[lamford]

 mycroft, on 2021-January-27, 09:16, said:

according to the OP the 4NT bidder expected 4NT was ace-asking. Who, in their heart, truly knows 100% what this bid means in this auction

"They did not dispute that 4NT was ace-asking" is a bit different. They would almost certainly have had no agreement on the sequence.

[Cyberyeti]

 mycroft, on 2021-January-27, 11:15, said:

Sorry, if you believed that, you'd have passed 4♦. If you're only thinking of passing now, it can't possibly be because it wasn't an "obvious" 4NT, could it?

I want to be in game not a slam, I think it's vanishingly unlikely partner has enough for a slam, but at this stage he could easily be 0346/1345 and 4♥ might be the spot.

It doesn't appear to be the case for this pair, but imagine a situation where the player says "4N could be one of two things, both are forcing, but my answer to one of them is 5♣, to the other is 5♦ and giving the right answer to the wrong question is likely to be disastrous, I don't have a clue which it is, I don't want to be in a slam either way so I just passed 4N, all the hesitation suggested to me is that partner didn't know either". That would in my opinion a reasonable defence for passing a forcing bid.

[mycroft]

Lamford: that was what I was trying to imply with my correction. I wasn't clear, and your line is better.

Cyberyeti: I agree, it's a reasonable defence. I don't expect it to work opposite a 90-second pause, but it's not a "surely you don't believe that I'm that gullible?" argument. But as I said in the first instance, if the polling of your peers finds that everybody thought about passing and one actually did, while "the UI points to 'it's likely that partner will misunderstand me, or I've misunderstood him, and we're getting too high, let's try to play safe', bidding in an LA, any bidding leads to a worse score, we're adjusting", when delivering that ruling, I would be sympathetic about it.

♠3 ♥AK7 ♦AT85 ♣AKT82. You *doubled and bid your suit*, how much stronger do you think partner has to be than that (which is 1 HCP lower than the actual) before his keycard-for-hearts is mindless and automatic? How much more does he need, even with potential bad breaks, to *make* 6 round, or even 6NT, even having wrongsided it? The ♣Q? If he has a mindless and automatic call, and you pass making +2...

[Cyberyeti]

 mycroft, on 2021-January-27, 12:12, said:

Lamford: that was what I was trying to imply with my correction. I wasn't clear, and your line is better.

Cyberyeti: I agree, it's a reasonable defence. I don't expect it to work opposite a 90-second pause, but it's not a "surely you don't believe that I'm that gullible?" argument. But as I said in the first instance, if the polling of your peers finds that everybody thought about passing and one actually did, while "the UI points to 'it's likely that partner will misunderstand me, or I've misunderstood him, and we're getting too high, let's try to play safe', bidding in an LA, any bidding leads to a worse score, we're adjusting", when delivering that ruling, I would be sympathetic about it.

♠3 ♥AK7 ♦AT85 ♣AKT82. You *doubled and bid your suit*, how much stronger do you think partner has to be than that (which is 1 HCP lower than the actual) before his keycard-for-hearts is mindless and automatic? How much more does he need, even with potential bad breaks, to *make* 6 round, or even 6NT, even having wrongsiding it? The ♣Q? If he has a mindless and automatic call, and you pass making +2...

If he's much better than that he has a 4♠,4N or 5N bid over my double rather than bidding 4♦, 4♦ is limited in my book and part of why I don't want to be in a slam.

Polling is a difficult thing here, because a lot of people would not have doubled, and to poll peers you want people who would double.

[mycroft]

Totally agree.

[sanst]

I don’t think that passing 4NT is the problem, it’s the passing after a 90 seconds pause. Whatever the agreement was, if any, whatever the passer thought, it’s about this pause and it’s consequences that we should give an opinion. Such a long break certainly suggests that the bid is not what the agreement is and making use hereof is blatant use of UI.

[Cyberyeti]

 sanst, on 2021-January-28, 02:51, said:

Such a long break certainly suggests that the bid is not what the agreement is and making use hereof is blatant use of UI.

Not exactly, it could suggest that either partner's hand is not a clear cut use of that bid, or he doesn't know what the bid means, he may mean what the agreement says.

[mycroft]

So, we poll. I've heard "your side's" argument, now we find out if unbiased players at your level all think that way.

