[weejonnie]

If this was MPs then I have seen appeal decisions recorded on the EBU website (15 years worth) with the experts saying that at pairs passing is not a LA at this vulnerability and auction, if you have any offensive hand.

At IMPs, however, you would normally pass - far better to accept a -110 or -140 than risk a -300 or -500.

A poll has been taken - was it of players of the same ability/ temperament playing the same system? If so then the TD is correct in the ruling and the AC has to presume initially that his ruling is correct.

So what can we deduce about partner's hand. We can infer a minimum strength of 11 (or 12) points, maybe even more since there has been no game try. Opponents may even have the minority of points (but that is unlikely). Partner is very likely to have 4 spades (in Acol 1 spade only promises 4) so is very unlikely to be 16-18 balanced.

It rather looks as if partner has a flawed take out double. He can deduce on the second round that you have spade shortage so he must be worrying about a suit. If he had 5 hearts then he might have overcalled 2 hearts to take away bidding space, so his hand is going to be 4=4-3-2 (not strong enough to overcall 1NT) or 4=4-4-1. He may even only have 3 hearts (which improves the 2NT protection). And, of course, it is very likely that partner's HCP are not in spades - thus improving South's hand - and any finesses are more likely to make.

There is also the possibility that North has 5 spades, couldn't do anything on the first round and now has to remember whether a double on the second round is penalty or take-out.

If South came to me with this spiel then I would certainly not be issuing a PP for blatant use of UI - even if I disallowed his call.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2016-November-15, 06:40, said:

I can only say that the hands I suggest are more likely because one of the hand types that partner might have from the AI, a weak NT, has been eliminated by the UI. "Cogito ergo sum 15+" is the well-known saying ...

It's not that I was questioning - it was why you concluded that strong balanced was more likely than 4522.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2016-November-15, 07:18, said:

It's not that I was questioning - it was why you concluded that strong balanced was more likely than 4522.

Just on frequency. Partner can have (4 3 3 3) (4 4 3 2) (5 3 3 2) or (4 5 2 2) if balanced. The last is the least likely. The chance of him having 3-card support for a minor (and that is AI) is high. The chance of him having a strong NT or similar is also high (but that is from the UI that he does not have a weak NT). I trust you would adjust here if the hesitator said "I really want to bid here, pard, but nothing fits the bill. I don't have a good single-suiter or I would bid it."

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2016-November-15, 07:27, said:

Just on frequency. Partner can have (4 3 3 3) (4 4 3 2) (5 3 3 2) or (4 5 2 2) if balanced. The last is the least likely.

That may be so a priori. I think the first three are less likely to give declarer a problem - many of them would be an easy pass or 2NT (if played as natural). I still don't think we've reached the "demonstrably suggested" standard.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2016-November-15, 08:25, said:

That may be so a priori. I think the first three are less likely to give declarer a problem - many of them would be an easy pass or 2NT (if played as natural). I still don't think we've reached the "demonstrably suggested" standard.

I surveyed several people at my club about the auction 1S-(P)-2S-(2NT) and the majority thought minors. I don't know if they are right, but I cannot phone a friend at the table to find out which is standard. The BIT demonstrably suggests a hand that wants to bid 2NT (17-19 balanced) but realises that it is either minors, or more likely, undiscussed. Just being more likely to be right because of the BIT makes a call demonstrably suggested, I think, and eliminating a weak NT tips the scales.

[Zelandakh]

gordontd, on 2016-November-15, 08:25, said:

That may be so a priori. I think the first three are less likely to give declarer a problem - many of them would be an easy pass or 2NT (if played as natural). I still don't think we've reached the "demonstrably suggested" standard.

Is not one of the possibilities that partner holds a BBH, perhaps 5♠(332), and was unsure whether 2NT would be taken as natural or not? I think the one call we can definitely say is demonstrably suggested is double. Whether 2NT is also demonstrably suggested is murkier.

[helene_t]

Zelandakh, on 2016-November-15, 09:02, said:

I think the one call we can definitely say is demonstrably suggested is double.

Funny, I would say that double is the least suggested, since partner could have a hand close to a 3♥ overcall in which case double would lead to him jumping to 4♥.

[StevenG]

deleted

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-November-15, 09:02, said:

Is not one of the possibilities that partner holds a BBH, perhaps 5♠(332), and was unsure whether 2NT would be taken as natural or not? I think the one call we can definitely say is demonstrably suggested is double. Whether 2NT is also demonstrably suggested is murkier.

