[pclayton]

This is a weird one. Does the slow pass make 4♠ more or less attractive?

I wouldn't have bid 3♠ the 1st time, but 4♠ the 2nd time looks kind of obvious to me.

Pard might have been hitching with a very offensive hand, but judging from my drek, I think its more likely he was looking at a bunch of pictures and felt a little fixed over 4♥. If thats the case, we might be beating 4♥.

[jdonn]

I don't think this appeal is meritless although I could certainly see them losing. It seems like the kind of situation where it would be useful to find out what a committee thinks, since it's not clear either what a hesitation suggests or how popular bidding 4♠ would be.

[Cascade]

I pass over 3♥.

I think there is a significant problem in establishing that partner's slow pass suggests bidding. The slow pass indicates values. Partner may have been thinking of doubling. I would be worried that both 4♠ and 4♥ were failing if I knew that my partner had significant extra values for his 1-level opening bid. Of course it is far from certain that we can beat 4♥. I would however be much happier bidding 4♥ if partner passed in tempo as it would be much more likely that 4♥ would be making then and therefore that 4♠ was a good paying sacrifice at these colours.

Lets say I passed and the opponents on noticing my four spades and singleton and favourable vulnerability claimed "you didn't bid 4♠ based on the slow pass over 4♥" and lets further assume that both 4♥ and 4♠ were failing. Would they have a case that my pass was based on the information from partner's slow pass?

I think they would have a case. They might not win but they would have a reasonable argument.

I can't see how 4♠ is demonstrably suggested over pass but partner's huddle. I would be interested in what arguments were given in the appeal. I wouldn't be surprised if there were no arguements given on this point.

Not only do I think the appeal without merit ruling is wrong I think the ruling is wrong.

[nickf]

Jlall, on Feb 6 2008, 02:16 AM, said:

Yes, this appeal has no merit. I would be ashamed if I bid 4S.

What if I told you the match was played with screens?

Would you still be ashamed to bid 4S?

nickf
sydney

[MFA]

@ those who thinks this appeal has no merit.

Would any of you actually pass over 4♥ in this situation if there were no pause?

(Don't answer that it's not inconceivable. What is your actual choice?)

[nickf]

MFA, on Feb 6 2008, 05:07 AM, said:

@ those who thinks this appeal has no merit.

Would any of you actually pass over 4♥ in this situation if there were no pause?

(Don't answer that it's not inconceivable. What is your actual choice?)

Playing in a different match to the one discussed, I bid 4S without a second thought. I think my opponent overcalled 4H however. Either way, 4S was clearcut.

nickf
sydney

[Cascade]

nickf, on Feb 6 2008, 08:26 AM, said:

MFA, on Feb 6 2008, 05:07 AM, said:

@ those who thinks this appeal has no merit.

Would any of you actually pass over 4♥ in this situation if there were no pause?

(Don't answer that it's not inconceivable. What is your actual choice?)

Playing in a different match to the one discussed, I bid 4S without a second thought. I think my opponent overcalled 4H however. Either way, 4S was clearcut.

nickf
sydney

I don't like bidding 4♠ over 4♥. That means the auction was:

1♠ (4♥) 4♠

How does partner know if you have any values?

Wouldn't you be forced to take the same action with 13 hcp and a fit?

[nickf]

Cascade, on Feb 6 2008, 06:00 AM, said:

nickf, on Feb 6 2008, 08:26 AM, said:

MFA, on Feb 6 2008, 05:07 AM, said:

@ those who thinks this appeal has no merit.

Would any of you actually pass over 4♥ in this situation if there were no pause?

(Don't answer that it's not inconceivable. What is your actual choice?)

Playing in a different match to the one discussed, I bid 4S without a second thought. I think my opponent overcalled 4H however. Either way, 4S was clearcut.

nickf
sydney

I don't like bidding 4♠ over 4♥. That means the auction was:

1♠ (4♥) 4♠

How does partner know if you have any values?

Wouldn't you be forced to take the same action with 13 hcp and a fit?

I didnt like it either to be honest, but what are your options in the face of a pre-empt? With an opening hand you cant pass and wait for partner to balance, and with this very hand you cant afford to pass either.

As it happened, I bid 4S, I think the next hand bid 5H and my partner bid 6S which went just 1 off on bad lead.

nickf
sydney

[cherdano]

Cascade, on Feb 5 2008, 02:00 PM, said:

nickf, on Feb 6 2008, 08:26 AM, said:

MFA, on Feb 6 2008, 05:07 AM, said:

@ those who thinks this appeal has no merit.