The thread has my answer. Whether I am a peer of you, or of the players in the OP, is debatable. My guess from my directing experience is that we will find that "not passing" is an LA; in fact my guess is that passing would barely make it as an LA to the guidelines, were that what we were concerned about. But that's just a guess; I've been wrong before - I've been spectacularly wrong before, "I'm shocked at these results, am I really that old-fashioned or not clued in to what we're teaching these days?" level wrong.

[lamford]

I polled five intermediates at my club and 3 thought 4NT was "pick a minor" and two thought it was "RKCB for hearts". None passed it.

[mycroft]

...thus proving that I think like an intermediate. Good to know.[/s]

Seriously, though, checked the OP again, and we don't have an indication of the level of the players, which makes a big difference.

[sanst]

 lamford, on 2021-January-28, 09:36, said:

I polled five intermediates at my club and 3 thought 4NT was "pick a minor" and two thought it was "RKCB for hearts". None passed it.

Did you make clear that 4NT is ace asking according to the OP? We’ve no idea whether this situation has been discussed between the players, but without evidence showing otherwise you should believe that this is ace asking and nothing else. What those players think about the bid is irrelevant if you have sufficient evidence to know what the agreement is. The only relevant question is whether a sufficient number of the questioned players would pass or even consider passing. Obviously none, so pass is not even a LA and it also shows that the player probably used the UI arising from the pause.

[Cyberyeti]

 lamford, on 2021-January-28, 09:36, said:

I polled five intermediates at my club and 3 thought 4NT was "pick a minor" and two thought it was "RKCB for hearts". None passed it.

Would those intermediates have doubled first time ? The other piece of info required is from the OP, is what was expected for 4♦ and how good partner could be before he did something more exciting.

[barmar]

 Cyberyeti, on 2021-January-28, 12:03, said:

Would those intermediates have doubled first time ?

That's a good question, but what are you supposed to do if you can't find pollees who would have taken the earlier action? This isn't an uncommon situation, so I don't think you can really predicate on this. I think you have to present it as something like "Someone put a gun to your head and forced you to double" or "The original player fell ill after doubling and you've been called to fill in."

I'm not ashamed to admit that I wouldn't have doubled. If we should be at the 4 level, partner will reopen.

[Cyberyeti]

 barmar, on 2021-January-28, 12:42, said:

That's a good question, but what are you supposed to do if you can't find pollees who would have taken the earlier action? This isn't an uncommon situation, so I don't think you can really predicate on this. I think you have to present it as something like "Someone put a gun to your head and forced you to double" or "The original player fell ill after doubling and you've been called to fill in."

I'm not ashamed to admit that I wouldn't have doubled. If we should be at the 4 level, partner will reopen.

It's the same problem you have when you need to poll peers of the only good pair in a room, and there aren't any.

[mycroft]

I agree, it's frequently hard to find pollees that play similar systems or that can work their head around the system in question. I am not sure I would have doubled, but it's a stretch I'm not violently ill over. I wouldn't have introduced my suit after partner shows a serious minor oriented hand. I can't imagine my hand saying "3NT or 4♥", which is the only reason I can see for not bidding 4♥ right away, but doing it now in preference to a clear and a likely fit (besides "4♥ or 6♥, partner?").

Which, sure, is a reason to pass when it turns out my "3NT or 4♥" question got interpreted as "4 or 6?", and hoping that "4NT or 4♥" is not too much of a stretch. But when partner makes it clear that the slam try isn't just based on his hand (which it could easily be, "limited" nature of 4♦ notwithstanding, but not after 90 seconds) then it's even more obvious that "we've both overbid our hands, let's try to get out with a plus".

Okay, he might be thinking "If he rebids clubs, I can pass or raise that. If he rebids diamonds, we have a good fit, so I'll bid 4♥ just in case he's 1=3=4=5 or something and we can game at the 4 level, if not, we'll play 5♣. Oh dear, he thinks I'm stronger and is going for slam. What do I do now (especially if his blackwood answer is 5♦)? Oh I can pass." And, with no UI, good for him. If he gets away with it, more power to him. But 90 seconds says that "slam makes with my overbid values" isn't happening any more. I don't know what else it says (spade void? Unsure if partner will think it's natural and pass?).

Yes, we need to find pollees that can think the same system that the players think. And pairs who give the kinds of arguments Cyberyeti is giving get that considered in how the polls go. But the answer to the poll has to be "almost everybody passed, and most did because of the reasoning given by the players. One or two bid on, but not enough to make pass not the overwhelming option" for us to allow it after a 90-second pause, barring computer or player disappeared or the like.