[Chris L]

2C showed the majors. 1NT was 12-14. 2H (which showed values and H support, with a 2D negative available, was slow

---

At the table EW called the TD when 4H was made. He allowed the 3H bid and an appeal panel upheld the decision.

Were the TD and appeal panel right? (This hand came up in a recent "A" team inter-county game in England)

[Mbodell]

I am not a director, however:

1. Was there UI available? Yes, as a statement of fact from the OP that I assume all agree to.

2. Were the opponents damaged? Since 4♥ making is worse than 2♥ making, possibly.

3. Was there a LA to the 3♥ call? It would be good to poll. I'm a little surprised that 2♥ really shows values and ♥, but assuming it does, then the S hand is really quite strong. xx xxxx Axx xxxx opposite has play for slam. Kx JT9x Kxx xxxx likely makes 6. I'd say pass is not an LA. Depending on the rest of system 4♣ (splinter) or some cue bid or 4♥ might be.

4. Is the call selected suggested by the UI over other LA? I'd say, yes, but again it would be good to poll. The slow 2♥ (again assuming that it really does show values and ♥ by agreement) suggests that it is on the border between 2♦ negative and 2♥ positive to me. Therefore, a conservative invite seems suggested (by the UI). On the other hand, N has accepted the invite with just 4 hearts and 8 hcp (4 in J's). So maybe N is good for his bid? not sure.

However, the LA I'd select for S would be 4♣ or 4♥ or something and I think N doesn't force to the 5 level then, so the same result occurs. So I think the TD and appeal panel are right.

[WellSpyder]

Before reaching a decision I would like to know a little more about the bids available to North. What sort of values are normally expected to bid 2♥ rather than a negative 2♦? (I think this is a relatively unusual agreement, so like mbodell I would want to be confident that there really is an expectation that a weak hand with genuine ♥ support would bid 2♦.) Was there an alternative bid available to show a stronger hand with ♥ support but still less than GF values?

[WesleyC]

Assuming North's 2H shows values and support, I don't think passing with the South hand is a logical alternative. If anything 3H is an underbid.

[ahydra]

I know this hand I was playing in the C team. Unfortunately we can't use our auction as useful poll data because IIRC after 2C West put in a 3C bid. (I then bid 3H with North and partner raised to 4H.)

The explanation of 2H showing values and H support, rather than just the usual preference, surely implies that pass for South is not an LA. Indeed as others have suggested South might do more than just a mere 3H.

So we check the agreements are indeed as discussed, and assuming all is well then the TD and AC have got this one right.

If instead 2H would be preference and 2D asking for the better major (as is more common), then it gets slightly interesting - in this case I don't think the slow 2H demonstrably suggests anything, as North might be choosing between 2D with say ♠KJ ♥xxx, 2H, 3H, or maybe even pass with ♠x ♥xx and a bucketload of clubs (South is void after all).

ahydra

[aguahombre]

Included in Mike Bodell's analysis, above, is the real answer IMO.

Yes, 3H has logical alternatives and 3H could have been suggested by the UI.
No, Pass is not one of those logical alternatives.

4H & 4C are two logical alternatives to 3H, and 3H seems like a hedge bid, in case opener didn't really have the values promised in their methods. The actual South hand seems to bear this out --- evidence that 3H was a hedge influenced by the BIT.

North is certainly on the bottom side of his "value-showing" 2H call, so it seems to me North fielded the hedge by bidding 4. North, thus, was using the inference from his own BIT. He had a LA of passing 3H, and chose between that and 4H the action which could have been suggested by a combination of his own BIT and the 3H bid.

Rolling back to 3H -- not 2H -- might well have been the ruling by a TD or AC. Convoluted? No, just complex, IMO.

[ArtK78]

aguahombre, on 2015-July-29, 09:09, said:

Rolling back to 3H -- not 2H -- might well have been the ruling by a TD or AC. Convoluted? No, just complex, IMO.

If the UI was conveyed by the slow 2♥ bid, I cannot see how it makes any sense to roll back the contract to 3♥. Presumably, only the 3♥ bid could have been influenced by the UI. North's subsequent 4♥ bid cannot have been influenced by the UI conveyed by his own slow 2♥ bid.

I agree that the LA's for South do not include pass of 2♥. Therefore, if anything, 3♥ is the most conservative action he could take among the LA's, and North's subsequent 4♥ bid must stand.

If the argument made is that South was influenced by North's UI to only bid 3♥ and not make any stronger bid, thus North did not move past 4♥, that is a bit much. North does not have a hand that would cooperate in any slam venture, and both North and South are entitled to know that East opened the bidding with a weak NT. Any ruling requiring NS to bid beyond 4♥ would be unreasonable.

There has been no statement that South did anything to convey any UI to North. So North's actions are not influenced by UI, and they should stand.

[aguahombre]

ArtK78, on 2015-July-29, 09:21, said:

Presumably, only the 3♥ bid could have been influenced by the UI. North's subsequent 4♥ bid cannot have been influenced by the UI conveyed by his own slow 2♥ bid.

I agree that the LA's for South do not include pass of 2♥. Therefore, if anything, 3♥ is the most conservative action he could take among the LA's, and North's subsequent 4♥ bid must stand.

