[VixTD]

---

Both pairs are playing a fairly standard version of Acol with a 12-14 NT. It was agreed that the double was slow.

Result: 5♠(E)=, NS -650

North called me at the end of play and said the final 5♠ call could have been influenced by the slow double. East thought she had an obvious bid.

Would you adjust the score?

[1eyedjack]

I would adjust. With maybe a bit of reluctance.

Was East's pass over 5H forcing?
The only purpose in passing if forcing is to consult partner on whether to defend doubled. The only logical conclusion in that event is that a double in tempo would be respected, and the decision to pull the double combined with the acknowledged hesitation links cause and effect, or that the pass was non-forcing.

If East's pass was non-forcing, then by passing over 5H East has
(1) expressed a lack of expectation that 5S is making, and
(2) expressed an interest in defending 5H undoubled, in the anticipation that it is either failing or that 5S would be a more expensive sacrifice than defending a making 5H

If prepared to defend 5H undoubled but not prepared to do so doubled, East can only have in mind a fear that they are making 11 in Hearts and 5SX would be less expensive than allowing 5HX to make. That means an expectation of going for precisely 800 in 5SX, measured against 650 or 850 in 5H, undoubled or doubled. That is really landing on a pin-head.

Either way, East's thought processes appear to be rather muddled.

My reluctance is two-fold
1) I think that East's pass over 5H is a dubious call. But UI ASIDE there is nothing in law that prevents you from correcting a dubious call if later in the auction you have that opportunity. So IF 5S is an automatic bid both now (over the double) and on the previous round, then we should perhaps discount the earlier pass as irrelevant.
2) I believe that in the pass-out seat the caller SHOULD in law be entitled to a bit of latitude over hesitant action. I realise that the law does not provide that latitude, so I would rule as the law requires, but it won't stop me having some reluctance.

[StevenG]

 1eyedjack, on 2014-March-26, 08:04, said:

If prepared to defend 5H undoubled but not prepared to do so doubled, East can only have in mind a fear that they are making 11 in Hearts and 5SX would be less expensive than allowing 5HX to make. That means an expectation of going for precisely 800 in 5SX, measured against 650 or 850 in 5H, undoubled or doubled. That is really landing on a pin-head.

Does that follow? If opps are left undoubled, one needs to give away 200 or 500 to gain. The double now includes 800, but still includes the 200 and 500 (or making!) hands as well. Surely the only requirement to justify the bid is that the combined odds appear to the bidder to now be greater than 50%, whereas before they were less.

[gordontd]

As I once heard Brian Senior say to a client of his: "You were prepared to defend 5H until I said I was delighted to defend 5H".

[ahydra]

Unless East was legitimately making a forcing pass, then pulling the X to show a very shapely hand interested in slam (she has the shape, but not the slam interest - who knows where the ♦A ♣AK are), then I'd adjust here, since the X demonstrably suggests that West was a little unsure about his X, and East could have just bid 5S over 5H direct.

ahydra

[nige1]

 gordontd, on 2014-March-26, 09:04, said:

As I once heard Brian Senior say to a client of his: "You were prepared to defend 5H until I said I was delighted to defend 5H".

Agree. Opponents in receipt of UI seem to succumb to the temptation to use it. Ignorant of the nuances of sophisticated laws, many happily explain that they chose the call that they would make anyway. Most of the rest rationalize their decision, persuading themselves that there's no logical alternative to the tainted action. Current law encourages such behaviour. Infractions usually go unreported. Even when ruled against, the law-breaker is usually no worse off. (In theory, a penalty might be imposed but in practice that's rare). In general, weighted rulings increase the law-breaker's profit. Another "equity" law that makes the director's life more congenial but rewards the law-breaker and punishes the honest player.

[WellSpyder]

 gordontd, on 2014-March-26, 09:04, said:

As I once heard Brian Senior say to a client of his: "You were prepared to defend 5H until I said I was delighted to defend 5H".

I wonder whether he makes a habit of saying this? I have always remembered the exact same comment he made to his client when playing against me many years ago. I wasn't complaining since both 5H and 5S had no chance....

