[Echognome]

Scoring: MP

P - (P) - 3♠ - (4♦)
4♠ - (P)(H) - P - (5♦)
All Pass

---

Partner asked me to post this hand. I was East and he was West. North made a notable hesitation on the second round of bidding. When South bid 5♦ we called the director. Note I should have called the director right away when North hesitated, but North did agree to the hesitation.

The director ruled that pass was not a logical alternative. Partner argued that if South is going to bid a non-forcing 4♦ then pass must be a logical alternative. As you can see they made 5♦+1.

Do you agree with the ruling? (We didn't appeal.)

[mike777]

Echognome, on Aug 11 2005, 04:27 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

P - (P) - 3♠ - (4♦)
4♠ - (P)(H) - P - (5♦)
All Pass

---

Partner asked me to post this hand.  I was East and he was West.  North made a notable hesitation on the second round of bidding.  When South bid 5♦ we called the director.  Note I should have called the director right away when North hesitated, but North did agree to the hesitation. 

The director ruled that pass was not a logical alternative.  Partner argued that if South is going to bid a non-forcing 4♦ then pass must be a logical alternative.  As you can see they made 5♦+1.

Do you agree with the ruling?  (We didn't appeal.)

GEEZ this issue was old and unsolved 30 years ago and is still an issue. I hate it.

1) If I am allowed to hestitate 10 seconds without any penalty, how much longer am I allowed to hesitate without baring partner from bidding?
2) I hate it when the opp bid on with a borderline hand they may have passed but...
3) I hate to bar partner from taking a view for my thinking more than 10 seconds.
4) What percentage of this players peers would bid on? What is the best percentage to allow south to bid on without penalty?
5) I was going to say let it go and do not appeal but I see in the last nat. that a bunch of top pairs, Cohen/Berkowitz for one, filed an appeal just on this issue and won!

Btw playing the theory of " pard has a useful 7 hcp" you could bid 6d right over 3s.

[pigpenz]

tough one, director should be called immediately, but i think the ruling is ok, its hard to sort things out when the TD is not called immediately, almost any action south takes now is unilateral.

[Double !]

Pass might or might not have been a logical alternative, but double seems to be. -500 for E/W certain beats - 620 but then, is north permitted to pull to 5D? Verry interesting

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

Partner argued that if South is going to bid a non-forcing 4♦ then pass must be a logical alternative

I don't see any validity to this reasoning at all. Just because one isn't sure if they can make something higher or what the best route is, or one is willing to risk playing in a partial, doesn't mean he is not 99% sure that 4♠ is going down, holding 5 quick tricks facing an opponent's passed hand opposite a preempt. It can't possibly be right to pass.

I don't think anyone facing an in-tempo pass would seriously consider passing 4S, so pass is not an LA.

Now as for 5d vs. double, I don't see how the break in tempo suggests that 5D is more likely to be successful than doubling would be, so result stands. I agree with the director.

[han]

For me pass would not be a logical alternative. Since I don't know the player, I can't judge whether I am a peer.

[helene_t]

Not sure how logical a LA has to be. Nowadays, in the Netherlands, close to 100% of peers must prefer 5♦ to "pass", but the old rules said 80% and my impression is that some countries require something similar to 80%.

Personally I would not consider pass. I would prefer double but I don't think that the choice of 5♦ above dbl was influenced by the UI. I think I would let the result stand, especially if the 80% LA definition is in force.

[the hog]

"The director ruled that pass was not a logical alternative. Partner argued that if South is going to bid a non-forcing 4D then pass must be a logical alternative. As you can see they made 5D+1."

I agree with your partner. Did overcaller suddenly find another Ace?

[Free]

Why would you bid 4♦ NF after a 3rd seat NV vs V preempt in ♠ when you also have a 3 card ♥??? 4♦ is forcing, so North's pass is forcing as well.

The hesitation doesn't change anything: NS are V, EW NV, they won't go enough down so bidding game is probably better. Note this is MP's, so losing a 100 extra points can mean a bottom...

