[kgr]

Temas/IMP's

---

1) Do you agree with this bidding?
2) This was behind screens and it took some time before the board came back to South with the 5♦ bid.
2a) Is it clear for South that North was thinking & that N was thinking to bid 6♦ iso 5♦ or that he was thinking to pass 4♥ or that maybe East was thinking or delayed pushing the tray back?
2b) Can South bid 6♦?

Edit: We also agreed Walsh. Probably important because repeating D now iso of bidding 4H would show 4cH and 6cD with slam interest (around a limit hand)

[mike777]

dont agree with bidding:
1) north should start with 1d not 1c.
1b) south should rebid a natural 4d over 3nt. I assume 3d is some form of checkback, not natural. If 3d was natural, then north has an easy bid of 4c or 4d as a slam try.

[Zelandakh]

mike777, on 2012-September-26, 08:52, said:

dont agree with bidding:
1) north should start with 1d not 1c.
1b) south should rebid a natural 4d over 3nt. I assume 3d is some form of checkback, not natural. If 3d was natural, then north has an easy bid of 4c or 4d as a slam try.

1. The description for 1♣ says 2+ so it is reasonable to guess that the system in play opens all balanced 18-19hcp hands 1♣. If this is the case then North should definitely not open 1♦.
1b. The alert for 3♦ says forcing and nothing about Checkback. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that it is natural for the system being used. If it were artificial I am sure that the OP would have told us.

I do have a question for the OP though. Did Responder have a way to initiate a choice of game action over 2NT, either directly or perhaps via 3♣? At present I can see little justification for assuming North was thinking about bidding 6♦ as opposed to passing 4♥. It does depend on exactly what South was actually showing though and to find that out we need to know more about the rest of the system. If 3♦ followed by 4♥ definitely shows slam interest (it probably should) then it is much easier to envisage that North was considering slam. But if that were in fact the case then I find it difficult to believe that North would just bid 5♦.

[kgr]

Zelandakh, on 2012-September-26, 09:14, said:

1. The description for 1♣ says 2+ so it is reasonable to guess that the system in play opens all balanced 18-19hcp hands 1♣. If this is the case then North should definitely not open 1♦.
1b. The alert for 3♦ says forcing and nothing about Checkback. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that it is natural for the system being used. If it were artificial I am sure that the OP would have told us.

Right. 3C would have been asking for majors. 3D was natural.

Zelandakh, on 2012-September-26, 09:14, said:

I do have a question for the OP though. Did Responder have a way to initiate a choice of game action over 2NT, either directly or perhaps via 3♣?

No agreements, except that in our area we play 2NT as GF.
Choice of games for H would in fact be something like: 3C followed by 3NT

Zelandakh, on 2012-September-26, 09:14, said:

At present I can see little justification for assuming North was thinking about bidding 6♦ as opposed to passing 4♥. It does depend on exactly what South was actually showing though and to find that out we need to know more about the rest of the system. If 3♦ followed by 4♥ definitely shows slam interest (it probably should) then it is much easier to envisage that North was considering slam. But if that were in fact the case then I find it difficult to believe that North would just bid 5♦.

No agreements about 3D followed by 4H, but I was South and thought that it should show slam-interest.
East was a bit displeased (..is that English?) because North first took the 6D card out of the box, but finally decided to bid 5D.
I was South and decided after bidding 4H that I would bid (gamble?) 6D if North would correct to Diamonds.

[TimG]

1) I think North should have raised 3D to 4D instead of bidding 3N. Having failed to receive support for diamonds, or a preference to hearts, I think it is reasonable for south to stop thinking much about slam and signoff in 4H.

2a) In my opinion, any extra time it takes for the tray to come back can be assumed to be the result of North thinking. East has nothing to think about and would not delay the tray beyond the need to delay to maintain proper tempo (in the case of two quick calls on the NE side of the screen, for instance). East cannot delay the passing of the tray in order to simulate a break in tempo.

2b) I think the hesitation shows a maximum diamond raise in light of the previous bidding and suggests bidding on. Is pass a LA? I would say having previously been willing to play below slam in hearts, South should also be willing to play below slam in diamonds; yes, pass is a LA. Altogether, that means South cannot bid 6D (or that the director or committee should roll the auction back to 5D). The tricky part to me is that South can make an argument that North would not bid 5D simply to improve the contract, that bidding 5D (no matter the tempo) must be a slam try. Does this AI trump the UI? I don't think so, as suggested by the actual hand, the hesitation likely means not only slam interest, but perhaps a misbid previously (denying AKxx in diamonds by not raising 3D).