Double is not an LA, so there is no need to consider whether it is suggested. It would not be chosen by anyone. Surely the only 2 LAs are 2NT and Pass.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2016-November-15, 09:17, said:

Double is not an LA, so there is no need to consider whether it is suggested. It would not be chosen by anyone. Surely the only 2 LAs are 2NT and Pass.

If the player were to have doubled, which is what we are considering here, then it would be subject to the LA rules even if it would not be considered a LA otherwise. It is well accepted that you cannot bypass your responsibilities by choosing a call that is not amongst the LAs.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-November-15, 09:26, said:

If the player were to have doubled, which is what we are considering here, then it would be subject to the LA rules even if it would not be considered a LA otherwise. It is well accepted that you cannot bypass your responsibilities by choosing a call that is not amongst the LAs.

Indeed. If the player were to have bid 4NT it would have become an LA. But we are told in the OP: "The player did bid 2NT". We do no need to consider Double at all, therefore.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2016-November-15, 09:01, said:

I surveyed several people at my club about the auction 1S-(P)-2S-(2NT) and the majority thought minors. I don't know if they are right, but I cannot phone a friend at the table to find out which is standard. The BIT demonstrably suggests a hand that wants to bid 2NT (17-19 balanced) but realises that it is either minors, or more likely, undiscussed. Just being more likely to be right because of the BIT makes a call demonstrably suggested, I think, and eliminating a weak NT tips the scales.

I think I'm just about persuaded now.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2016-November-15, 09:26, said:

If the player were to have doubled, which is what we are considering here, then it would be subject to the LA rules even if it would not be considered a LA otherwise. It is well accepted that you cannot bypass your responsibilities by choosing a call that is not amongst the LAs.

But since he didn't, and it wasn't among the LAs found from polling, we don't have to consider whether it's suggested by the UI.

[Zelandakh]

gordontd, on 2016-November-15, 09:38, said:

I think I'm just about persuaded now.

Let's say for argument that the BIT suggests that partner has such a BBH. Does that make bidding 2NT more attractive than their holding a minimum strong NT, say? Presumably in that case they would be making 2♠ against our being down in 3m. With partner a trick stronger we are making 3m against their being down in 2♠. That is roughly -50 versus -110 for the case we can rule out and +110 versus +50 for the case we are assuming. We seem to be gaining about 60 points either way. So I would like a little more to demonstrate the unsuitability of the 2NT call. Outside of a basic club level, it is questionable whether there is really a LA to 2NT. Now there may well be but I would like to here the case for Pass from someone whose opinion I respect.

[helene_t]

If partner has a balanced 18 count with four spades you just want to defend, no? They might go down in 2♠, and 2NT might get raised to 3, possibly doubled.

[mycroft]

I'm bidding, no question, no thought. "I'd rather be -1100 than -110". IMPs maybe - only maybe - not.

With the people I play with the hesitation most likely means "if I bid, are they going to bid and make game?" We have a number of "never balance against" pairs - they will take the push to 3, partner will take it as a game try and bid 4, and it will roll.

But it's likely that this partner has a hand that wants to do something but doesn't like anything. 4=4=3=2 with the wrong kind of stopper for 1♠-1NT a not-great stopper, or 4=3=2=4 and really doesn't want to hear 3♦. And enough stuff that he's afraid I won't balance. It could be the "hesitation penalty double", too - which has the benefit of only going -140 when he catches me with this hand.

I agree with most (see my previous statement) that double is not a LA, unless -570 is logical where you live.

Edit: can't read. Thanks, Barry.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2016-November-15, 10:28, said:

4=4=3=2 with the wrong kind of stopper for 1♠-1NT

What's the "right kind of stopper" to bid out of turn?

[aguahombre]

Zelandakh, on 2016-November-15, 10:08, said:

Outside of a basic club level, it is questionable whether there is really a LA to 2NT. Now there may well be but I would like to here the case for Pass from someone whose opinion I respect.

Yep.

[lamford]

helene_t, on 2016-November-15, 10:16, said:

If partner has a balanced 18 count with four spades you just want to defend, no? They might go down in 2♠, and 2NT might get raised to 3, possibly doubled.

If partner raised to 3NT when I show a hand too weak to bid 2NT on the previous round I would find a new partmer

[Pig Trader]

It was Love All and the match was a Swiss Pairs Match MPs > VPs. Apologies - I am usually the first to criticise lack of information in an OP.

The NS players are around 55-60%ish players and my first three pollees said they would pass.

So I stopped polling that question to focus on "demonstrably suggested" because I was not convinced that the hesitation showed me enough that I didn't already know. Opinion here suggests that this is approaching a borderline case.