Would any of you actually pass over 4♥ in this situation if there were no pause?

(Don't answer that it's not inconceivable. What is your actual choice?)

Playing in a different match to the one discussed, I bid 4S without a second thought. I think my opponent overcalled 4H however. Either way, 4S was clearcut.

nickf
sydney

I don't like bidding 4♠ over 4♥. That means the auction was:

1♠ (4♥) 4♠

How does partner know if you have any values?

Wouldn't you be forced to take the same action with 13 hcp and a fit?

I would put game before slam and allow 4♠ to be bid with a wide range of hands. This is different than bidding 3♠ over 3♥ IMO.

[mikeh]

nickf, on Feb 5 2008, 01:57 PM, said:

Jlall, on Feb 6 2008, 02:16 AM, said:

Yes, this appeal has no merit. I would be ashamed if I bid 4S.

What if I told you the match was played with screens?

Would you still be ashamed to bid 4S?

nickf
sydney

Unless you have far better screens than any I've played with, it is almost always possible to know (in fact, almost impossible not to know) who has tanked when there is a significant break in tempo.

We can all hear the bidding cards hit the tray, especially when it is a high level bid... I don't mean that the 4♥ bidder slams his stack down on the tray, but there is usually some kind of sound (maybe, at last, I have found a reason for selecting only the actual bidding card you want, rather than the more customary habit of pulling out all the lower ones as well). You can sometimes even see your lho's body motion as he reaches forward to place the cards on the tray.

I stress that this is information that comes to one without any conscious attempt to be on the lookout for it: we can't (or, at least, I can't) turn off our ears (I've proven that I can turn off my brain at the table, but that's a different issue).

As for the appeal: I really think that asking the question: would most players bid 4♠ without the tank is 100% the wrong question. Would a significant minority pass without the tank is the better question. It may seem like the same, but it isn't....

Remember that of the players to whom 4♠ is automatic, some if not most of them would have bid the round before.

And while the tank MIGHT have been based on defence, it surely wasn't based on strong hearts, given that we hold the Q. So bidding on is suggested even if he was thinking of doubling, while it is clearly right if he was thinking of bidding anything.

[MFA]

mikeh, on Feb 5 2008, 04:19 PM, said:

As for the appeal: I really think that asking the question: would most players bid 4♠ without the tank is 100% the wrong question. Would a significant minority pass without the tank is the better question. It may seem like the same, but it isn't....

I'm just trying to find anybody who would actually pass 4♥. Are there any passers out there? On this planet?
If not ... well, you know the conclusion.

[Cascade]

nickf, on Feb 6 2008, 09:41 AM, said:

As it happened, I bid 4S, I think the next hand bid 5H and my partner bid 6S which went just 1 off on bad lead.

There is the problem with bidding on this auction on rubbish.

I think after a pre-empt you just have to cut your losses and stay out of the auction on bad hands. Partner is going to presume when they pre-empt that it is your hand and therefore that you have values. If you don't have them you are going to mislead partner much more than the opponents.

[Cascade]

cherdano, on Feb 6 2008, 09:50 AM, said:

Cascade, on Feb 5 2008, 02:00 PM, said:

Wouldn't you be forced to take the same action with 13 hcp and a fit?

I would put game before slam and allow 4♠ to be bid with a wide range of hands. This is different than bidding 3♠ over 3♥ IMO.

Sure I agree with this principle but an effective 2-count with a singleton is hardly the hand I would want to raise to game on.

I think 2 (or even 4) hcp up to around 15 or 16hcp is just too wide a range if you want to expect partner to do something intelligent.

[mikeh]

MFA, on Feb 5 2008, 04:54 PM, said:

mikeh, on Feb 5 2008, 04:19 PM, said:

As for the appeal: I really think that asking the question: would most players bid 4♠ without the tank is 100% the wrong question. Would a significant minority pass without the tank is the better question. It may seem like the same, but it isn't....

I'm just trying to find anybody who would actually pass 4♥. Are there any passers out there? On this planet?
If not ... well, you know the conclusion.

Well, I think Justin posted as if he would pass... after the huddle, so presumably he (and I) think that even if we'd bid absent a huddle, we can't bid after the huddle, and this logically implies that we see pass as a truly logical possibility, which was then rendered less logical by the illegal info that partner has extras of some kind.

