[Mbodell]

Scoring: MP

P - P - 1♣ - P
1♠ - P - 1nt - P
2nt* - P - P - P

Opening lead ♥6

---

EW play 15-17 opening 1nt. There was a long agreed hesitation before the 2nt. Opening lead went to the Q and K and then after running spades and 3 clubs declarer played a ♥ to the 9 and south won the AJ♥ but played the 4th heart which meant declarer took 9 tricks. Most of the field played 1nt+2 for +120, although there were a few +150 and a +400.

Q1: Is the pass over 2nt a LA suggested by the hesitation?

Q2: Is the defense by N/S bad enough to warrant a wild and gambling no adjustment?

Q3: If you rule that 2nt is a LA suggested by the hesitation and make E bid 3nt, do you rule that since most people only took 8 tricks this is down 1 or do you rule that since E/W took 9 tricks in this different, but very related contract, that they'd make 3nt at this table and thus you give no adjustment since the adjusted score would be worse for the non-offenders than the table result?

[hotShot]

I miss a very important question:

Was the NOS damaged?
I would say they where not. They got the normal result.
If the OS would bid 3NT, they would have gotten a worse result.

Unless they give me a very good explanation why they would lead differently when RHO bids 3NT, I don't see a reason for the TD to take actions.

No damage => no adjustment

[Mbodell]

hotShot, on Feb 1 2010, 01:10 AM, said:

I miss a very important question:

Was the NOS damaged?
I would say they where not. They got the normal result.
If the OS would bid 3NT, they would have gotten a worse result.

That's what I was trying to ask with Q3. Which it sounds like you are ruling "no adjustment to 3nt b/c NOS would have received -400, and never +50, instead of -150".

Quote

Unless they give me a very good explanation why they would lead differently when RHO bids 3NT, I don't see a reason for the TD to take actions.

It isn't the opening lead that is the problem, it is the continuation in the end position where S needs to keep the ♦9 and play K9 rather than playing the 4th round of hearts (or before the 3rd round of hearts if partner kept the heart).

[hotShot]

To think about a score adjustment you have to answer all of the following questions with yes:
1) Was there UI?
2) Was the UI used?
3) Was there damage?
4) Was the damage caused by the UI?

This is: Yes, Yes, No =>
Here we have no damage, so there is no case.

[aguahombre]

yes, probably --since opener is max and did not accept the invite.
yes
N/A

Since opener has displayed all 14 of his alleged 12 HCP, South's leading of the fourth heart was just plain silly. Probably best to forget it, and not let the Director or anyone else know how bad the defense was.

[bluejak]

Let us just make sure we know what you have agreed to. East has apparently used UI, and you are not going to adjust for him because of a very poor defence. Are you sure this is right?

I have no problem with N/S keeping their table score, but I think you might reconsider whether to adjust for E/W.

[hotShot]

Mbodell, on Feb 1 2010, 09:48 AM, said:

Most of the field played 1nt+2 for +120, although there were a few +150 and a +400.

I've missed the (right) typo and expected 9 tricks to be almost sure.

On review I won't object to correct the E/W score.

[MFA]

Sorry, but would somebody please explain to me why it would be possible to adjust the score in this case?

And if it is indeed possible, why only for E/W?

I mean, there was no issue about the card play, and E/W made nine tricks. So if anything, using UI actually hurt them since they would have got 400 in 3NT. Why should we overrule the card play?

South made a gross error (blackout) but such is life. If E/W had made only 8 tricks for 120, then I see a case, not now.

[hotShot]

If we think that EW used the UI, than not bidding 3NT and going down, was an advantage for them (over the other EW pairs).
If we don't want EW to benefit from the infraction, we need to correct their score.

[MFA]

hotShot, on Feb 3 2010, 01:06 AM, said:

If we think that EW used the UI, than not bidding 3NT and going down, was an advantage for them (over the other EW pairs).
If we don't want EW to benefit from the infraction, we need to correct their score.

Yes, but why do you think that E/W would have gone down in 3NT? They made 9 tricks. What part of the defense would have been easier against 3NT?

[hotShot]

If NS would not have made a gross error, EW would have made 8 tricks as most of the other NS pairs did.

If NS did not make a gross error, than we would need to correct the score to 3NT-1 for both sides.

We won't award NS the NOS, but we won't award the OS side either.
So we need to give a split score.

[barmar]

No split scores in ACBL, I believe.

[Elianna]

barmar, on Feb 2 2010, 08:31 PM, said:

No split scores in ACBL, I believe.

I believe you can assign split scores (ACBLscore allows it, and I've seen appeals committees assign them), but what you can't do is assign percentages of scores. (Like assign a score that's 30% of one result and 70% of another)

[PhantomSac]

Elianna, on Feb 3 2010, 12:59 AM, said:

barmar, on Feb 2 2010, 08:31 PM, said:

No split scores in ACBL, I believe.

I believe you can assign split scores (ACBLscore allows it, and I've seen appeals committees assign them), but what you can't do is assign percentages of scores. (Like assign a score that's 30% of one result and 70% of another)

right

[iviehoff]

Normally we say that when a player makes an invitational bid with a meaningful hesitation, he is more likely to be concealing extra strength. Important word, "more likely", not "100% certain". So sometimes the hesitation is thin, but more often it is thick. In general, one should err on the side of refusing hesitant invitations.

Is the only reason that we are deciding that today the hesitation communicated a weak hand is because in fact he had one?

[hotShot]

There is no such thing as standard meaning of a hesitation. It has to be seen in the context of the bidding.
Responders bids where pass, 1♠, and 2NT. There is a clear upper limit from the initial pass. If he has been concealing strength, in his first pass, he would have an easy 2NT now. Openers strength is well defined (12-14), so hoping for extra strength in openers hand can't be a reason to hesitate either.
So this hesitation can only show a stretch.
Opener got the message as he did not move, with his (almost) maximum hand.

[Pict]

If the hesitation said 'only accept with an absolute max' then East did his best to avoid use of UI by not accepting.

If we adjust, then we are likely headed for punishing East whatever he does, if it happens to work.

[campboy]

Eh? The hesitation suggests partner is weaker than he might be, so it suggests passing. If he wanted to avoid use of UI, he should have bid 3NT; no-one would adjust then (even if it makes).

[Pict]

I understand the logic of encouraging opener to make his normal bid - and I would also advise him to do that here. However we all know that making your normal bid in possession of UI is not a reliable approach.

I am not suggesting that East thought this through successfully, just that I very much suspect that he may have tried to do the right thing.

Otherwise what is the point of partner inviting slowly at all if you will not accept with an absolute max.

[campboy]

I wasn't saying he should bid 3NT because it is his normal bid -- though it is -- but because it is the alternative which is not suggested by the UI.

If the UI suggests partner has a bad hand for his bid, as here, the way to avoid taking advantage is to act as though partner has a good hand for his bid.