[jvage]

Teams, N/S Vul, East dealer.

K982
KT84
A4
T93

This hand opens 2♦ Ekren (3-10 hp, 4+♥ and 4+♠) and E/W bid without interference:

East West
2♦ 2NT
3♣ 3♥
4♥ all pass

2NT was a relay and 3♣ showed exactly 44 majors and maximum (OT: These are not standard replies). Since this is posted in the Laws and Rulings forum you have probably already guessed that 3♥ was bid after an agreed hesitation. Of course 4♥ made (it was actually a poor game with 3NT far superior, West had AQ6, AQ6, K98, J762).

How would you rule?

John

[hotShot]

With weak hands West could just bid 2M, so 2NT must have a minimum strength of at least an opening.
Without knowing EW agreements about this minimum strength it's not possible to make a decision.

[bluejak]

Unless E/W are idiots, we can make an obvious guess about the minimum strength for 2NT: enough to go to game opposite some 2♦ openings.

Now, the reason for the problem is simple enough: do you argue that with 10 HCP and partner having game try values it is automatic to bid game because you are super-maximum? Or do you argue that despite the maximum in points partner could be [say] a 3-3 14 count and looking for game only with a 5-3 fit so pass of 3♥ is credible?

Whatever we decide - I would explain the position carefully then take a poll - I think the 4♥ bid naive: if I bid on over 3♥ I would bid 3NT.

Everyone I know who plays this plays a 3NT response as a 4-4 maximum so finds it difficult to stay out of game!

[gordontd]

West is the captain in this auction. Unless they have the agreement that an upper-range rebid after a 2NT enquiry creates a force, then I think Pass is a logical alternative - no matter how good (within range) the hand is.

Responder might have been looking for a five-card suit and a maximum for game, and signed off on that basis.

[jvage]

I don't know the E/W players or their system and style, I only got information from the appeals form. In their written statement they say that East got a clear raise with his supermaximum when West has showed game-interest. They have however no documentation of their system or tendencies (such as if 2NT could sometimes be a tactical bid with a weak hand and good fit).

N/S says 2NT could have been looking for more distribution or be a tactical bid.

John

[jeremy69]

After you have shown a maximum and partner has signed off I don't think you have any reason to bid on. I agree that a poll is appropriate. Put me down for pass being a logical alternative!

[Codo]

Pass is a LA, this looks so obvious that it hurts...

[CamHenry]

I must confess, I'm passing 3H. I've told partner I've got a maximum; if I didn't want to accept his decision I should have opened at the 1-level.

[peachy]

I think it is not possible to determine whether Pass is a LA because some pieces of information about their system is missing. It could be that 2NT bidder has the sole decision making power in this auction and has placed the contract (opener allowing 2NT to be a tactical bid) in which case Pass is 100% because it is systemic. Or it could be that 2NT combined with opener showing a maximum creates a gameforce in which case 4H or 3NT is 100% because it is systemic. Or it could be they have no agreement in which case Pass IMO is the legal call under UI constraints.

Let us assume the 2NT bidder had some used tram tickets for a hand and the auction went the same way with no hesitations [and no competition when neither opp has shape, just some points]. Then opener passes with this bigger than supermax, and it miraculously makes three. Surely there will be some who want to enforce a raise to game "because opener has supermax". Again, it is impossible to determine what the LA is without knowing their system.

[jvage]

peachy, on Apr 8 2010, 08:25 AM, said:

I think it is not possible to determine whether Pass is a LA because some pieces of information about their system is missing. It could be that 2NT bidder has the sole decision making power in this auction and has placed the contract (opener allowing 2NT to be a tactical bid) in which case Pass is 100% because it is systemic.  Or it could be that 2NT combined with opener showing a maximum creates a gameforce in which case 4H or 3NT is 100% because it is systemic.  Or it could be they have no agreement in which case Pass IMO is the legal call under UI constraints.

As often is the case the TD will have to rule with the information he got. I think we can safely assume that your second alternative is not relevant, if 3♥ was forcing they would have said so.

What they said was in effect a fourth alternative, that the sequence was invitational and that East should accept with supermaximum. They agreed about this, but it could be that the true answer is closer to your alternative 3. This would be my guess, that this was undiscussed, but that they had an implicit agreement as stated.

