[pclayton]

Scoring: MP

---

North......East......South......West
2N.......3N.......Pass.......4H*
Pass.....4S**......Pass......5H

Here's a hand that happened at our club a few weeks ago.

We were NS. 2N showed the minors and less than an opener.

*The 4H call was made slightly out of tempo.
**The 4S call took 30-40 seconds.

EW + 680 when the ♠Q came down, but 6 is always there on the marked squeeze.

If this board actually meant something in a real event would you adjust?

P.S.: I posted this on RGB, if you read it there, just ignore this.

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on May 21 2005, 05:56 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

---

North......East......South......West
2N.......3N.......Pass.......4H*
Pass.....4S**......Pass......5H

Here's a hand that happened at our club a few weeks ago.

We were NS. 2N showed the minors and less than an opener.

*The 4H call was made slightly out of tempo.
**The 4S call took 30-40 seconds.

EW + 680 when the ♠Q came down, but 6 is always there on the marked squeeze.

If this board actually meant something in a real event would you adjust?

P.S.: I posted this on RGB, if you read it there, just ignore this.

An adjustment might be in order...

I'd let East-West keep thier score (they did, after all fail to bid 6♥). However, I'd dearly love to adjust East/West's score to 6H making to teach the pair not to waste the director's time with bullshit complaints...

[pclayton]

hrothgar, on May 21 2005, 07:11 AM, said:

pclayton, on May 21 2005, 05:56 PM, said:

Dealer: North Vul: Both Scoring: MP

♠ Ax ♥ Jxxxx ♦ xxx ♣ Kxx ♠ KJx ♥ AKQx ♦ Axx ♣ AJx

North......East......South......West
2N.......3N.......Pass.......4H*
Pass.....4S**......Pass......5H

Here's a hand that happened at our club a few weeks ago.

We were NS. 2N showed the minors and less than an opener.

*The 4H call was made slightly out of tempo.
**The 4S call took 30-40 seconds.

EW + 680 when the ♠Q came down, but 6 is always there on the marked squeeze.

If this board actually meant something in a real event would you adjust?

P.S.: I posted this on RGB, if you read it there, just ignore this.

An adjustment might be in order...

I'd let East-West keep thier score (they did, after all fail to bid 6♥). However, I'd dearly love to adjust East/West's score to 6H making to teach the pair not to waste the director's time with bullshit complaints...

Richard:

I guess it was just a matter of time before you pulled this stunt on me. You've managed to piss off about at least half of the regulars here while many of us have stood by saying very little.

There is a place for cynics on line - its called rec.games.bridge. There you can shoot off your mouth at will posting flame bait and not really care about the fallout. However, I think I speak for everyone on BBF when I politely ask you to tune it down - a lot.

Now - back to the main issue:

In spite of your delicate opinion, this isn't a BS complaint. Take away the two black jacks or the Q♥, and EW have just fallen onto the par contract, and the 75% board turns into a 30% board. The fact that EW got an above average score is inconsenquential, especially in a meaningful event.

[Cascade]

What do you want to adjust to?

If the bids were in tempo then 4♠ would be a super-accept for hearts and West should cue-bid and then perhaps get to 6♥.

I guess there is some chance that 4♠ would be interpreted as natural but we would need to get some additonal evidence of this before taking that view.

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on May 22 2005, 05:26 PM, said:

In spite of your delicate opinion, this isn't a BS complaint. Take away the two black jacks or the Q♥, and EW have just fallen onto the par contract, and the 75% board turns into a 30% board.  The fact that EW got an above average score is inconsenquential, especially in a meaningful event.

Few important points that need to be considered:

1. In this case, East-West's bidding certainly looks strange: In particular, if East's 4♠ was showing a first or second round Spade control and strong Heart support, why did West suppress the King of clubs with his 5♥ rebid? With this said and done, E/W are allow to play bad bridge:

Personally, I can't fathom the initial 3N call (I strongly prefer double)
I also dislike introducing a 4H rebid hold a weak 5 suit when you KNOW that they majors are breaking badly.

Given the auction that East-West has already perpretrated, its extremely difficult for me to make any reasonable suppositions about what the 5♥ rebid shows or denies.

2. Players who trot out conventions that are highly likely to be unfamilar to their opponents have less recourse to claim damage from hestitations. For better or worse, your 2NT auction is likely to place the opponents on highly unfamiliar ground. Accordingly, they will often be given leeway to pause for thought. Equally significant, the pairs using the oddball conventions are on very shakey grounds if they introduce legal arguments that boil down to "If it hesitates, shoot it"

In this case, you're posting on rec.games.bridge stated that West paused for 7-8 seconds before bidding 4H. I find it extremely difficult to claim that is is an undue hesitation.

3. In order to argue damage, you need to demonstrate damage. In this case, any claim regarding damage would beed to be consequent to the 30-40 second hesitation over 4♠. Here, it is critical to understand whether East initial 3NT bid could have suppressed a Spade suit. If not, that 4♠ could not (logically) be interpreted as a suggestion that 4♠ would play better than 4♥.

Needless to say, I don't know E/W's defensive methods. However, I will note that they have the option of a direct overcall in Spades, a jump overcall in Spades, 4 cue bids, plus all the auction that start with double. Once would hope that they might be able to use some of this bidding spade to show a Spade suit.

