[ArtK78]

Playing in a Sectional matchpoint pairs event, you hold, at all vul, a 17 HCP 3-2-3-6 hand including the AKQTxx of clubs. You open 1NT (15-17 HCP) and hear the auction go double on your left (alerted and explained as a single-suited hand (DONT)), pass by partner and 2♣ on your right. You double, and LHO bids 2♥. Partner thinks for a considerable period of time before passing (everyone acknowledged that there was a break in tempo). RHO passes.

If you bid 3♣ now, can that bid be permitted under these circumstances?

At the table, my LHO did bid 3♣ which was the final contract. The TD was called as soon as the call was made and we were told to continue the auction and to call him back if there was a problem. Dummy hit with an 8 count (not a surprise). The result was making 130 while 2♥ would have been down one (presumably undoubled).

After considerable deliberation, the directing staff ruled that the result of 130 stood. I was planning to appeal but the result of the event made the appeal unnecessary (our standing would not have improved if we were be awarded with -100 instead of -130).

I would appreciate your thoughts on the ruling.

[pran]

You don't indicate how many playing tricks your LHO had outside his club suit, but with a solid 6-card suit and assuming at least two outside playing tricks I think that the 3♣ bid should be accepted. The only problem with this ruling is that an appeal in case will have to come from the non-offending side rather than from the offending side, something we try to avoid.

Note that I would be less likely to accept the 3♣ bid with a shorter or less solid club suit.

[blackshoe]

We tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the NOS, but I don't think that equates to trying to avoid having them appeal. They have as much right to do so as anyone.

[ArtK78]

I don't understand the discussion of offending side vs. non-offending side.

My LHO is the 1NT opener and the one who bid 3♣. It was his partner (my RHO) who thought for a long time over my partner's 2♥ call before passing. The 1NT bidder's side was the offending side. My side was the one that would have appealed the directors' ruling if it were not for the fact that it was irrelevant to the result of the event.

[duschek]

pran, on Jan 10 2010, 05:57 PM, said:

The only problem with this ruling is that an appeal in case will have to come from the non-offending side rather than from the offending side, something we try to avoid.

Depending on who "we" are. There used to exist a practice that if the TD was at all in doubt, he should automatically rule in favour of the non-offending side and let a committee sort it out, the reasoning probably being that the TD could not be expected to be capable of handling judgement cases nearly as well as committees.

The Danish Bridge Federation have made it clear that the TD should always try to reach the correct ruling, even if it is debatable and could be seen as being in favour of the offending side (I believe this is also current WBF/EBL practice).

[jeremy69]

This might well be the sort of hand that, if polled, the vast majority would bid 3C on now(maybe they wouldn't have opend 1NT in the first place!) and if the poll shows this then 3C should be allowed however long the hesitation.

[Codo]

I agree that 3 club at MPs is so clear that you must allow it. If partner has fewer points, you have a nice sac against a making 2 Heart.

[blackshoe]

ArtK78, on Jan 10 2010, 11:58 PM, said:

I don't understand the discussion of offending side vs. non-offending side.

My LHO is the 1NT opener and the one who bid 3♣. It was his partner (my RHO) who thought for a long time over my partner's 2♥ call before passing. The 1NT bidder's side was the offending side. My side was the one that would have appealed the directors' ruling if it were not for the fact that it was irrelevant to the result of the event.

Yes, that's precisely the point. Sven suggested that we don't want to "force" you to appeal to get a favorable ruling. I suppose the corollary to that is that we want to "force" the offending side to appeal. But current best practice, as duschek points out, is that the TD should do his best to make the correct ruling, not routinely leaving it up to a committee to fix things.

In the instant case, it seems pretty clear that the correct ruling was given at the table, so while you might have appealed, I don't think a committee would have overturned the TD.

[bluejak]

pran, on Jan 10 2010, 11:57 PM, said:

You don't indicate how many playing tricks your LHO had outside his club suit, but with a solid 6-card suit and assuming at least two outside playing tricks I think that the 3♣ bid should be accepted. The only problem with this ruling is that an appeal in case will have to come from the non-offending side rather than from the offending side, something we try to avoid.