John

[peachy]

jvage, on Apr 8 2010, 08:52 AM, said:

peachy, on Apr 8 2010, 08:25 AM, said:

I think it is not possible to determine whether Pass is a LA because some pieces of information about their system is missing. It could be that 2NT bidder has the sole decision making power in this auction and has placed the contract (opener allowing 2NT to be a tactical bid) in which case Pass is 100% because it is systemic.  Or it could be that 2NT combined with opener showing a maximum creates a gameforce in which case 4H or 3NT is 100% because it is systemic.  Or it could be they have no agreement in which case Pass IMO is the legal call under UI constraints.

As often is the case the TD will have to rule with the information he got. I think we can safely assume that your second alternative is not relevant, if 3♥ was forcing they would have said so.

What they said was in effect a fourth alternative, that the sequence was invitational and that East should accept with supermaximum. They agreed about this, but it could be that the true answer is closer to your alternative 3. This would be my guess, that this was undiscussed, but that they had an implicit agreement as stated.

John

This is what you wrote earlier:
In their [EW's] written statement they say that East got a clear raise with his supermaximum when West has showed game-interest. They have however no documentation of their system or tendencies.

This seems a reasonable logical normal agreement, given the wide range of the 2D opening bid.

Not everyone carries the supporting written notes to the bridge table, and, not everyone even _has_ supporting notes of all agreements; some agreements indeed are implicit in nearly every partnership. So we adjust if we judge that EW does not have an agreement [meaning: we do not believe what they say on the appeals form] and we let result stand if we judge EW had an agreement [meaning: we believe what they say on the appeals form].

When there is no other evidence about their agreement than EW's statement, what does the TD or the AC normally do in such case?

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Apr 8 2010, 07:02 AM, said:

Unless E/W are idiots, we can make an obvious guess about the minimum strength for 2NT: enough to go to game opposite some 2♦ openings.

I suspect 2NT can be anything, maybe east is just operating / stealing / being deceptive without intending to bid game. Or maybe east needs a maximum with a 5 card suit for game. I don't know why we are guessing, nor do I find the guess obvious (in fact it's only obvious if they are actually idiots, not if they aren't).

Not only is pass an LA, it's likely the only one.

[gwnn]

I would pass at the table.

[jvage]

This was one of the cases we discussed in our last meeting in the National Laws and Appeals Committee, I plan to post a couple more when I have the time.

It seems this case was easier than I believed, of those who have expressed their opinion it seems all considers pass a LA, several even saying they would bid it.

The TD actually allowed the raise to 4♥ and did not consider pass a LA, N/S were the appealing side. A very strong player on the committee also originally did not think pass was a LA. Admittedly he considered 3NT clearly the correct call since the sequence indicates that partner got only 3 hearts (in any case he can correct to 4♥ with four). We could discuss what the best bid is unrestricted by UI, I also happen to think it is 3NT.

After some discussion we however agreed that pass was a LA and that the UI suggested further action which was successfullfully taken. The result was adjusted to 3♥+1.

John

[duschek]

Like the majority here, I definitely consider pass a LA.

Of course, E/W would always bid on with this hand. Their experience tells them it is right (they got the experience from this hand).

Of course there are those (impartial) who say they would also have bid 4♥ nearly always. However, I suspect what they mean is "I think it is a fair gamble" rather than "I think nearly no-one is going to pass".

[jdonn]

Frankly this is the type of problem where you are likely to get screwed if your director has inferior bridge knowledge / abilities. But there isn't much you can do about that.

[pran]

jdonn, on Apr 9 2010, 05:24 PM, said:

Frankly this is the type of problem where you are likely to get screwed if your director has inferior bridge knowledge / abilities. But there isn't much you can do about that.

Sure there is - you can appeal

[jdonn]

pran, on Apr 9 2010, 02:57 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 9 2010, 05:24 PM, said:

Frankly this is the type of problem where you are likely to get screwed if your director has inferior bridge knowledge / abilities. But there isn't much you can do about that.

Sure there is - you can appeal

Perhaps I wasn't clear. There is something you can do about getting a bad ruling. But there is nothing you can do about some directors not being (nearly) good enough at bridge to avoid issuing consistently bad rulings in cases like this.

[bluejak]

Not if the TD is arrogant enough to assume he knows what he is doing. But a TD who knows his bridge ability is poor will make a much greater effort than other TDs to rely on polls and consultation.