So, you believe that a player's own BIT and the fact that his partner might have taken it into account is authorized information to that player?? If so, we disagree. North showed values, by their agreement; South bid 3H, not more; North has a minimum for his alleged values yet bid 4. His bid of 4 instead of passing 3 was based on what?.

[WesleyC]

aguahombre, on 2015-July-29, 09:09, said:

North is certainly on the bottom side of his "value-showing" 2H call, so it seems to me North fielded the hedge by bidding 4. North, thus, was using the inference from his own BIT. He had a LA of passing 3H, and chose between that and 4H the action which could have been suggested by a combination of his own BIT and the 3H bid.

This is just insane...

[ArtK78]

aguahombre, on 2015-July-29, 09:33, said:

So, you believe that a player's own BIT and the fact that his partner might have taken it into account is authorized information to that player?? If so, we disagree. North showed values, by their agreement; South bid 3H, not more; North has a minimum for his alleged values yet bid 4. His bid of 4 instead of passing 3 was based on what?.

Yes, we disagree. You are tying yourself into a knot with this convoluted logic.

The idea that a player could convey UI, supposedly influencing his partner's next action, and then somehow the player's subsequent actions might be influenced by his own UI which influenced his partner's action is making my brain hurt.

If South has not conveyed any UI to North, then North's actions are unrestrained. He does not have to justify his 4♥ bid.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2015-July-29, 09:33, said:

So, you believe that a player's own BIT and the fact that his partner might have taken it into account is authorized information to that player?? If so, we disagree. North showed values, by their agreement; South bid 3H, not more; North has a minimum for his alleged values yet bid 4. His bid of 4 instead of passing 3 was based on what?.

If North's 2H bid showed values, then that is only in the context of 2D not showing values. Without knowing how many values 2H shows, it is impossible to decide whether North is minimum for 2H.

The "normal" treatment of Landy or similar is that 2D shows "no preference" and may indeed have no values. Given that 2S will then be bid by the overcaller on a 5-4-2-2 hand, 2H has to include hands with three or four hearts and one spade, even Yarboroughs. I suspect that the partnership has not really discussed continuations other than some spurious "2D is a negative not natural". It seems more likely that North was thinking of bidding 3H than 2D, and 3H by South looks normal, as does 4H by North, who is maximum not minimum for 2H. I agree completely with the AC ruling. Presumably declarer made 4H by intra-finessing the eight of spades and pinning the ten on the way back, and EW are now scrambling to try to get the IMPs back, SB style.

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2015-July-29, 11:00, said:

If North's 2H bid showed values, then that is only in the context of 2D not showing values. Without knowing how many values 2H shows, it is impossible to decide whether North is minimum for 2H.

The "normal" treatment of Landy or similar is that 2D shows "no preference" and may indeed have no values. Given that 2S will then be bid by the overcaller on a 5-4-2-2 hand, 2H has to include hands with three or four hearts and one spade, even Yarboroughs. I suspect that the partnership has not really discussed continuations other than some spurious "2D is a negative not natural". It seems more likely that North was thinking of bidding 3H than 2D, and 3H by South looks normal, as does 4H by North, who is maximum not minimum for 2H. I agree completely with the AC ruling. Presumably declarer made 4H by intra-finessing the eight of spades and pinning the ten on the way back, and EW are now scrambling to try to get the IMPs back, SB style.

Or declarer discarded a spade on the third diamond

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2015-July-29, 16:17, said:

Or declarer discarded a spade on the third diamond

I think that is a simpler line but say the layout is East ♠ KQx ♥ Qxx ♦ Axx ♣ KTxx. Now if you win a club lead, run the jack of hearts getting them right, cash another heart and play a diamond, East wins and forces you with a club and you ruff and play another diamond; say West wins and plays a club and you ruff. Now if you cash the diamond, surprisingly you have to pitch the last club from dummy on it not a spade. And you are back to finessing the eight of spades again! You can play on diamonds before attempting to draw trumps, but again you go down if you try to throw a spade on the third spade, and need to throw a club again.

Interestingly, you cannot make it at all when East has something like KQT Qxx Axx KTxx, provided they force you or switch to spades. And key variations will occur when the expert Wests with KT and QT in spades play low on the first round of the suit. The other issue is that they can attack spades when West has Kx or Qx before you get a chance to get a discard, even when trumps are 2-2, if the layout is something like East KTx Qx Axxx Kxxx.

