it.

Yes I would not bid 4 Spades on the North hand (4-3-3-3 8 losers) however that does not mean that others wouldn't.

(And if the spades were 2-2 we would never have heard from EW would we? (Not that this affects the presence of UI of course).