[coyot]

I don't think that 4♦ must be strictly forcing.

True, with a hand with so many quick tricks, you would most likely hope to bring 4♠ down two instead of trying seriously to make 4♦. But, then, with a forcing hand, bid 4♠ or 4NT instead (partner, I don't have hearts and want to play game. The correct 5♣ to 5♦.

You could have significantly weaker hand and WANT to bid 4♦ as nonforcing.

IMHO the TD should ask north what is their agreement on forcing/nonforcing of any such bid - if it is forcing, the ruling is ok. If it is nonforcing, the hesitation might have helped.... but, then, 5♦ will make against as little as two red jacks, so I think that it is a reasonable bid and would not adjust.

[Free]

coyot, on Aug 12 2005, 11:18 AM, said:

But, then, with a forcing hand, bid 4♠ or 4NT instead (partner, I don't have hearts and want to play game. The correct 5♣ to 5♦.

Euhm NO! We might miss a 5-3♥ fit... And it's still matchpoints

[inquiry]

Echognome, on Aug 11 2005, 05:27 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

P - (P) - 3♠ - (4♦)
4♠ - (P)(H) - P - (5♦)
All Pass

---

Partner asked me to post this hand. I was East and he was West. North made a notable hesitation on the second round of bidding. When South bid 5♦ we called the director. Note I should have called the director right away when North hesitated, but North did agree to the hesitation.

The director ruled that pass was not a logical alternative. Partner argued that if South is going to bid a non-forcing 4♦ then pass must be a logical alternative. As you can see they made 5♦+1.

Do you agree with the ruling? (We didn't appeal.)

Not important here, but Misho's Meta defense (see Austrian bridge magazine) would probably end up with you being in 6D NS.

Playing his method, it might easily be...

(3S)-Dbl - (4S)- Dbl
(Ps)-6D

Misho play 4D here is like 4D over 2S.. shows diamonds and hearts (leaping micheals without the leap). So he doubles with one suited minor hands, asking partner to bid 3NT with a stopper. The tricky part is he doubles with takeout double hands as well. This causes some problems as you might imagine.

Here the second double is card showing (after all partner wanted the weak hand to bid 3NT with a stopper). Over this double, 6D seems a reasonable shot.

Now to the question at hand. Pass is not a reasonable alteranative with five tricks hesitation or not. And Doulble and 5D are both possible. What if south had doubled and the king of diamond was offside, and the two major suit kings were swapped for small cards. Woud you say that double was the suggested bid by the hesitation when south doubled and 5D happened to go down perhaps?

The hestitation was unfortunate, but south has a clear call, and the hesitation provides no help in deciding if he should double or bid. Result stands.

South has to do something, and neither

[luis]

To me pass is a logical alternative and there's one very important thing to notice.
If the TD decided at the table that pass was not a logical alternative then he is inmediately wrong. In order to determine if a bid is a logical alternative or not the TD should poll some players with the same level of south and ask them what they would do, depending on the number of "pass" responses he them can decide if pass it a LA or not.

Luis

[pclayton]

I think this is a tuffie.

If I was the director I would ask the 5D bidder why he didn't bid 5D the 1st time, but felt justified to try it the 2nd round. If I received what I consider to be the only plausible reason of "I wanted to see if pard could roll out 4H, since its MPs" then I would let the result stand.

If the answer was along the lines of "I wanted to bid one more for the road" I'd throw out 5D.

And even then, 5D just doesn't seem like a LA. If you can get to pards hand for red suit finesses, isn't a double wiser?

So I still might throw it out anyway.

[Stephen Tu]

Whether 4♦ is forcing or non-forcing is completely irrelevant to the ruling. Whether you agree with the call is also completely irrelevant. To determine whether pass is an LA, you need to take a group of this player's peers, tell them that someone forced them at gunpoint to bid 4♦ if they don't like the call, and tell them that it continued with 4♠ passed back to them. Then you ask them which calls they think are worth serious consideration.

I don't think anyone would think about passing (rather than double / 5d) with this strong of a hand on this auction, so I believe the ruling should stand.