I am not sure who "we" are. True, up to about 25 years ago, there was a principle of ruling in favour of the side that caused the problem initially, called the "offending side" for non-logical reasons. But that is a dead duck nowadays, when TDs are expected to rule as they think correct.

[jdonn]

jeremy69, on Jan 11 2010, 03:35 AM, said:

This might well be the sort of hand that, if polled, the vast majority would bid 3C on now(maybe they wouldn't have opend 1NT in the first place!) and if the poll shows this then 3C should be allowed however long the hesitation.

You should only include people who would have opened 1NT in the first place in your poll. Otherwise they aren't "peers" of the player at the table.

[bluejak]

I think 'might' rather than 'would'. For that matter, I think some players can put themselves in others' shoes: if you thought a 1NT opening correct, what would you do now? sort of approach.

[iviehoff]

I'm assuming 2C was pass or correct, and double was "bid something partner".

I agree with Sven (pran's) analysis as far as it goes. But I bet often the 1N opener can't reasonably rely on 2 tricks outside clubs. If opener isn't looking at a fair chance of 8 tricks on his own, and partner can have practically nothing (without the UI) on this auction, then I think the director should adjust.

But I'm wondering whether 1N's partner can have practically nothing on this auction. I live in weak no trump land and have never encountered defences such as DONT. So I'm wondering whether the legal auction tells the 1N opener the same as the UI, ie, that 1N's partner is not without resources. After all, if partner effectively has nothing, then with their 20+ points concentrated into 3 suits, it seems a bit surprising that the opposition bidding petered out so quickly.

[ArtK78]

There are a number of assumptions that lie behind the application of DONT.

The primary assumption is that, given that the 1NT opener shows 15-17 HCP, the DONT partnership is not attempting to reach a game (game may be reached if a massive fit is discovered). It is the object of the side using DONT to find a fit and get out of the auction. Therefore, one 1NT opener does not have any inference about the combined assets of the opposition, and, therefore, no inference about the assets of the partner of the 1NT opener.

So, one cannot assume that just because the opposition used DONT that partner has some values. It is entirely possible that partner is completely broke.

I have seen some partnerships that use DONT against weak NT openings, but it was designed for use against strong NT openings (and, quite frankly, it makes little sense to use DONT against weak NT openings because game is not out of the question against weak NT openings and the fact that DONT does not use a double to show values).

The acronym DONT stands for Disturb Opponents' No Trump. The concept behind DONT is that it pays to interfere over the opponents' 1NT opening as it puts the 1NT opening side on unfamiliar ground, and they are less likely to find their optimum contract. I believe that DONT was invented by Marty Bergen, although Larry Cohen may have had some (a lot?) of input. Wikipedia attributes DONT entirely to Marty Bergen.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Jan 11 2010, 01:46 PM, said:

I think 'might' rather than 'would'. For that matter, I think some players can put themselves in others' shoes: if you thought a 1NT opening correct, what would you do now? sort of approach.

Maybe, but I'm pretty uncomfortable judging who those players are, or even worse trusting them if they tell me they can fairly put themselves in another's shoes. But yes, at least players who think opening 1NT is reasonable should be the ones considered.

[nige1]

ArtK78, on Jan 10 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

Playing in a Sectional matchpoint pairs event, you hold, at all vul, a 17 HCP 3-2-3-6 hand including the AKQTxx of clubs.  You open 1NT (15-17 HCP) and hear the auction go double on your left (alerted and explained as a single-suited hand (DONT)), pass by partner and 2♣ on your right.  You double, and LHO bids 2♥.  Partner thinks for a considerable period of time before passing (everyone acknowledged that there was a break in tempo).  RHO passes.
If you bid 3♣ now, can that bid be permitted under these circumstances?
At the table, my LHO did bid 3♣ which was the final contract.  The TD was called as soon as the call was made and we were told to continue the auction and to call him back if there was a problem.  Dummy hit with an 8 count (not a surprise).  The result was making 130 while 2♥ would have been down one (presumably undoubled).
After considerable deliberation, the directing staff ruled that the result of 130 stood.  I was planning to appeal but the result of the event made the appeal unnecessary (our standing would not have improved if we were be awarded with -100 instead of -130).
I would appreciate your thoughts on the ruling.

