[InTime]

---

In a Tx4 game there was a hesitation by East before passing. The 2♥ was announced as weak.
At the end of the game the result was 5♠-1. The TD was called to the table and he ruled that West should have passed taking into account his number of losers and therefore the score should be changed to 4♠ making.
West appealed. He said given the vulnerability he would have bid 5♥ anyway whatever his partner's actions.
The appeal committee ruled: Given the fact that there was a hesitation and West has a pass as an option, West should pass and therefore 4♠ should stand.

Surely a pass is always an option in every given situation and a hesitation by partner cannot bar you from bidding your hand? With a 10 card fit Non vs Vul any reasonable player will bid 5♥.
Regards

[dicklont]

Maybe West thinks that bidding 5H is obvious but when some of his peers would pass it is a reasonable alternative.
Has the TD consulted any players of his strenght?
This ruling might help East to learn to pass in tempo, some have to learn it the hard way.

[pran]

What about such trifles as skip bids and stop regulations (not to mention competitive auction situations)?

Did North announce STOP before making his 4♠ skip bid? How long was the hesitation by East?

Not touching any of these questions were certainly procedural errors by both TD and AC.

[ahydra]

At the end of the game the result was 5♠-1. The TD was called to the table and he ruled that North should have passed taking into account his number of losers and therefore the score should be changed to 4♠ making.
[/quote]

Do you mean the TD ruled that WEST should have passed?

There is a question of "should you have bid 5H straight away", i.e. over 2H. I was once ruled against following a hesitation by my partner when I'd sac'd over the opponents' game - even though they hadn't yet bid the game, it was still correct to pre-emptively sacrifice at my previous turn. However I don't think that's the case here, the West hand looks like a textbook raise to 3H.

So I think we need a poll of West's peers. If the 5H bid is pretty unanimous, then fine; else we roll back to 4S.

Colin

[InTime]

 dicklont, on 2014-August-12, 04:18, said:

Maybe West thinks that bidding 5H is obvious but when some of his peers would pass it is a reasonable alternative.
Has the TD consulted any players of his strenght?

Yes, there were a few, but he did not confirm with them if they opened 1♥ or 2♥. I think the few that passed actually opened 1♥ after it may result in West not knowing East has 6 hearts and East not knowing his partner has 4 hearts.

[InTime]

 pran, on 2014-August-12, 05:06, said:

Did North announce STOP before making his 4♠ skip bid? How long was the hesitation by East?

It was agreed at the table that the STOP was announced and that the hesitation was longer than necessary.

[billw55]

 InTime, on 2014-August-12, 06:01, said:

Yes, there were a few, but he did not confirm with them if they opened 1♥ or 2♥. I think the few that passed actually opened 1♥ after it may result in West not knowing East has 6 hearts and East not knowing his partner has 4 hearts.

I think he is supposed to poll peers who did not play the board, and present them with the actual auction and west hand only. The choice of opening by other easts is not relevant to the ruling.

[barmar]

If most would bid 5♥, why did he bid only 3♥ the first time? Most players will raise a weak 2 to 4 immediately with 4-card support.

If he had short spades, I might agree that there's no LA to 5♥. But with a perfectly square hand, I expect many players will consider passing, and quite a few will do so.

[richlp]

"If most would bid 5♥, why did he bid only 3♥ the first time? Most players will raise a weak 2 to 4 immediately with 4-card support."

I don't think his only bidding 3♥ should be relevant to his action over 4♠.
Put it in the "why I lose at bridge" column but I don't think it's spectacularly absurd to hope that NS either won't bid 4♠ or that you'll have a better idea of what to to over 4♠ if they don't bid it under pressure. Unfortunately, the better idea came from partner's hesitation.

"If he had short spades, I might agree that there's no LA to 5♥. But with a perfectly square hand, I expect many players will consider passing, and quite a few will do so."

I'm one of those who would have passed 4♠. Opposite a typical modern NV vs V weak 2 bid I think 7 tricks could easily be the max we can make on offense.

[chrism]

Quote

Surely a pass is always an option in every given situation and a hesitation by partner cannot bar you from bidding your hand?

Pass is always an option, but it is not always a logical alternative - a call that would be seriously considered by some number of a player's peers and actually made by some of them.
A hesitation by partner can indeed bar you from "bidding your hand" if it demonstrably suggests one logical alternative over another that would be successful. Now you are constrained not to choose any such suggested LA.

