[Chris L]

In a weekly duplicate of average club standard you hold, at green, Jxx Kx 9xxxx Axx. LHO opens 1H as dealer and the bidding continues (2D)-4H-(P)-P-(5D)-P-(P)-5H-(P)-P to you. Needless to say, partner has "tanked" over 5H. Your call?

[nige1]

Chris L, on Sep 23 2010, 01:51 PM, said:

In a weekly duplicate of average club standard you hold, at green, Jxx Kx 9xxxx Axx. LHO opens 1H as dealer and the bidding continues (2D)-4H-(P)-P-(5D)-P-(P)-5H-(P)-P to you. Needless to say, partner has "tanked" over 5H. Your call?

IMO, the director should

• If possible, find peers of the player, who
  • Are unfamiliar with the board, the result, or the call actually made
    
  • But approve of the player's calls prior to the allegedly illegal call.
  
  
• Ask each of them to suggest logical alternatives.
  
• Add the call actually made to the list of all suggested alternatives.
  
• Ask the sample to rank this augmented list.
  
• Tell them about the unauthorised information (UI).
  
• Ask them to rank the list, again, pretending that the UI is, in fact, authorised.
  
• If the rank of the chosen call improves relative to the alternatives and it was more successful, then consider an adjusted score.
  
• If all this is impracticable, the director should go through this procedure in his head.
  
• If you substitute "call or play" for "call", then this protocol can be used for UI in general.

The advantage of such a protocol is that the alleged offender will not be automatically ruled against, no matter what alternative he chooses. Here I think Pass, Double, 6♣ and 6♦ are logical alternatives. It seems likely that partner's hesitation was about making a call, other than pass, with extra strength or shape. Even if you would normally bid 6♣ or 6♦, you should now pass. It is also possible he was thinking of doubling. IMO that precludes you from doubling too. Hence you should pass.

[campboy]

At pairs, pass almost without looking at my hand. No point taking a "sacrifice" in 6♦ when even if it is right others may be saving one level lower.

[Pict]

Double

[lamford]

Did we really pass over 4H with five-card diamond suit? If so, it might be tough to find an adequate number of peers to poll now, although when I next go down to Wales I can call in at the hospital for the criminally insane near Reading and poll some of the inmates.

Partner might have something like Ax void AKQxxxx KJxx for his bidding and I don't think pass is an LA. I would be bidding 6D expecting to have a shot at making it. But then I would have supported diamonds on each of the previous two rounds, so my opinion is worthless in assessing LAs.

[jallerton]

nige1, on Sep 23 2010, 08:31 PM, said:

Chris L, on Sep 23 2010, 01:51 PM, said:

In a weekly duplicate of average club standard you hold, at green, Jxx Kx 9xxxx Axx. LHO opens 1H as dealer and the bidding continues (2D)-4H-(P)-P-(5D)-P-(P)-5H-(P)-P to you. Needless to say, partner has "tanked" over 5H. Your call?

IMO, the director should .......

You were asked what you would call as a player in this position.

Players cannot call the TD and ask him to conduct a poll!

[nige1]

Chris L, on Sep 23 2010, 01:51 PM, said:

In a weekly duplicate of average club standard you hold, at green, Jxx Kx 9xxxx Axx. LHO opens 1H as dealer and the bidding continues (2D)-4H-(P)-P-(5D)-P-(P)-5H-(P)-P to you. Needless to say, partner has "tanked" over 5H. Your call?

nige1, on Sep 23 2010, 08:31 PM, said:

IMO, the director should .......

jallerton, on Sep 23 2010, 04:48 PM, said:

You were asked what you would call as a player in this position. Players cannot call the TD and ask him to conduct a poll!

IMO, the player should go through a similar mental routine to that recommended for the director (explained in the bit that jallerton snipped) I concluded that the player should pass, and explained how the player might arrive at that conclusion

[jdonn]

lamford, on Sep 23 2010, 03:20 PM, said:

Partner might have something like Ax void AKQxxxx KJxx for his bidding and I don't think pass is an LA.

Even if I ignore what a strange call 2♦ would be on that hand (playing 2♦ with a cold grand slam if partner has Axxxxx of clubs and out?) only a corpse wouldn't double 5♥. And even then the corpse would be ashamed of himself.

[Codo]

I like Nigels procedure, but I am no peer of these guys, cause I had never passed 4 ♥ and I am not able to think what I would do now after I did.

