[lamford]

---

Table Result 2Cx-2 EW+500

This was a crucial match in the Spring Fours. The TD was called and he "removed" the double by West and substituted Pass and changed the score to 1NT-2 (according to BBO but this might well have been a typo). Would you accept this ruling, or would you appeal as NS? Would you impose a PP on West? EW trailed by 15 IMPs with 8 to play and the first board had been flat.

Dealer corrected with thanks to Jeffrey Allerton and apologies.

[Cyberyeti]

What defences are being played by EW in 2nd seat and 4th seat by a passed hand ? (this influences what E might have been thinking about)

I think if you're adjusting to 1N, there's a case for -1, so before I appeal, I would want to know that I'm on firm ground and it can't get worse.

W is about as good as he can be not to open, and some partnerships have the style that they will always bid on this type of hand rather than let 1N ride, it may be documented in their system notes.

It's possible E was thinking about bidding his 5/6 card major but decided he was too weak, so the thought doesn't necessarily indicate that it's a good idea to bid although it's quite likely to indicate bidding is good.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-May-01, 09:19, said:

What defences are being played by EW in 2nd seat and 4th seat by a passed hand ? (this influences what E might have been thinking about)

I think if you're adjusting to 1N, there's a case for -1, so before I appeal, I would want to know that I'm on firm ground and it can't get worse.

W is about as good as he can be not to open, and some partnerships have the style that they will always bid on this type of hand rather than let 1N ride, it may be documented in their system notes.

It's possible E was thinking about bidding his 5/6 card major but decided he was too weak, so the thought doesn't necessarily indicate that it's a good idea to bid although it's quite likely to indicate bidding is good.

I think Multi-Landy by non-passed and some form of Meckwell by passed hand. It seems to me that double caters for whatever partner was thinking of doing. And 1NT-1 is normal. I cannot find any line for two down and plenty of lines make. I would consider, if adjusting, 50% of making and 50% of -1. The winning defence is spade, spade and then a diamond shift to set up two diamonds, three spades and two clubs. Cashing the third spade can be done before or after the diamond shift.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2017-May-01, 09:32, said:

I think Multi-Landy by non-passed and some form of Meckwell by passed hand. It seems to me that double caters for whatever partner was thinking of doing. And 1NT-1 is normal. I cannot find any line for two down and plenty of lines make. I would consider, if adjusting, 50% of making and 50% of -1. The winning defence is spade, spade and then a diamond shift to set up two diamonds, three spades and two clubs. Cashing the third spade can be done before or after the diamond shift.

It's more complicated than that, the diamond goes JQ duck, now the K♣ is dead along with the 4th diamond, declarer plays 3 hearts next and makes 6 tricks.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-May-01, 09:58, said:

It's more complicated than that, the diamond goes JQ duck, now the K♣ is dead along with the 4th diamond, declarer plays 3 hearts next and makes 6 tricks.

He can make 6 tricks in a variety of ways. I think that 1NT= 30% of the time and 1NT-1 70% of the time was probably the TD ruling and that was appealed by NS and upheld by the AC, according to Tom Townsend. In which case BBO was wrong. It is standard for an AC to uphold weighting unless it is "absurd", but I think that this was as the defence is quite difficult. Why should East switch to a diamond?

[FelicityR]

It's an interesting scenario, but perhaps just as fascinating, in my personal view, if North doesn't remove the double of 1NT to 2♣. What is East's action then?

I recognise that it has to be ruled by the Director as it stands, but West at these colours surely would never have doubled if his partner had not hesitated. In my view - just a personal opinion - North should be awarded 1NT as bid and made, not a minus score. In that way the opponents are fully penalised for their indiscretion.

[steve2005]

FelicityR, on 2017-May-01, 13:01, said:

I recognise that it has to be ruled by the Director as it stands, but West at these colours surely would never have doubled if his partner had not hesitated.

I wouldn't be too sure no West's would have doubled, I 've seen some pretty crazy balancing doubles. However after the BIT it is very safe to balance.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2017-May-01, 10:07, said:

He can make 6 tricks in a variety of ways. I think that 1NT= 30% of the time and 1NT-1 70% of the time was probably the TD ruling and that was appealed by NS and upheld by the AC, according to Tom Townsend. In which case BBO was wrong. It is standard for an AC to uphold weighting unless it is "absurd", but I think that this was as the defence is quite difficult. Why should East switch to a diamond?

Hmm, I don't see how it makes, I would have thought the defence start with 4 rounds of spades then they're always taking 7.

[PeterAlan]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-May-01, 16:29, said:

Hmm, I don't see how it makes, I would have thought the defence start with 4 rounds of spades then they're always taking 7.