As JDonn says, the director should poll players who would open 1N on the given hand; and then play penalty doubles of opponents' bids (I play take-out doubles). If pass and 3♣ both turn out to be logical alternatives, the director should also ask what the hesitation suggests.

FWIW, IMO,

• Pass is logical alternative (because your double has already shown ♣ and extra values).
  
• 3♣ is suggested by the hesitation.
  
• Opponents are damaged.
  
• Hence, IMO, the director should change the score to 2♥-1.

Although the result of this board may not affect ArtK78, it may improve his opponents' result. One problem with law that restores the status quo, rather than actively deters, is that it encourages and rewards infractions. Those not in contention often fail to report infractions and hardly ever appeal.

[mycroft]

Nigel, what do you play over 2C "Pass or correct"? Is it still takeout? Nobody's yet shown clubs (and yes, takeout is still reasonable, but it's not necessarily "their suit", so your agreement may be different there).

The other thing against DONT vs weak NT is that it's designed to find a safe fit, not a good fit; so when both 2m and 2M make, the DONT players will be more likely to be in 2m. Against a strong NT, where you're gambling that -50 or -100 are going to beat -90, -110 or -120 (and who know, you may, in fact, make; or they may be +170 or +150 where they would be +420 or +400 if we pass), that's a reasonable compromise (especially as the other danger with DONT (as Bergen plays it, and as I think one should) is that you could easily be -800 into -400 too). Against a weak NT, first you have to stiffen up your overcalls because of the chance for game; but then the choice of partscores comes to bite you even more.

On topic (for a change, I hear people say), I am personally not happy with the people who think that they can bid 1NT with a 5-card suit and then bid their 5-card suit after interference - 1NT-2D (diamonds and a major)-p-p-2H. It's unsafe, but almost always works, and frequently there's a hitch from responder that makes it clear that there'll be some support. With a 6-card suit, I think it's safer to show a balanced hand that's actually a one-suiter; but three shots at it? If the X of 2C shows clubs, then I'll only allow 3C if responder has been a good little boy and bids in tempo. Unfortunately, the hitch has put paid to the takeout X, too (which I think is a better call, but they probably don't play).

It does seem that a semi-solid suit isn't worth any extra points with these guys; if I thought that was a balanced hand (and I probably would), it would be a balanced 18 at least. I can understand the wanting to keep bidding the same cards - it comes from massively underbidding the hand to begin with. But I don't think I'm happy with 3C.

[nige1]

mycroft, on Jan 14 2010, 02:00 PM, said:

Nigel, what do you play over 2C "Pass or correct"?  Is it still takeout?  Nobody's yet shown clubs  (and yes, takeout is still reasonable, but it's not necessarily "their suit", so your agreement may be different there).

After 1N (2♣=pass/correct) I play T/O doubles by both opener and responder. Not that it matters, because, obviously this 1N opener's X was penalty.

Anyway I agree with Mycroft that pass may be a logical alternative to 3♣, for a player who judged this enormous hand to be a 1N opener and has already shown a club suit and extra values.

[ArtK78]

nige1, on Jan 11 2010, 07:05 PM, said:

Although the result of this board may not affect ArtK78, it may improve his opponents' result. One problem with law that restores the status quo, rather than actively deters, is that it encourages and rewards infractions. Those not in contention often fail to report infractions and hardly ever appeal.

While the director in charge told me that it did not effect my result, and he did not tell me if it affected the result of anyone else in the event, I suspect that he would have done so as he is one of the better directors around.

I know that the pair in question did not finish in the top 6 of the open field or in the top 2 of their restricted field (A/X strata for those who understand what that means).

By the way, since my unit posted the hand records of the event I was able to locate the board. I held the West hand. Here is the whole hand with the bidding at the table:

Scoring: MP

1NT - x* - P - 2♣**
x - 2♥ - P*** - P
3♣ - All Pass
* - single suited hand (DONT)
** - semi-automatic
*** - break-in-tempo

---