[jeremy69]

Quote

Only Jeremy thought that the break in tempo suggested anything very clear - a hand that was thinking about raising a NF 3♣ - which would suggest that bidding 5♣ would be successful. None of the others answered with any certainty that bidding 5♣ was more likely to be successful opposite the hesitation than it would have been opposite an in-tempo pass.

I think you misquote me a bit. what I think I said was that it was most likely the BIT suggested bidding on with 4C rather than 5 or 3NT being the likely runners.

[gordontd]

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to misquote you.

[lamford]

gordontd, on Oct 5 2009, 02:09 AM, said:

Quote

I agree with bluejak that the slow pass of 3C suggests North was probably considering raising - but thought it was non-forcing;

I don't know whether or not he thinks that, but I don't think he said so above.

He wrote: "Partner could believe 3♣ is non-forcing but is wondering whether to raise it to 4♣."

This suggests to me that he believes this to be a likely cause of the BIT, and my point was that this demonstrably suggests 5C is more likely to be successful.

[MFA]

lamford, on Oct 6 2009, 06:20 PM, said:

gordontd, on Oct 5 2009, 02:09 AM, said:

Quote

I agree with bluejak that the slow pass of 3C suggests North was probably considering raising - but thought it was non-forcing;

I don't know whether or not he thinks that, but I don't think he said so above.

He wrote: "Partner could believe 3♣ is non-forcing but is wondering whether to raise it to 4♣."

suggests to me that he believes this to be a likely cause of the BIT, and my point was that this demonstrably suggests 5C is more likely to be successful.

I think that there is a general agreement that partner's thinking of raising a (what-he-thought-was-a) NF 3♣ is a likely cause of the BIT here.

But there are other likely causes, some of which might point in the other direction.

We need to make a full judgement, taking into accout all possible causes and their relative weights.

[lamford]

gordontd, on Oct 5 2009, 02:39 AM, said:

What I thought needed to be considered was whether the 5 ♣ bid was demonstrably suggested by the break in tempo.

OK, I can buy your argument that 5C is not demonstrably suggested, although I prefer that of those that argue that "demonstrably suggested" means "made more attractive".

But I would not agree that bidding 5C does "carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information." I would agree that North could indeed have been thinking about giving preference to a doubleton heart; 5C tells him neatly that the 6-2 club fit may well play as well as the 5-2 heart fit (and partner is sure to have at least two clubs). If North was considering bidding 3NT, then he could well be 4-2-5-2 or 4-2-4-3 when 5C should play well. And if he thought it was non-forcing but was wondering whether to raise it anyway, either just in case, or because he was suitable, then 5C should fare well.

So, I have to disagree with your decision, but can see the logic which you applied.

[bluejak]

I suggest a possibility: I did not say I thought it was the only possibility nor that it was the most likely possibility. I think this is a situation where partner could be thinking of about five or so different things.



We are beginning to get an unfortunate use of the term "demonstrably suggested". Of course it is just because people shorten things - I often do myself - but here the meaning has shifted.

Is 5♣ "demonstrably suggested"? I neither know nor care, because that is not what the Law asks. We disallow a 5♣ call not if it is "demonstrably suggested", but if it is "demonstrably suggested over an LA", which is different. So it matters not whether the UI suggests 5♣ particularly, but if the UI suggests 5♣ over 4♣ and 4♣ is an LA, then we disallow 5♣.