In this case, East's hesitation clearly implies he was thinking of further action, so bidding and double are suggested over pass. I believe that many players would choose to pass this hand in this auction, so Pass is a logical alternative - a poll should be taken to evaluate this. Bidding works out better than passing, so it is not allowed. What West "should have done" according to the TD is material only to the extent that if he should have done it it is certainly an LA. That West would "would have bid 5♥ anyway whatever his partner's actions" is immaterial and likely untrue - I doubt he would have taken partner's double out. What matters is how many of West's peers would have passed. West is not necessarily expected always to get this right at the table, but should understand that a TD or committee may not share his view of what LAs exist to the action that he would like to take.

[InTime]

 ahydra, on 2014-August-12, 05:58, said:

So I think we need a poll of West's peers. If the 5H bid is pretty unanimous, then fine; else we roll back to 4S.

Colin

Here is the POLL: http://www.bridgebas...pass-or-bid-5h/
In this it seems that the AC was correct and that the contract should have been rolled back to 4♠.
Thanks for your participation in this. I do appreciate.
Regards

[aguahombre]

It is customary to provide the jurisdiction in the OP. In this case, it is significant because I want to seek out North and avoid East, West, and South as partners.

[InTime]

 aguahombre, on 2014-August-17, 09:12, said:

It is customary to provide the jurisdiction in the OP. In this case, it is significant because I want to seek out North and avoid East, West, and South as partners.

I do not understand what you are trying to say here. Will appreciate if you can extend on it.

[FrancesHinden]

 InTime, on 2014-August-17, 12:22, said:

I do not understand what you are trying to say here. Will appreciate if you can extend on it.

He is saying that he disagrees with the 2H opening, the take-out double and the 3H/5H bidding but is very happy with North's actions.
None of this is relevant for a ruling discussion, of course.

[aguahombre]

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-August-17, 13:31, said:

He is saying that he disagrees with the 2H opening, the take-out double and the 3H/5H bidding but is very happy with North's actions.
None of this is relevant for a ruling discussion, of course.

Right...not to mention the hesitation after opening a weak two with nothing to hesitate about since he already made all the decisions he should be making when he did that.

That put West in a position where he wasn't allowed to bid silly and get lucky. South also bid silly and got lucky, but lawfully.

[ggwhiz]

Just the fact that a stiff diamond lead from the 2♥ bidder can beat them off the top makes a pass of 4♠ enough of a LA to me with or without a poll and I agree that polling players who had a different auction doesn't cut it.

[barmar]

That would mean that the opponents have a 10-card diamond fit, but are playing in their 8-card spade fit. Anything is possible, I suppose.

[Cyberyeti]

Of course partner can have KQxxxx and a flat hand and 5♥ can just be going for 800, so pass is clearly a LA.

[nige1]

 InTime, on 2014-August-12, 04:03, said:

In a Tx4 game there was a hesitation by East before passing. The 2♥ was announced as weak. At the end of the game the result was 5♠-1. The TD was called to the table and he ruled that West should have passed taking into account his number of losers and therefore the score should be changed to 4♠ making. West appealed. He said given the vulnerability he would have bid 5♥ anyway whatever his partner's actions. The appeal committee ruled: Given the fact that there was a hesitation and West has a pass as an option, West should pass and therefore 4♠ should stand. Surely a pass is always an option in every given situation and a hesitation by partner cannot bar you from bidding your hand? With a 10 card fit Non vs Vul any reasonable player will bid 5♥.

---

The poll confirms that pass is probably an LA. The most likely explanation for East's hesitation is that he was thinking of bidding on, so it suggested 5♥ over pass. The 5♥ bid damaged NS. Their 5♠ bid was unsuccessful but not a SEWOG. IMO the AC should have seriously considered retaining the deposit or whatever.

[Manastorm]

It is hard to understand why hesitation would suggest west to bid more. This is how I think about the bidding from east's point of view. 3♥ was wide range and the purpose of it is to make hard for the opponents to bid 3♠ making and 4♠ perhaps not making. Yes partner could have 3 cards support and very weak hand. But it is clear to me I am not thinking about saccing. I mean at best 3rd level is right for us according to the law, so I cant expect 2 levels higher sac be nowhere near the right level.
What I could be thinking after 4♠ is what a nice hand I have, if partner has values for X. A big mistake to hesitate like that, but to forbid the sac from partner is not right. The hesitation didnt suggest to bid more.
Did partner really think that a quick 4♥ would press ops to bid 4♠ and then it is harder to bid more because of possible hesitation by east which clearly suggest to bid more.