[ggwhiz]

I don't think pass is a logical alternative at mp's unless you ALWAYS look both ways before you cross the street.

3♦ is the least flexible option and may not work but double allowing partner to express exactly what their hesitation was about would be terrible. Sure it took the plodder out of the action but it's the kind of all eggs in one basket bid that is called for IF you agree that pass is not a LA for a player of this caliber at mp's.

Bidding 1nt instead of 1♦ is irrelevant and a reasonable tactic to shut out a major suit overcall or TO double anyway.

[Fluffy]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-06, 09:24, said:

I don't find Wank to have answered his own questions; just ours.

The "no"'s referred to whether the TD did a poll, not whether pass was a LA.

It was wanoff on the other thread.

[gszes]

While i am not overly happy with the "1N" bid--once I survive
that bid a 3d rebid over lho 2h is clearly indicated. The TD
did well not "penalizing" a clearly normal action. The funny part
about this to me is that if for some reason a pass (ick) instead
of a 3d call were made no TD is called and we never see this
hand. May the best lawyer win:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

[nige1]

wank, on 2013-September-06, 03:43, said:

a member of one the top 5 pairs in the world had this hand against me. any comments on his 3♦ call? i tried calling the director and appealing, but it was like talking to a brick wall. fwiw he was playing with a punter.

---

Perhaps Wank should post this to a law-forum. Logical alternatives probably include Pass, Double and 3♦. I don't like the 3♦ bid because, IMO, a tank by an inexperienced player almost always suggests action. But I'm afraid this is often a minority view in law-discussions.

[dake50]

Because partner sucks at defence and declarer play alike (let alone gauging pass vs pull!), in case he was going to pass or bid 3D over x. We want to declare something and certainly 3♦ seems to be the best contract to declare at this point. This is just a hypothesis, based partly on the 1st round 1NT. __ gwnn
*** I think this nails this case. "With this "punter",
I shall declare any reasonable contract.
I shall leave no chance for partner to misjudge double.
A discerning TD knows this. It is normal *with-a-"punter"* strategy.
No UI used, he was going to bid 3D whatever mannerism he saw as his best chance.

[beatrix45]

Seems like a normal auction given the players you describe. One NT gets the play in the right hand. Three diamonds gets the play in the right hand, plus it calls for the right lead against three hearts. Hard to believe you called the director. Playing with a weak partner who is paying you plenty for the experience is a somewhat different game.

[the hog]

Your expert should be absolutely ashamed oh himself. Pass is a definite alternative. I would have had a private word to him after this event.

[paulg]

It seems to me that you'd like to do something with this hand and partner's hesitation doesn't really tell you very much. Even so, 3♦ seems the call least suggested by the hesitation so I would permit it.

[Fluffy]

Anyway, my experience also tells me that it is a mistake to expect higher ethics from the best players, ethics has nothing to do with skill level.

[beatrix45]

At what point in this thread did the partner of the 3♦ bidder suddenly turn out to have hesitated? It certainly wasn't in the original post. Wank never said so. If no hesitation, then the concept of a logical alternative is not relevant.

[aguahombre]

beatrix45, on 2013-September-07, 11:56, said:

At what point in this thread did the partner of the 3♦ bidder suddenly turn out to have hesitated? It certainly wasn't in the original post. If no hesitation, then the concept of a logical alternative is not relevant. Weak players hesitate all the time since so many situations are new to them.

For the new folks, click on the yellow part of the bidding diagrams.

[ahydra]

FWIW I'd bid 3D. Then again I'm no expert.

I'm expecting to make it or pick up -100 vs -110, but I'll admit it is very close. My usually conservative partner once opened 1C on ♣AKQJx and out so we could easily lose 6 major suit tricks off the top, though that would be somewhat unlucky. More likely is -200 through no fault of our own, eg defensive ruffs.

ahydra

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2013-September-06, 07:22, said:

It's not relevant to the ruling, but personally I can't see why anyone would bid 3♦ instead of double. If partner leaves it in you're delighted, and if he takes it out to a black suit you can convert to 3♦ if you want to.

I say it's not relevant because the fact that South chose 3[di[ makes it a logical alternative for the purpose of the ruling.

I can.
North did not double 2♥, so should not have 4 good cards in hearts and a solid opening with defensive prospects.
If partner passes the reopening double, the fate of the contract and my delight will likely depend on, whether declarer is short in diamonds, a live possibility.
Also what is opener supposed to bid over a reopening DBL? He knows we have no spade fit. If he holds a balanced hand nothing will look attractive to him.
Not my cup of tea to gamble on when opponents are not even vulnerable.
I also think if the hesitation suggests something it is to reopen with a DBL not with 3♦.
I would bid 3♦.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2013-September-12, 07:22, said:

I can.
North did not double 2♥, so should not have 4 good cards in hearts and a solid opening with defensive prospects.
If partner passes the reopening double, the fate of the contract will likely depend, whether declarer is short in diamonds, a live possibility.
Also what is opener suppose to bid over a reopening DBL? He knows we have no spade fit. If he holds a balanced hand nothing will look attractive to him.
Not my cup of tea to gamble on when opponents are not even vulnerable.

In post no 11 Wank tells us that double by either hand would be for takeout.

Quote

I also think if the hesitation suggests something it is to reopen with a DBL not with 3♦.

Yes, the pause certainly suggests double over 3♦. I did say that my preference for double was not relevant to the ruling.

[jogs]

Why should LA apply to this board? They are vul and opened. South holds 9 points(AKQ). He knows his side holds the balance of points. He is allowed to bid anyway he chooses.

[RMB1]

jogs, on 2013-September-12, 09:38, said:

Why should LA apply to this board?

The bidding diagram in OP shows a BIT

[jogs]

RMB1, on 2013-September-12, 09:40, said:

The bidding diagram in OP shows a BIT

Not relevant. With or without BIT, South knows his side holds the balance of points.

[Zelandakh]

jogs, on 2013-September-12, 10:18, said:

Not relevant. With or without BIT, South knows his side holds the balance of points.

You never open 11 counts? or even 10 counts? You like the holding of Txx in the opponents' suit when partner could not act? The vulnerability? There are plenty of ways that some players could convince themselves not to act here. Amongst intermediates, it would not surprise me if Pass was the majority action without knowing about the BIT. After it, almost every club player is going to find another call.

[cherdano]

gnasher, on 2013-September-06, 07:22, said:

It's not relevant to the ruling, but personally I can't see why anyone would bid 3♦ instead of double. If partner leaves it in you're delighted, and if he takes it out to a black suit you can convert to 3♦ if you want to.

I can see why. If they compete to 3♥, you are certainly happier having bid 3♦ than having doubled. I know it's not very likely that they take the push, but it's also not very likely that partner passes. I don't think there is any point in doubling unless you want to pass one of partner's black suit rebids.

[jogs]

This board is NS vul and EW non-vul. Only open 11 or less with long suits or two suiters. Those hands would have found a call over 2♥. When flat North would always have more than 12 points. Therefore there are no hands with this bidding sequence and vulnerability where NS does not hold the balance of power.