[bluejak]

Ok, ok, you are sick of this hand! No matter, this is the last time. I might post some of the other four interesting rulings though.

Scoring: Swiss Pairs

---------------P
---P--1♠-Dbl-P
--1NT-P--P-2♦
--2♥--3♦-3♥-P
---P--4♦--P--P
---P

---

1NT was alerted, asked, and described as Herbert, ie any hand very weak hand. After 3♥ there was an agreed hesitation by South before passing.

N/S asked the TD to look at North's 4♦ bid after South's BIT over 3♥.

[Echognome]

I assume you mean E/W asked the TD to look at North's 4♦ bid.

Hesitation was agreed, so I think it's just a matter of whether North would compete and I'd like to poll this one as well. I personally wouldn't sell out, but I don't know how others feel.

As a side note, I can definitely imagine David saying, "Don't tell me it's this bloody hand again!"

[TylerE]

I actually tend to think that 4♦ is the ethical bid here. X I would have more of a problem with after the tank. Don't consider pass.

[Cascade]

I doubt that south is ever hitting 3♥ here. So the huddle is more likely to suggest bidding on. Perhaps not if south is a weak player.

Partner opened in 3rd seat and whatever south has defensively in combination with north has diminished with the diamond raise.

There is a little bit of a style issue. I would have bid 1NT over the double. What does north expect from PASS and then 2♦. If this is too weak to bid over the double then north isn't close to 4♦. Well maybe close ♦ KJ to five or six would be a pretty reasonable 4♦ but maybe south would have bid - at least with six.

On the other hand if PASS then 2♦ shows this lot for south then there is nothing remarkable about the south hand and 4♦ is reasonable so I allow the 4♦ bid. In this case I judge that 4♦ does not have logical alternatives.

[McBruce]

Polling is indicated here to see what North does absent the BIT. However, South does need something to balance after the takeout doubler passes the weak 1NT response, which I assume shows a rather good hand. How much more than the minimum for a balance are we expecting the BIT to show. I think bidding on is fairly clear, but I'm polling to make sure. (Is this even possible in a Swiss Pairs, where everyone plays copies of the same boards at the same time? Who will you poll?)

[cherdanno]

With a void in their suit and playing matchpoints, I as North would certainly guess that partner was thinking about doubling them. I do no think 4♦ is suggested by the UI.

In any case, I don't think defending 3♥ with a 9-card fit and 5044 fit with good suits is a logical alternative, but that will depend on the level of the players obviously.

[OleBerg]

A interesting aside:

If N/S is a strong pair, it can be argued, that North had already made his decision not to compete to 4♦, as he could have shown a good raise with 3♣ over the 2♥ bid.

I am quite unsure if this, if it was taken serious, would have any legal implications?

Edit: Just came to think of: It is probably an argument in favour of pass being a logical alternative?

[helene_t]

I don't think pass is an LA. I am not sure if 4♦ is suggested by the BIT either.

Result stands.

[cherdanno]

OleBerg, on Aug 15 2009, 04:24 AM, said:

A interesting aside:

If N/S is a strong pair, it can be argued, that North had already made his decision not to compete to 4♦, as he could have shown a good raise with 3♣ over the 2♥ bid.

I am quite unsure if this, if it was taken serious, would have any legal implications?

Edit: Just came to think of: It is probably an argument in favour of pass being a logical alternative?

I believe the correct way to handle this is (at least in theory) to poll players what they would bid over 2♥. Then those who bid 3♣ are not considered peers.
I disagree with the reasoning though - you don't want to tell opponents that they can push you to 4♦ if they want. Or where the club values are, etc. It's just too likely that you can buy it in 3♦.

[Cascade]

Good point alluded to by cherdanno.

Is this IMPs or MPs. Swiss Pairs can be either form of scoring or possibly something completely different.

[OleBerg]

cherdanno, on Aug 15 2009, 12:15 PM, said:

I disagree with the reasoning though - you don't want to tell opponents that they can push you to 4♦ if they want. Or where the club values are, etc. It's just too likely that you can buy it in 3♦.

You are only telling them, that they might push you to 4♦. And 3♣ also makes it more likely that 3♥ will be doubled, when right.

So I disagree with your diasagreement.

Edit: I agree that bidding 3♦ - 4♦ has some merit (maybe a lot), but when you choose to bid unilateral, you might get in trouble when partner conveys UI.

Edit2: Not that I wouldn't want to inform my partner about the values, but 3♣ shows nothing about the club-suit. It simply shows a good raise, as it is the only good raise available.

[OleBerg]

cherdanno, on Aug 15 2009, 12:15 PM, said:

I believe the correct way to handle this is (at least in theory) to poll players what they would bid over 2♥. Then those who bid 3♣ are not considered peers.

I don't agree.

My argument was, that if N/S was a strong pair, North has declined the option to bid 3♣. So for me it would be interesting, how many strong players that would bid 3♣ with a good raise. Thus I'd have to poll this hand, and another containing a stronger raise.

[bluejak]

Quote

I assume you mean E/W asked the TD to look at North's 4♦ bid.

Yes, sorry.

Quote

Is this even possible in a Swiss Pairs, where everyone plays copies of the same boards at the same time? Who will you poll?

At the end of a match you have 440 pairs who have played the board and will not play it again. Not difficult to find someone!

Quote

Is this IMPs or MPs. Swiss Pairs can be either form of scoring or possibly something completely different.

Good point: Swiss Pairs in the UK is always MPs.

[TimG]

cherdanno, on Aug 15 2009, 04:13 AM, said:

With a void in their suit and playing matchpoints, I as North would certainly guess that partner was thinking about doubling them. I do no think 4♦ is suggested by the UI.

I agree.

[peachy]

This is similar scenario as in you Case 1. If it had been Dbl instead of 4D, that could be trying to cater to UI, covering all bases. However, I think it is clear (to me, that is) to bid 4D with or without partner's hesitation. Maybe this could be a hand to poll before ruling, but really I think 4D should be allowed.

[Fluffy]

polling is nto easy when everyone will tell you that they don't ever pass 1NT

[Cascade]

At Matchpoints it is much more likely that south was thinking of doubling - up from somewhere near 0% at IMPs.

[awm]

I don't think north is ever passing 3♥ on this auction. The 4♦ bid seems like the only logical choice. Of course, a poll of players could prove me wrong.

[McBruce]

bluejak, on Aug 15 2009, 03:17 AM, said:

Quote

Is this [polling] even possible in a Swiss Pairs, where everyone plays copies of the same boards at the same time? Who will you poll?

At the end of a match you have 440 pairs who have played the board and will not play it again. Not difficult to find someone!

Isn't it better though to poll players who haven't seen the deal? Hard to get an clean answer from people who know the hand and already know what makes and what doesn't.

[Cyberyeti]

awm, on Aug 15 2009, 05:00 PM, said:

I don't think north is ever passing 3♥ on this auction. The 4♦ bid seems like the only logical choice. Of course, a poll of players could prove me wrong.

4D is likely to be very good opposite as little as xx, xxxx, KJxxx, xx and I would be bidding 4C rather than 4D to give partner the chance to bid 5 with any two of ♦AK or the black aces.

Partner's hesitation indicates to me nothing other than that he has 4 hearts and is thinking of doubling 3H. This is neutral to bad as far as bidding on is concerned as it reduces the number of useful high cards he will hold.

So I don't think the hesitation suggests bidding on, it does suggest doubling.

No adjustment