[Phil]

Matchpoints

---

Thanks

Edit - its matchpoints. I remember typing that into a comments portion of the diagram and I wonder why it didn't show up.

(Edit by Inquiry: Phil, I have added matchpoints to the comment section. If you edit this post again, you will see how you can edit a file to add comments if something like this happens again. Add an upward slash after the last number, then type in your comments).

[sfi]

Double looks clear.

[bluejak]

Perhaps someone would like to explain this - quickly, before I delete or move this thread! It looks like a bridge query, in which case it is in the wrong place, this forum being for simple rulings. If the question is because there is a ruling depending on it it would help to say so.

[sfi]

The reason it's here, I presume, is because partner hesitated before passing over 2♥, and the original poster did not want to prejudice the survey.

[Cascade]

This may depend on the form of scoring.

At IMPs I would not dream of balancing with such poor offerings for alternative strains.

At MPs perhaps the frequency of good things happening compared with bad things may convince me to double over pass. Bidding diamonds seems to unilateral.

[iviehoff]

sfi, on 2010-November-01, 07:47, said:

The reason it's here, I presume, is because partner hesitated before passing over 2♥, and the original poster did not want to prejudice the survey.

Except by putting it in this forum, we all guess why it is here, and the prejudice isn't avoided.

It would have been good to give vulnerabilities as well as scoring. We can guess NT range, but it would be nice not to guess.

[Cascade]

iviehoff, on 2010-November-01, 08:41, said:

Except by putting it in this forum, we all guess why it is here, and the prejudice isn't avoided.

It would have been good to give vulnerabilities as well as scoring. We can guess NT range, but it would be nice not to guess.

The 1NT range is given. There is an alert on 1NT. If you click it you will see 15-17.

[wyman]

I'll definitely X at MPs (with or without hesitation) and at IMPs I think it's much closer. I think P and X are both fine at IMPs, and if (as conjectured) partner hesitated over 2H, I would pass.

[Phil]

bluejak, on 2010-November-01, 06:48, said:

Perhaps someone would like to explain this - quickly, before I delete or move this thread! It looks like a bridge query, in which case it is in the wrong place, this forum being for simple rulings. If the question is because there is a ruling depending on it it would help to say so.

Hi David:

When you poll a someone's peer about a possible action, do you say, "oh, you should know that your partner hitched before passing"

I thought so.

[paulg]

I'd pass and would not consider any other call.

[bluejak]

Phil, on 2010-November-01, 09:16, said:

Hi David:

When you poll a someone's peer about a possible action, do you say, "oh, you should know that your partner hitched before passing"

I thought so.

Of course not. But I would be polite, so I would naturally indicate that I was asking them as a TD. I do not care what the problem is, so long as it is Laws-related, but not everyone on the internet actually does things perfectly correctly [irony, that was]. Every other post that has been put here where someone is going on to ask something Laws-related except this one has said so, therefore there was at least a reasonable presumption that it might be in the wrong place and need to be moved.

[karlson]

I normally think I'm as aggressive as anyone in these spots, and I would pass with this hand.

[matmat]

Pass. Put a diamond in with my spades and I'll think about it more.

[Phil]

Not surprisingly, North did tank pass over 2♥. She held: KJTx AKJ QJx Kxx.

Even though this is the Laws section, I think you can get a surprisingly unbiased view. Many of us pull up "view new posts" and do not notice the section the post is in, and I tried to make the title innocuous. This seems parallel with a director approaching you about a hand at a tournament. I'm pretty sure he is not asking you advice about bidding

3♦ was -1 on sharp defense - I think the defense needs to get active in clubs early. But 2♥ is an easy make so I adjusted to -110 NS.

[Cascade]

They bid 3♦?

[campboy]

paulg, on 2010-November-01, 10:02, said:

I'd pass and would not consider any other call.

+1

[sfi]

IMO, the hesitation suggests for partner to balance with a double. If there were logical alternatives (and from the straw poll here it seems that pass is one) then I would not allow that.

On the other hand, I cannot see an argument for why the hesitation suggests 3♦, so I would rule that the table score stands.

Seeing the actual hand, the hesitation may well have been "what do I do now that I've found the extra king," but that is irrelevant to the decision.

[Cascade]

sfi, on 2010-November-01, 13:43, said:

IMO, the hesitation suggests for partner to balance with a double. If there were logical alternatives (and from the straw poll here it seems that pass is one) then I would not allow that.

On the other hand, I cannot see an argument for why the hesitation suggests 3♦, so I would rule that the table score stands.

Seeing the actual hand, the hesitation may well have been "what do I do now that I've found the extra king," but that is irrelevant to the decision.

I don't see why the hesitation necessarily suggests double over 3♦.

For some players double would be takeout by the no trump opener so a slow Pass may suggest a dodgy takeout double.

Partner suggesting taking a bid (or double) suggest that we act with marginal hands and we will often find potentially useful values. This suggest both 3♦ and double over pass.

[sfi]

Cascade, on 2010-November-01, 17:02, said:

I don't see why the hesitation necessarily suggests double over 3♦.

For some players double would be takeout by the no trump opener so a slow Pass may suggest a dodgy takeout double.

A slow pass most likely suggests possible interest in penalty, IMO. In any case, it gives partner a second opportunity to act on whatever they were thinking of doing, hence why I would disallow it (given that others think that pass is a LA here).

Quote

Partner suggesting taking a bid (or double) suggest that we act with marginal hands and we will often find potentially useful values. This suggest both 3♦ and double over pass.

Partner's strength is so closely defined that we know we have half the deck. I would need to see an argument that 3♦ is more likely to gain than without the hesitation to disallow the bid - it is the most committal action possible, and doesn't cater for a number of reasons that partner might hesitate:

- opening 1NT with 5 spades
- penalty double
- top of the range with 4-3-3-3

It only caters for the dodgy takeout double.

The fact that 3♦ works is not, in itself, a reason to disallow it.

[barmar]

iviehoff, on 2010-November-01, 08:41, said:

Except by putting it in this forum, we all guess why it is here, and the prejudice isn't avoided.

It would have been good to give vulnerabilities as well as scoring. We can guess NT range, but it would be nice not to guess.

The vulnerability is indicated by the coloring of the compass directions in the bidding diagram. EW are vulnerable (red), NS are non-vul (white).