[mikeh]

I think 3N by N was bizarre. S went out of his way to suggest playing in diamonds, a suit in which N might very well have held Hx, and N was short hearts and AKxx in diamonds, with AQ AK in the side suits!!!!!

I'd really like to ask N what kind of hand he'd need in order to support diamonds on this auction.

The N hand was always very good, and has suddenly improved, yet N bids as if he held KQxx Jx Axx AKJx.

I don't like the methods, but that is neither here nor there (I prefer transfers over 2N). North absolutely has to announce diamonds. Indeed, I would bid 3♠ and, if S bid 3N...which he wouldn't here, of course, I'd then bid 4♣ to drive home just how great my hand has become in support of diamonds.

As for whether I'd allow 6♦ to stand, in real life I'd want to hear the arguments advanced by both sides. But I do have an opinion based on the information in the thread.

My take is that S clearly showed slam interest by his sequence. He shows 6+ hearts with his 4♥ call but had earlier suggested a minor suit contract even tho he knew of at least a 6-2 heart fit. No way does anyone look for 5♦ here....S was looking for 6♦.

But that raises another issue. Should a committee accept an argument by N-S that 5♦ showed some slam interest on the part of N? After all, that argument would go, N has opted for what might be a 4=4 and almost certainly isn't more than a 5=4 minor suit game rather than the 10 trick 6-2 heart game. He can't/shouldn't do that unless he has extras....so as to permit S to make a judgment call.

But, the counter-argument, that seems persuasive to me... is that S has made a slam try, and N has had two chances to show his actual values....once over 3♦ and then over 4♥ by jumping to slam....I honestly can't understand why he wouldn't.

So N CANNOT hold his actual hand....unless he conveys doubt by his BIT.

It is not that the BIT necessarily shows extra slam interest than would be shown by the 5♦ call. It is more that a smooth 5♦ would positively deny such an incredible hand while the BIT leaves that holding more possible. Thus bidding slam would be silly (imo) absent the BIT but demonstrably enjoys an enhanced likelihood of success after the BIT.

So I think I'd roll it back, and would feel that justice was done...any N player who misbids as badly as this one did should NOT be permitted to reach the right spot after a BIT unless I can be persuaded that the result could not in any rational way be linked to the BIT. And NS have a fail on that, imo.

I cast NO aspersions on the ethics of either player.

[mr1303]

For me, the hesitation suggests that partner was thinking about passing 4H rather than correcting to 5D, not deciding whether to bid 5D or 6D. So I would not adjust the score.

Certainly I don't think that 6D is demonstrably suggested by the hesitation.

[kgr]

mike777, on 2012-September-26, 08:52, said:

dont agree with bidding:
1) north should start with 1d not 1c.
1b) south should rebid a natural 4d over 3nt. I assume 3d is some form of checkback, not natural. If 3d was natural, then north has an easy bid of 4c or 4d as a slam try.

I edited the OP. We play Walsh. I thought 4D iso 4H showed maybe 4cH-6cD. Therefor I did bid 4H. I hoped that showing D before bidding 4H suggested slam-interest.

[kgr]

TimG, on 2012-September-26, 09:52, said:

1) I think North should have raised 3D to 4D instead of bidding 3N. Having failed to receive support for diamonds, or a preference to hearts, I think it is reasonable for south to stop thinking much about slam and signoff in 4H.

2a) In my opinion, any extra time it takes for the tray to come back can be assumed to be the result of North thinking. East has nothing to think about and would not delay the tray beyond the need to delay to maintain proper tempo (in the case of two quick calls on the NE side of the screen, for instance). East cannot delay the passing of the tray in order to simulate a break in tempo.

Is that true? Following Note in our screen regulations:
"De speler die hem schuift mag de beweging van de biedplank vertragen om tempo-onregelmatigheden te voorkomen"
In English: "The player who is moving the tray can delay the movement to avoid tempo irregularities".
...But maybe this is only if the bidding was very fast.

TimG, on 2012-September-26, 09:52, said:

2b) I think the hesitation shows a maximum diamond raise in light of the previous bidding and suggests bidding on. Is pass a LA? I would say having previously been willing to play below slam in hearts, South should also be willing to play below slam in diamonds; yes, pass is a LA. Altogether, that means South cannot bid 6D (or that the director or committee should roll the auction back to 5D). The tricky part to me is that South can make an argument that North would not bid 5D simply to improve the contract, that bidding 5D (no matter the tempo) must be a slam try. Does this AI trump the UI? I don't think so, as suggested by the actual hand, the hesitation likely means not only slam interest, but perhaps a misbid previously (denying AKxx in diamonds by not raising 3D).