[nige1]

Chris L, on 2015-July-29, 00:51, said:

2C showed the majors. 1NT was 12-14. 2H (which showed values and H support, with a 2D negative available, was slow. At the table EW called the TD when 4H was made. He allowed the 3H bid and an appeal panel upheld the decision. Were the TD and appeal panel right? (This hand came up in a recent "A" team inter-county game in England)

---

ahydra, on 2015-July-29, 05:18, said:

I know this hand I was playing in the C team. Unfortunately we can't use our auction as useful poll data because IIRC after 2C West put in a 3C bid. (I then bid 3H with North and partner raised to 4H.) The explanation of 2H showing values and H support, rather than just the usual preference, surely implies that pass for South is not an LA. Indeed as others have suggested South might do more than just a mere 3H. So we check the agreements are indeed as discussed, and assuming all is well then the TD and AC have got this one right.If instead 2H would be preference and 2D asking for the better major (as is more common), then it gets slightly interesting - in this case I don't think the slow 2H demonstrably suggests anything, as North might be choosing between 2D with say ♠KJ ♥xxx, 2H, 3H, or maybe even pass with ♠x ♥xx and a bucketload of clubs (South is void after all).ahydra

I agree with those who want more evidence that that NS play 2♦ as negative and 2♥ as value-showing. A more typical agreement is:

• 2♥ just shows 4+ ♥s -- or 3 ♥s with a void or singleton spade.
• 2♦ shows equal length in the majors (or 2 ♠s and 3 ♥s when 2♠ on a 5-2 fit may play better than 2♥ on a 4-3 fit).
• With invitational hands, you jump, or perhaps bid 2N (artificial and forcing).

If the NS agreement were more orthodox, I think the hestitation could express doubt about level, and the director might consider rolling the contract back to 2♥ -- assuming he then judges Pass to be an LA for South.

[lamford]

nige1, on 2015-July-29, 20:44, said:

If the NS agreement were more orthodox, I think the hesitation could express doubt about level, and the director might consider rolling the contract back to 2♥ -- assuming he then judges Pass to be an LA for South.

The correct procedure is to query them some more on their methods and then to poll a few peers telling them those methods and see what they would do. Even then we have to decide, if we get a few seriously considering pass, whether 3H could be demonstrably suggested by the BIT.

[aguahombre]

When you explain the methods of N/S to the peers, you must explain to them what "values" means to N/S. The J8x of spades has value, I think. The JT9x of hearts has value. The bullet in clubs might have value. That seems to compute to a very nice 7 support points for a 5+ 5+ Major 2-suiter. So, if the Range of "values" is like 5-8 in support, North is on max; but, South might have a logical alternative of passing 2H rather than trying for game.

I would have thought "values" meant something like 8+ support points, short of game invitational in itself; but, we don't know what it means to this partnership. If it does mean 8+, then if 3H is a game try North has a logical alternative to pass this with the bottom of the range.

Does 2H guarantee values and 4 card support in these methods with which I am unfamiliar? Anyway, I agree that my previous post was insane because I was guessing at the actual meaning of a term used by the OP to describe an unfamiliar agreement.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2015-July-30, 08:24, said:

So, if the Range of "values" is like 5-8 in support, North is on max; but, South might have a logical alternative of passing 2H rather than trying for game.

Does 2H guarantee values and 4 card support in these methods with which I am unfamiliar? Anyway, I agree that my previous post was insane because I was guessing at the actual meaning of a term used by the OP to describe an unfamiliar agreement.

Your previous post was wrong because North does not have UI and the last post is wrong because it continues in the same vein. North can bid what he likes. Law 16 gives a pretty comprehensive list of what might give UI: "<snip> as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism,<snip>" Even allowing for the qualifier, "for example", to deal with things like German coughs, his own BIT cannot give UI to himself.

South has UI, but it does not demonstrably suggest 3H. If North bid 2H because he had ♠ none ♥ xx ♦Jxxxxx ♣ xxxxx and he did not want to hear 2S over 2D, then it will work out badly. If partner was thinking of passing 2C it will work badly. If partner was thinking of bidding 2D, then game will not make. If partner was thinking of bidding 3H then a game try will work well. Hence nothing could be demonstrably suggested.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2015-July-30, 17:58, said:

Your previous post was wrong because North does not have UI and the last post is wrong because it continues in the same vein. North can bid what he likes. Law 16 gives a pretty comprehensive list of what might give UI: "<snip> as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism,<snip>" Even allowing for the qualifier, "for example", to deal with things like German coughs, his own BIT cannot give UI to himself.

I agree with you that UI from partner's action with your own UI is quite convoluted and can (should) generally be ignored. However, your statement that UI from partner's action with your own UI isn't UI is simply not true. Law 16 doesn't give a list of what is UI. It gives a specific list of what is AI and states that all other information is UI. And then it gives a (non-exhaustive) list of examples of UI.

Partner's call is AI. The fact that he made the bid after you gave UI is UI. That is not information that is arising from the call itself. It is UI because it is not listed under what is AI.

Rik

Quote

A. Players’ Use of Information
1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:
(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by
unauthorized information from another source; or
(b) it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see D); or
© it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal
procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following); or
(d) it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this
information.
2. Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents, and any requirement of the tournament
regulations.
3. No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous).

[barmar]

Rather than argue whether it's AI or UI, I think it's better to focus on whether it "demonstrably suggests" a particular LA for you. I think the convoluted logic necessary to interpret the situation makes it practically infeasible to "demonstrably suggest" anything.

[aguahombre]

Convoluted as it may seem, derivative or reverse or second-hand UI is possible and sometimes must be taken into account. We don't have to call it any particular name. It either could have suggested a particular action which had alternatives at the time, or it couldn't have. It is information from other than the stipulated allowable sources.