No. After 4 rounds of spades declarer has a way home by playing on clubs (W is squeezed in the minors when declarer cashes the top hearts). It's necessary for E to switch to a diamond after the third spade; this transfers the diamond guard from W to E.

[lamford]

PeterAlan, on 2017-May-01, 16:45, said:

No. After 4 rounds of spades declarer has a way home by playing on clubs (W is squeezed in the minors when declarer cashes the top hearts). It's necessary for E to switch to a diamond after the third spade; this transfers the diamond guard from W to E.

More importantly it sets up two diamonds, two clubs and three spades for the defence.

[barmar]

steve2005, on 2017-May-01, 15:59, said:

I wouldn't be too sure no West's would have doubled, I 've seen some pretty crazy balancing doubles. However after the BIT it is very safe to balance.

Maybe I'm more conservative than most, but when I'm in balancing seat against a strong NT, I'm more likely to reopen with weaker hands. The idea is to have most of the partnership's strength sitting over the NT bidder. So with 10 HCP and little compensating shape, I would pass -- the remaining points could easily be split evenly between partner and RHO.

But as you say, regardless of your normal style, the BIT relieves this concern, making it more attractive. Therefore, it can't be allowed.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2017-May-01, 08:55, said:

Table Result 2Cx-2 EW+500
hesitatio
This was a crucial match in the Spring Fours. The TD was called and he "removed" the double by West and substituted Pass and changed the score to 1NT-2 (according to BBO but this might well have been a typo). Would you accept this ruling, or would you appeal as NS? Would you impose a PP on West? EW trailed by 15 IMPs with 12 to play and the first board had been flat.

---

IMO

For West, a poll would show that pass is an LA to double. Partner's hesitation shows values and makes double safer. For example it is less likely that you drive North-South into a superior major contract.

The director might rule 1N (undoubled) making, one-down, or two-down, depending on how he judges the double affected the play. Unless West is a beginner, the director should consider imposing a PP.
.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2017-May-01, 09:32, said:

I think Multi-Landy by non-passed and some form of Meckwell by passed hand.

Did East happen to mention why they chose not to overcall 2♣? Regardless of whether it was the right call in tempo, it is surely the best aoption once the pause has happened.

FelicityR, on 2017-May-01, 13:01, said:

It's an interesting scenario, but perhaps just as fascinating, in my personal view, if North doesn't remove the double of 1NT to 2♣. What is East's action then?

2♣, what else?

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2017-May-05, 08:03, said:

Did East happen to mention why they chose not to overcall 2♣?

Perhaps they split the range so that the slow pass is 8-10 and 2C is 11-13. Other hands can just bid quickly.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2017-May-01, 08:55, said:

---

Table Result 2Cx-2 EW+500

This was a crucial match in the Spring Fours. The TD was called and he "removed" the double by West and substituted Pass and changed the score to 1NT-2 (according to BBO but this might well have been a typo). Would you accept this ruling, or would you appeal as NS? Would you impose a PP on West? EW trailed by 15 IMPs with 12 to play and the first board had been flat.

If the facts are as you describe, there is more to worry about than East's BIT. At other tables where this hand was played, East was the dealer so we need to establish whether there has been an error on the physical board mistakenly marking West as dealer on board 26. If so I think we have to rule TD error and cancel the board, then hope to find someone who can explain how to apply Law 86D.

Another concern for the TD is why the players apparently knew the score with 12 boards to play when the event was being played in (and scored up after) 8 board stanzas. Maybe a PP would indeed be appropriate if it is found that there has been use of banned electronic devices.

On the other hand, if East was dealer at this table and North opened 1NT in 4th seat, this does significantly change what could demonstrably be suggested by East's BIT before passing over 1NT.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2017-May-05, 16:00, said:

On the other hand, if East was dealer at this table and North opened 1NT in 4th seat, this does significantly change what could demonstrably be suggested by East's BIT before passing over 1NT.

Corrected with thanks. I think however that the BIT still shows around 8-10 with majors being quite likely. You do have AI that partner does not have 11-13 balanced, but, in my experience, no good player breaks tempo with such hands. How do you think it significantly changes what could demonstrably be suggested? Doesn't the BIT in both auctions show something close to an opening bid with some shape?

It could be argued that the BIT after a pass suggests that partner has a hand that wants to bid something but nothing is suitable, or the player is uncertain whether Multi-Landy or Meckwell applies after a pass. Double by West caters for whatever partner was thinking of doing. And the two missing passes make no difference to the play in 1NT which has been made by every strong player I gave it to as a play problem (after the start of four rounds of spades).