[the hog]

Phil it IS difficult to see to what you want this adjusted. I can see what you are getting at, but consider that IF 4H was a transfer to S the 3NT bidder now has a clear cut bid of 6H after the 5H bid - excellent H suit, KJx in resp's first suit and first round controls outside.

IF 4H was meant as natural and then misinterpreted by 3NT bidder, (which probably was the case), what do you want the result adjusted to? 4S COULD have been a cue bid in support of H for all we know. (Yes Phil, unlikely I agree, but did you ask?). If I were the director I would let the result stand, but I would have a word with the pair afterwards.

[pclayton]

Thanks for the replies.

This matter was handled in a friendly manner at the table. A good friend of mine bid 5♥. I merely told him that I wouldn't do anything about the 5♥, but I wasnt sure it was approrpriate.

Richard is correct - on rgb, I did mention the 4♥ call. Here I called it "slightly out of tempo", but I think this a fair characterization of a 7-8 second pause.

I'm not sure I agree about Richard's theory about having more leeway toward unfamiliar conventions. In a club game, maybe. But in a National - and this is how I intended to frame this situation, I wouldn't have a lot of sympathy for those that cry about a 2N opening for the minors - its GCC the last time I checked. I think that pairs in a significant event are expected to know how to defend about conventions like this.

The theory that I had - and this was posted on RGB, was that the 4♥ was not alerted, and 4♠ was made way out of tempo. Now, the kibitzers from two tables away know whats going, as did I. The 3N overcaller wasn't sure about the 4♥ call and his 4♠ made that clear. In effect, the 4♠ call is made, "just in case". The point I made on rgb is the BIT is UI. It was not a slam try.

This is central to the point: "if 4♥ was alerted as a transfer, and east pulls to 5♥, what competent director wouldn't turn the score back to 4♠ (down about 3)"? What if east had J - 6th of hearts and out? While a 22 count is heavy for a 3N call, he's more or less boxed his hand, but its not absolute.

These are the points that I'd like to see addressed. if you still think I'm off base, you have my permission to (politely) tell me.

[the hog]

Quote Phil:
"This is central to the point: "if 4♥ was alerted as a transfer, and east pulls to 5♥, what competent director wouldn't turn the score back to 4♠ (down about 3)"?

Not sure about this one Phil, If I genuinely thought it was a transfer and then if pd bid 5H I would bid 6H rather than 6S, expectiing to get pitches on the long S. (Wouldn't you?) This situaton is even more complicated in Australia as bids above 3N are not alertable; (a bad law imo - not even transfer pre empts are alertable). Look they got lucky on this occasion; next time someone does this they will be in 5H one off.

Off topic but related:

Partner and I had a similar auction in a National event last week:
(3D) 3N (P) 4D tf to H
3N bidder had a decent 22 count with 4 card H support and was unhappy about just bidding 4H. We decided that a Gerber 4C or a Stayman 4C was not really all that valuable and decided that 4C = t/f to H, 4D = t/f to S. 3NT bidder bids the intervening suit as a sort of "superaccept".
We decided that 4H is quantitative and 4S is for the minors. Any thoughts about this?


We came up

Ron

[Cascade]

pclayton, on May 23 2005, 03:24 PM, said:

This is central to the point: "if 4♥ was alerted as a transfer, and east pulls to 5♥, what competent director wouldn't turn the score back to 4♠ (down about 3)"? What if east had J - 6th of hearts and out? While a 22 count is heavy for a 3N call, he's more or less boxed his hand, but its not absolute.

I stated similarly above but I think turning the score back to 4♠ in most cases would be plain wrong.

If the real agreement is that 4♥ is natural then 4♠ must be a super-accept. West has a reasonable hand here and should cooperate most of the time. Therefore I see nothing wrong with West taking another bid.

I do not like his 5♥ bid. That is designed to clear up the misunderstanding. I would be willing to give West a warning for this inappropriate bid and for a habitual violator a penalty for deliberately taking advantage of UI but I would not adjust the score. In this situation West by law should be making the hardest bid for East to read but is certainly not obligated to pass.

I would be more inclined to adjust the score to 6♥-1 if 5♥= was the table result.

I suppose there is a slim possibility that if West cues over 4♠ that the auction will climb to the stratosphere with East continue to support spades but he is likely to bid 5♥ or 6♥ at some stage with all of those controls which West will be entitled to pass. So it is very hard to imagine an actual table result worse than 5♥+1 for the offenders.

[LH2650]

The July 2004 Bridge World editorial contends that, if the partnership agreement is that the first cuebid shows an Ace (which is, I believe, the agreement of most ACBL club players), then your West knows from his hand that something has gone wrong, and is entitled to act on that. There may be no irregularity here at all.

[Fluffy]

There was no alert, you also didn't ask about meanings, and the bidding is perfectly legitimate in a natural basis, I don't see any problem here.

Also note that they may not know if 4♥ is transfer, but they probably know that 2NT-3♦ would had shown ♠.

[pclayton]

I finally got a result a response from David Stevenson on rgb:

He basically said that the BIT of the 4S call was inconclusive - which to me tells me that a committee might say that its slowly accepting a 4S transfer OR making some sort of slam try in hearts OR is natural. Accordingly, because of the ambiguity of the BIT, there is no LA, since the BIT can convey different meanings (I think anyway).

Only because I'm interested in other's opinions, I'm giving the hand to a few I know on our National Appeals Committee and see what they have to say.