[Poky]

Bidding anything in this spot with three small hearts is very bad. Whoever thinks 3♦ is better than pass is far from being an expert.

What is the plan? Partner passes, the "expert" bids 3♦ and feels unlucky when the dummy tables:
4324, or
4315, or
3316, or
4216, or
anything similar?

Come on.

I mean - even putting an 8-carder fit on the 3rd level would be bad. But this is pure randomizing, since the diamond fit may easily be 7-carder or even 6-carder.

As to the BIT, I think there's a bigger probability it was caused with some 13-15 4216 hand than a 12-14 4135/3136 hand. The latter would double 2♥ easily, knowing partner will never pass it out. But that is pretty much player depending.

I could understand if director disallows a successful 3♦ balancing.

[jdeegan]

Poky, on 2013-September-13, 16:16, said:

Bidding anything in this spot with three small hearts is very bad. Whoever thinks 3♦ is better than pass is far from being an expert.

What is the plan? Partner passes, the "expert" bids 3♦ and feels unlucky when the dummy tables:
4324, or
4315, or
3316, or
4216, or
anything similar?

Come on.

I mean - even putting an 8-carder fit on the 3rd level would be bad. But this is pure randomizing, since the diamond fit may easily be 7-carder or even 6-carder.

As to the BIT, I think there's a bigger probability it was caused with some 13-15 4216 hand than a 12-14 4135/3136 hand. The latter would double 2♥ easily, knowing partner will never pass it out. But that is pretty much player depending.

I could understand if director disallows a successful 3♦ balancing.

Hmm.......... The OP stipulates that the 3♦ bidder is one of the best players in the world. You say he/she cannot be even as much as a mere 'expert' player. Somebody has got to be wrong here. One wonders just who might that be?

There is a possible ethical issue involved in this situation. Such a breach may have been an issue. Evidently some kind of hesitation was revealed in the OP if one clicked on some part of the hand diagram. My own browser did not reveal this - a computer glitch, perhaps. Glitch or no glitch, professional bridge players make their living helping customers win something. God knows what that is. God only knows why the customers want whatever that might be. If you really want to play this game, you need to come to terms with all of this.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-September-06, 07:16, said:

If pass is an LA too, I think 3♦ and double are both suggested over pass, so pass is the only legal action.

I think Pass is an LA, but believe 3♦ is not demonstrably suggested over Pass. If partner was thinking of doubling for penalties, but was unsure what it would mean, it could work badly, and if partner is 4-3-1-5 it could be very poor. If partner was thinking of doubling 2H for takeout, it may work well. Double seems the bid that is demonstrably suggested by the UI.

And with this partner, the only LAs may be the ones that get him to be dummy.

[RSClyde]

My partner and I play that double (or at least some call) by opener is mandatory with 2 or less hearts since it is he who knows that they have an 8 card fit: responder's just guessing. In that case, passing 2♥ after partner fails to double is automatic.

I'm sure they had no such agreement. Even so, I'm blown away by how many people think bidding is automatic: I think passing is automatic. Partner could have 4 hearts and 0 diamonds or a whole raft of less dramatic competitive disasters. What law of total tricks are you using? You're putting all your chips in partner having 3/4 diamonds after opening 1♣ and 2 or fewer hearts. There seems to be no reason to believe this is the case.

[gnasher]

RSClyde, on 2013-September-20, 06:31, said:

What law of total tricks are you using?

Why should they be using any law of total tricks?

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2013-September-20, 06:57, said:

Why should they be using any law of total tricks?

I think RSClyde's post was in agreement with you that the Law is not applicable here. There is no valid total trick estimate available to use. He just worded it with a rhetorical question.

[Fluffy]

lamford, on 2013-September-20, 04:47, said:

I think Pass is an LA, but believe 3♦ is not demonstrably suggested over Pass.

You are wrong, pass is always the least suggested bid with an action hand in a partscore.

[RSClyde]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-20, 07:41, said:

I think RSClyde's post was in agreement with you that the Law is not applicable here. There is no valid total trick estimate available to use. He just worded it with a rhetorical question.

I meant that the law of total tricks only supported bidding when partner has 2 hearts and 3+ diamonds. Which isn't particularly indicated. To claim, as some have, that bidding is automatic, seems to suggest that they believe it will be ok even if partner holds a less favorable fit, which is a law violation.

If someone had claimed that partner rates to have 2 or less hearts and 3 or more diamonds, I think we'd be a little suspicious of why they thought this and request an explanation (admittedly I haven't added up the probabilities of all the combinations, it may be the case but this would indeed be a cumbersome task). So why look any more favorably on someone who says that bidding is automatic? Aren't these statements synonymous? That is, unless one wants to claim that the law of total tricks rates to underscore the total tricks on this hand: but I'm not really seeing any reason why.

[benlessard]

Responder probably choose 1NT to show 8-10 if 1C-1D-1M-1nt tend to show 6-7.

I think pass is LA and if the hesitation is acknowledged I would adjust score. If opener had 3H its clearly possible that 2H is our last plus score and with 2H he might double. So a SLOW pass suggest 3 little hearts and a max or Hx in hearts and a min wich make bidding on tempting. As for the 3D or double I dont think its that relevant, I prefer double but its so unlikely to be passed that 3D is really an equivalent. However double might lead you to 2NT wich Ill happily pass.