[jallerton]

---

IMPs. There is nothing to the play. Table result 7♣=, N/S +2,140.

At the end of the hand, the TD is called by West. The 6♣ bid was made after an agreed hesitation. West states his opinion that the hesitation before the 6♣ bid suggests that South do something other than pass 6♣ (as it implies that North was interested in an alternative contract, most likely a grand slam).

The TD asks South why he bid 6♠. South states that he bid 6♠ because he had solid spades and 6♠ scores more than 6♣.

The TD asks North what she was thinking about before she bid 6♣. She explains that she was deciding whether to bid 6♣ or 7♣. From her point of view grand slam was likely to be making if partner held ♦K, but she had no way to find out.

The TD rules that passing 6♣ was a logical alternative and that bidding 6♠ could demonstrably have been suggested by the hesitation. He assigns a score of 6♣+1, N/S +1,390.

N/S appeal. South maintains that his 6♠ bid was not influenced by the hesitation.

How do you rule?

This post has been edited by jallerton: 2016-June-14, 15:40

[chrism]

I would be tempted to ask South why he didn't correct to 7♠, since 7♠ scores more than 7♣. Seven missing spades never split worse than 4-3-0 among opponents and partner, do they?

Whether the 6♠ bid was influenced by the hesitation is immaterial. The Law does not consider motivation in this case.

1. Was there unauthorized information? Yes, North's tempo indicated uncertainty whether 6♣ was the best contract.
2. What did the UI suggest? Clearly that North had something extra, since 6♣ was the least that he could practically bid (I'm not sure that 5♠ would have initiated a 5NT sign-off even if that were a realistic option). In particular, both 6♠ and 7♣ would be suggested over Pass to someone who thinks that 6 spades headed by AKQJ is a solid suit.
3. Is Pass a logical alternative? Of course.

TD ruling upheld.

[billw55]

chrism, on 2016-June-13, 14:34, said:

I would be tempted to ask South why he didn't correct to 7♠, since 7♠ scores more than 7♣.

...

TD ruling upheld.

Yep. Probably keep the deposit as well.

[blackshoe]

The law doesn't care if people use ridiculous methods, but… were they playing straight RKCB, or 1430? If the former, North could pass 5♣ if South has zero keycards, but if he has any more than that, or If they're playing the latter then unless South has exactly one keycard 4NT is effectively forcing to 6♣. But I don't suppose they thought about that when they put their system together. They would have done better to play kickback or redwood or minorwood. Besides, 7NT is cold.

[pigpenz]

also couldn't North have bid 5NT showing all the Key Cards for for clubs, then south could show the K♦

[barmar]

pigpenz, on 2016-June-13, 17:53, said:

also couldn't North have bid 5NT showing all the Key Cards for for clubs, then south could show the K♦

The problem is that South has no way of knowing which side suit kings are useful. ♥K is useless for the grand. And North knows that South doesn't know this. The hesitation was probably due to him working all this out.

But if he did bid 5NT on this hand, South would presumably bid the grand on the basis of his running spades.

[barmar]

But none of this speculation about other bids seems relevant. North didn't make a grand slam try, South has to respect the signoff after the hesitation.

And if he didn't want to play in clubs, he shouldn't have supported them in the first place, he should have rebid the spades. Are they good enough to jump to 3♠ after the 2/1 response?

[barmar]

Another thing: this was IMPs, not MP. The extra value of playing in a major is not as good an excuse.

[ahydra]

I take it N/S appealed (not E/W) and South (not West) protested that he didn't take advantage of the hesitation. But I can't believe him - surely he should have corrected 7C to 7S as well using that line of reasoning. There's UI, there's an LA, there's damage - TD got it right.

ahydra

[barmar]

ahydra, on 2016-June-14, 10:05, said:

I take it N/S appealed (not E/W) and South (not West) protested that he didn't take advantage of the hesitation. But I can't believe him - surely he should have corrected 7C to 7S as well using that line of reasoning.

Not really. You can be pretty sure the other table will also be in the small slam, so you gain a couple of IMPs for being in the major. But unless you're really sure they'll be in the grand, there's no reason to prefer the major there. 7♠ goes down on a 5-1 break, when 7♣ is likely to be cold.

[ggwhiz]

I have some modest sympathy for the thought process behind the 6♠ bid (in a smooth auction) as it might protect the K♦ but lose out to a club ruff. It all disappears with the pass of 7♣ instead of bidding the grand in spades or notrump.

Deposit retained.

[Trinidad]

The obvious bid is to correct to 6/7NT. After all, 6/7♠ could easily go down on a club ruff.



Rik

[jallerton]

ahydra, on 2016-June-14, 10:05, said:

I take it N/S appealed (not E/W) and South (not West) protested that he didn't take advantage of the hesitation.

Yes, you are right. I have now edited the original post to correct this.

[Cyberyeti]

How good are NS ? are they better than "never bid a slam without blackwood" ? there are plenty of things N could have been thinking about, some of which suggest bidding, some don't (whether 5♠ is natural signoff or to play 5N for example), but some of these depend on the standard of the pair.

[nige1]

Agree with chrism that North's hesitation suggests that South bid on. To verify that Pass by South is a logical alternative, the director might conduct a poll -- and investigate similar auctions at other tables . If the poll confirms the director's suspicions, he should wind the contract back to 6♣+1. If East-West appeal, the committee should consider keeping their deposit.

Finally, I agree with Trinidad that South should correct to 7N

[jallerton]

The AC overturned the TD's decision and reverted the score to the table result of 7♣=. The AC did not explain its reasoning, but there does not seem to be any support for the AC's decision on this forum.

[blackshoe]

Even if the AC explained their reasoning, some of us might still disagree.

[nige1]

jallerton, on 2016-July-12, 15:52, said:

The AC overturned the TD's decision and reverted the score to the table result of 7♣=. The AC did not explain its reasoning, but there does not seem to be any support for the AC's decision on this forum.

Normally, they would get some forum support no matter how they ruled. There is usually a roughly 50-50 split of forum-opinion on UI rulings.

blackshoe, on 2016-July-12, 17:36, said:

Even if the AC explained their reasoning, some of us might still disagree.

My guess is that the AC felt that South's bid was completely obvious whatever North did. They can justify this with a poll of South's peers, all of whom bid 6♠ (or more) and none of whom considered pass as a serious possibility.

[Zelandakh]

nige1, on 2016-July-12, 20:56, said:

My guess is that the AC felt that South's bid was completely obvious whatever North did.

My guess is that South had friends on the AC who "know" that he is "an honest fellow". I am also reasonably confident if it were you or I appealing we would have our deposit retained. This is essentially the whole argument against ACs in a nutshell (yes I know there are also arguments in their favour). May I ask who N-S were and who was sitting on the AC?

[TMorris]

On reflection I am intruiged by the date of the OP. I played in the Oxford GP teams last year and we had those hands. I can't guarantee the small pips but the distribution was identical as were the honour cards.