[barmar]

 WellSpyder, on 2014-March-26, 11:12, said:

I wonder whether he makes a habit of saying this? I have always remembered the exact same comment he made to his client when playing against me many years ago. I wasn't complaining since both 5H and 5S had no chance....

I'll bet pulling doubles like this is a common client behavior, so he got lots of opportunities to say it.

[Cyberyeti]

I'm not sure whether the hesitation tells E very much, a very likely explanation for the hesitation is "is partner's pass forcing ?". In this case, it may be that the double is pretty reluctant from a hand that wanted to pass so doesn't suggest bidding.

It's conceivable that E intended 5♠ as a forcing pass and pull maneuver as a slam try (the slam is on opposite a perfect 12 count (A10x, xxxx, Axxx, Ax) let alone a strong NT.

I would ask EW separately what they were thinking and the question to E of "why didn't you bid directly over 5♥" would need a convincing answer, otherwise I adjust.

[StevenG]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-March-27, 04:10, said:

I would ask EW separately what they were thinking and the question to E of "why didn't you bid directly over 5♥" would need a convincing answer, otherwise I adjust.

Is this not straightforward at pairs? 5♥ making might be somewhere near a middle, 5♥x making, an outright bottom.

[VixTD]

 nige1, on 2014-March-26, 09:35, said:

Agree. Opponents in receipt of UI seem to succumb to the temptation to use it. Ignorant of the nuances of sophisticated laws, many happily explain that they chose the call that they would make anyway. Most of the rest rationalize their decision, persuading themselves that there's no logical alternative to the tainted action. Current law encourages such behaviour. Infractions usually go unreported. Even when ruled against, the law-breaker is usually no worse off. (In theory, a penalty might be imposed but in practice that's rare). In general, weighted rulings increase the law-breaker's profit. Another "equity" law that makes the director's life more congenial but rewards the law-breaker and punishes the honest player.

The logic of Brian's argument is irrefutable, but it's based on a presumed awareness on the part of players of the consequences of their actions. If you asked East what they thought the likely consequences of their pass over 5♥, they'd answer "I expect we'll end up defending 5♥", but they don't see their pass as actively choosing that outcome. To many lesser players, the act of passing is just one of non-commitment to the auction (except in obviously forcing situations). I presume that's the reason Brian has had so many opportunities for his quip, not that the game is awash with cheats and rogues.

I can well believe East saw no alternative to her 5♠ call, although it was based on flawed logic. There was a county match going on next door and I polled a number of first-team players to see what action they would take over an in-tempo double. One passed (but considered bidding), one bid something (no alternative), and two others seriously considered passing, so I adjusted the score to 5♥X(N)-2.

I would have preferred to have asked players in the second or third county teams as they were probably closer to East's peers, but they were playing at the time. Still, it's telling that even the better players didn't see the flaw in their thinking.

[Cyberyeti]

 StevenG, on 2014-March-27, 05:40, said:

Is this not straightforward at pairs? 5♥ making might be somewhere near a middle, 5♥x making, an outright bottom.

If 5♥ was making, surely 5♠ is odds on to be cheap, once partner doubles opposite what could have been QJ to 7 or 8 and out, this suggests the odds of 5♥ making have reduced from what they were before he doubled.

[FrancesHinden]

 VixTD, on 2014-March-26, 07:43, said:

---

Both pairs are playing a fairly standard version of Acol with a 12-14 NT. It was agreed that the double was slow.

Result: 5♠(E)=, NS -650

North called me at the end of play and said the final 5♠ call could have been influenced by the slow double. East thought she had an obvious bid.

Would you adjust the score?

The fact that East only made 11 tricks tells you something about his standard. What that says about the ruling, I'm not sure.

[lamford]

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-March-28, 15:36, said:

The fact that East only made 11 tricks tells you something about his standard. What that says about the ruling, I'm not sure.