[Chris L]

Scoring: MP

---

This was the full hand. At the table, W bid 6D which was one off; on a H lead, ruffed, and SA at T2, it might even make if S isn't awake enough to unblock SQ.

NS reserved their rights; as North was the TD on the night, it was agreed that I would give a ruling - I often play (and direct) at the club in question but am stuck at home at the moment with a broken leg!

My immediate reaction, like Campboy, was to pass - partly because I can't be doing with all the grief that bidding on in this situation seems to generate. At the table, like one or two others who have replied, I wouldn't have had the problem in the first place as I would have bid 5D on the previous round - and, as E on the actual auction, I would probably have bid 4S over 4H. I consulted an occasional partner, whose standard is way above that at the club and he, like Lamford, thought 6D was near automatic - first because he considered 5H almost certain to make and secondly because 6D was bound to be cheap and might even make on a good day. Whether any or all of these thought processes occurred to the actual West I don't know.

So far we have had at least one vote each for Pass, 6D and double. Personally, I would have thought that the one bid demonstrably suggested by the UI is double - surely E can't have been thinking of bidding 6D?

[nige1]

Codo, on Sep 24 2010, 02:29 AM, said:

I like Nigels procedure, but I am no peer of these guys, cause I had never passed 4 ♥ and I am not able to think what I would do now after I did.

Good point Codo (also made by Paul Lamford). I've taken the liberty of modifying the protocol to include this important consideration.

[ggwhiz]

I too doubt you would find any peers that haven't bid 5♦ already and I would have bid 4♠ over 4♥ (with the other hand) as well. Not the kind of auction you can poll anybody on.

That said, double is the most flexible call that caters to whatever partner was thinking about. I would find that bid distasteful and dissallow it.

On the other hand, the 6♦ bid is of the all eggs in one basket type that is surely NOT what partner was thinking of.

Given the no peers for this auction up to that point as per logical alternatives, I want to allow it as an honest attempt that carries an honest risk.

[Pict]

ggwhiz, on Sep 25 2010, 03:14 PM, said:

I too doubt you would find any peers that haven't bid 5♦ already and I would have bid 4♠ over 4♥ (with the other hand) as well. Not the kind of auction you can poll anybody on.

That said, double is the most flexible call that caters to whatever partner was thinking about. I would find that bid distasteful and dissallow it.

On the other hand, the 6♦ bid is of the all eggs in one basket type that is surely NOT what partner was thinking of.

Given the no peers for this auction up to that point as per logical alternatives, I want to allow it as an honest attempt that carries an honest risk.

So you think partner after 4D/5D/pause was not thinking of 6D?

[ggwhiz]

I think a double is FAR more likely followed by a second suit and 6♦ least likely to explain the hitch.

Given my length in that suit, pard doesn't know I've killed his presumed defence and has a lot of stuff of some kind to go to the 5-level on their own.

The actual hand is a distributional freak that on some days (with a little tweaking of the high cards) may be better off in 5♠ but I would have bid that suit already.

On an auction that I can't relate to, our bidder certainly thought pass was not a logical alternative and took the least flexible action. I like the ethics behind that.

[Pict]

Fair enough, just a difference of opinion/evaluation.

Looking at East's hand and the auction, double would be the furthest thought from my mind. I would say that East, prematurely assuming the death of his moribund partner, took his time to review the auction and consider the risks of bidding on before passing.

I replied to the OP as if I were being polled by a TD - I assume Lamford did too, and perhaps the OP's expert friend, but I don't know.

I would always double finding myself in the kind of position West is in (without the BIT). Whether I would have bid 5D as West or 4S as East is interesting enough in a parallel universe.

And with the BIT? Not sure bit too late in the thread to get into that, but if I was TD I'd take some convincing that 6D could stand.

[lamford]

jdonn, on Sep 23 2010, 05:56 PM, said:

lamford, on Sep 23 2010, 03:20 PM, said:

Partner might have something like Ax void AKQxxxx KJxx for his bidding and I don't think pass is an LA.

Even if I ignore what a strange call 2♦ would be on that hand (playing 2♦ with a cold grand slam if partner has Axxxxx of clubs and out?) only a corpse wouldn't double 5♥. And even then the corpse would be ashamed of himself.

But West's actions already suggest that it is the annual Cemetery Pairs Championship. Also, if West is Brother Anthony, then Pass now is the only LA.

I presume you prefer an original double on the hand I suggested.