I've always felt that the more interesting issue arises when one chooses not to bid, because of a huddle, and then one finds that both games fail. Surely the huddle has cost the opps because, absent the huddle, I'd have bid 4♠ (assuming that, in contrast to the actual hand, the opps defend 4♠).

But I think the laws require that I allow the huddle to change my actual call.. by eliminating the call suggested by the huddle. I've never seen this argued before a director or a committee.

[Cascade]

I am not 100% sure what you are saying - what is it that you have never heard argued?

The player has to be allowed to bid something.

It seems to me that both contracts could easily have been failing so I can not see how 4♠ is suggested over pass by the huddle.

We can all easily say after the fact when 4♠ is making that 4♠ was suggested but we have a danger of saying that Pass was suggested when both contracts failed and the player passed.

Perhaps ideally the committee need to make up their mind without knowing what action was taken nor what the result was on the board. Purely judging what the logical alternatives were and what was suggested.

Unfortunately this will not work with committee members who have played and discussed the hands.

[Echognome]

I think the difficulty with determining the logical alternatives is to really find the set of players whom would pass the round before. If they all passed with the intention of bidding again had 4♥ come back to them, then pass simply isn't a logical alternative.

Of course we should start by finding a set of peers and then ask them what they would call the round before (and really any prior rounds). If we can then get a set of players who would have passed the round before, then we can ask them what they would do the next round. Finally, we can determine what the LA's are.

We are really being asked our opinion on the above set of LA's in a highly biased environment. The added difficulty online is capture a two-part bidding question. What would you bid now? and if you passed now, what would you bid if 4♥ came around to you? I believe this is one of the problems with polling as well. If you give it to players as a problem, they are more likely to anticipate further complications on the hand and they might not do that at the table. It is only made worse if you give them the problem already with the stipulation that if they pass, then they will have to decide what to do next round with 4♥ coming back to them (as it was only a possibility before).

[mikeh]

Cascade, on Feb 5 2008, 06:40 PM, said:

I am not 100% sure what you are saying - what is it that you have never heard argued?

I was imagining a different scenario:

The auction is the same to and including the huddle. I hold a hand on which the majority of players would bid 4♠ absent a huddle... and on which I personally would have bid. Partner huddles and I decide that I cannot ethically choose 4♠, so I pass.

It turns out that 4♥ fails and that 4♠, my 'normal' bid, also fails... and this is what happens at the other table, say in a team game. The opps lose 5 imps when, without the huddle, they'd push the board. Is there any recourse?

[Cascade]

mikeh, on Feb 6 2008, 01:02 PM, said:

Cascade, on Feb 5 2008, 06:40 PM, said:

I am not 100% sure what you are saying - what is it that you have never heard argued?

I was imagining a different scenario:

The auction is the same to and including the huddle. I hold a hand on which the majority of players would bid 4♠ absent a huddle... and on which I personally would have bid. Partner huddles and I decide that I cannot ethically choose 4♠, so I pass.

It turns out that 4♥ fails and that 4♠, my 'normal' bid, also fails... and this is what happens at the other table, say in a team game. The opps lose 5 imps when, without the huddle, they'd push the board. Is there any recourse?

If the huddle really suggested bidding on over pass then I don't believe that they have any recourse. I can imagine though someone arguing in this scenario that the huddle suggested the pass.

Personally in the actual hand I think that the huddle suggests pass over 4♠. I would be worried after the huddle that I was taking a phantom sacrifice.

[lamford]

I won't comment very much here, as I have posted extensively on this hand on International Bridge Laws Forum.

I polled 10 strong players at a national British event, and all 10 bid Four Spades. All who offered an opinion would have passed on the previous round.

A simulation with Bridge Dealer and Deep Finesse made it a massive blunder to pass, assuming the pre-empting side has 9-10 hearts.

The Law of Total Tricks makes it wrong to bid only when TNT is 18 and both contracts are one off. This occurred rarely in the simulations.

This was a strong event - I understand it was played with screens, so we must assume that E-W were not novices.

[Cascade]

Perhaps Nick can confirm from which round this occurred. My understanding is that by the time screens were used in the knockout rounds VPs which the penalty was measured in were irrelevant. The knockout was based solely on IMPs.

Hence I am not sure if his screen comment was just a hypothetical question.