We are told by the OP that East was the female half of the partnership. After the king of hearts lead, she won, ruffed a heart, crossed to a spade and ruffed a heart and drew trumps. It seemed to her that the hearts were 7-3, spades 1-3, but she could not tell whether diamonds were 4-4 or 5-3. When South (presumably the female half) played low on the ten of clubs, she had a close choice between playing South for xxx KQx AQJxx Kx and xxx KQx AQxx KJx and went for the former as she knew the relative frequencies of 3-3-5-2 and 3-3-4-3 hands. What actually swayed her, I am told, is that the first round finesse of the queen also gained when North had a singleton jack, and rightly or wrongly, she estimated that the losing line was better, about 57-43 in her calculations. So, the fact that East only made 11 tricks tells you something about her standard. What that says about the ruling, I'm not sure. If pressed, I would adjust on the basis that Pass is an LA and bidding 5S is demonstrably suggested. But I would poll from a group of females who make 11 tricks on this hand.

[nige1]

 lamford, on 2014-March-28, 19:42, said:

But I would poll from a group of females who make 11 tricks on this hand.

When you omit the smiley, somebody may imagine you're serious

[FrancesHinden]

 lamford, on 2014-March-28, 19:42, said:

We are told by the OP that East was the female half of the partnership. After the king of hearts lead, she won, ruffed a heart, crossed to a spade and ruffed a heart and drew trumps. It seemed to her that the hearts were 7-3, spades 1-3, but she could not tell whether diamonds were 4-4 or 5-3. When South (presumably the female half) played low on the ten of clubs, she had a close choice between playing South for xxx KQx AQJxx Kx and xxx KQx AQxx KJx and went for the former as she knew the relative frequencies of 3-3-5-2 and 3-3-4-3 hands. What actually swayed her, I am told, is that the first round finesse of the queen also gained when North had a singleton jack, and rightly or wrongly, she estimated that the losing line was better, about 57-43 in her calculations. So, the fact that East only made 11 tricks tells you something about her standard. What that says about the ruling, I'm not sure. If pressed, I would adjust on the basis that Pass is an LA and bidding 5S is demonstrably suggested. But I would poll from a group of females who make 11 tricks on this hand.

That line makes 12 tricks, not 11.

Also, having started on this line there's no relative frequency discussion, because with KJx South can cover to hold it to 12 tricks as declarer has forced herself off.

[ggwhiz]

 gordontd, on 2014-March-26, 09:04, said:

As I once heard Brian Senior say to a client of his: "You were prepared to defend 5H until I said I was delighted to defend 5H".

A perfect summation.

[lamford]

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-March-29, 05:46, said:

That line makes 12 tricks, not 11.

Also, having started on this line there's no relative frequency discussion, because with KJx South can cover to hold it to 12 tricks as declarer has forced herself off.

I agree. South should cash the ace of diamonds before switching to the king of hearts (which is what I intended); then I think that it is right for declarer to play a club to the queen later in the play, which only makes 11. And I agree one cannot ruff two hearts if the spades are 3-1, but still think that low to the queen of clubs is right. The fact that East made 11 tricks does not tell us very much at all about her standard. And not enough to select peers!

[lamford]

 VixTD, on 2014-March-26, 07:43, said:

---

East thought she had an obvious bid.

Given that she is making grand opposite a fitting minimum such as Axx xxx Axx AKxx I think it is "obvious" for her to pass and pull the double to Five Spades. Her heart void has become enormous. Did you press her further as to:
a) whether she thought her Pass of 5H was forcing?
b) whether she was making a slam try?
c) whether West thought East had made a slam try?

And what was the opening lead against 5S?

[VixTD]

 lamford, on 2014-March-30, 17:38, said:

Given that she is making grand opposite a fitting minimum such as Axx xxx Axx AKxx I think it is "obvious" for her to pass and pull the double to Five Spades. Her heart void has become enormous. Did you press her further as to:
a) whether she thought her Pass of 5H was forcing?
b) whether she was making a slam try?
c) whether West thought East had made a slam try?

And what was the opening lead against 5S?

It did cross my mind that some partnerships might have an agreement that the pass over 5♥ is forcing, but I didn't think many would, and I was sure that those that did would have mentioned it when asked as a reason for passing and then bidding 5♠.

I didn't note the lead against 5♠. I asked what the result was when they played 5♠, and received the answer from North "made". It could be that it made with an overtrick and North omitted this detail, in which case you and Frances are getting worked up over not very much at all. Of the 121 pairs who played in spades, nine made as few as eleven tricks (occasionally from the West seat, at various levels from 3 to 6, and sometimes doubled).