That was my thinking as South. I really expected a 4c♦ and 2c♥ for the 5♦ bid & extra's. Without slam-interest I expected N to pass.
(I didn't even realize that there could a UI by the BIT. Maybe because I already decided to bid 6D over 5D when I made the 4H bid

[kgr]

mikeh, on 2012-September-26, 10:13, said:

I think 3N by N was bizarre. S went out of his way to suggest playing in diamonds, a suit in which N might very well have held Hx, and N was short hearts and AKxx in diamonds, with AQ AK in the side suits!!!!!

makes me wonder if I have the N hand wrong and that he was 4234 or 3235, but I don't think so.

mikeh, on 2012-September-26, 10:13, said:

I'd really like to ask N what kind of hand he'd need in order to support diamonds on this auction.

The N hand was always very good, and has suddenly improved, yet N bids as if he held KQxx Jx Axx AKJx.

I don't like the methods, but that is neither here nor there (I prefer transfers over 2N).

That is what I play with my regular partner.

mikeh, on 2012-September-26, 10:13, said:

North absolutely has to announce diamonds. Indeed, I would bid 3♠ and, if S bid 3N...which he wouldn't here, of course, I'd then bid 4♣ to drive home just how great my hand has become in support of diamonds.

My first reaction was that 3♠ should be natural and 4c♠, but South didn't bid 3♣ to ask for the majors, so yes...good suggestion!

mikeh, on 2012-September-26, 10:13, said:

As for whether I'd allow 6♦ to stand, in real life I'd want to hear the arguments advanced by both sides. But I do have an opinion based on the information in the thread.

My take is that S clearly showed slam interest by his sequence. He shows 6+ hearts with his 4♥ call but had earlier suggested a minor suit contract even tho he knew of at least a 6-2 heart fit. No way does anyone look for 5♦ here....S was looking for 6♦.

But that raises another issue. Should a committee accept an argument by N-S that 5♦ showed some slam interest on the part of N? After all, that argument would go, N has opted for what might be a 4=4 and almost certainly isn't more than a 5=4 minor suit game rather than the 10 trick 6-2 heart game. He can't/shouldn't do that unless he has extras....so as to permit S to make a judgment call.

But, the counter-argument, that seems persuasive to me... is that S has made a slam try, and N has had two chances to show his actual values....once over 3♦ and then over 4♥ by jumping to slam....I honestly can't understand why he wouldn't.

So N CANNOT hold his actual hand....unless he conveys doubt by his BIT.

It is not that the BIT necessarily shows extra slam interest than would be shown by the 5♦ call. It is more that a smooth 5♦ would positively deny such an incredible hand while the BIT leaves that holding more possible. Thus bidding slam would be silly (imo) absent the BIT but demonstrably enjoys an enhanced likelihood of success after the BIT.

So I think I'd roll it back, and would feel that justice was done...any N player who misbids as badly as this one did should NOT be permitted to reach the right spot after a BIT unless I can be persuaded that the result could not in any rational way be linked to the BIT. And NS have a fail on that, imo.

I cast NO aspersions on the ethics of either player.

I've put some parts in bold, but follow the rest of your reasoning as well.
Luckily E-W didn't call TD, could get a difficult decision

[TimG]

kgr, on 2012-September-26, 10:59, said:

Is that true? Following Note in our screen regulations:
"De speler die hem schuift mag de beweging van de biedplank vertragen om tempo-onregelmatigheden te voorkomen"
In English: "The player who is moving the tray can delay the movement to avoid tempo irregularities".
...But maybe this is only if the bidding was very fast.

To "avoid" not to "create". What you are suggesting is that East might delay the passing in order to create a tempo irregularity.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

It seems you have some alternative bids over 2NT :
You say 3C! always "asks" about the majors. Does it just ask for 3 cards ♥ here ?
Or is it the Wolff Relay , which asks for 4 cards ♥ , and also incorporates a "sign-off" ?

You could have shown extra ♥ length with 3H = 5+ cards, GF ( perhaps in your system it means 6+ ). This way it would avoid the "Walsh" only showing 4 card ♥ problem .
And your first priority anyway is to show extra ♥ length:

1C - 1H
2NT - 3H
3NT - 4D ( ostensibly 5+♥/4+♦ )
4S ( cue for ♦ ) - 5H ( cue )
6D

[blackshoe]

I'm not all that familiar with play behind screens, but I thought one of the purposes was to reduce, if not eliminate, BIT problems, since players on one side of the screen can't see who was breaking tempo on the other. And yet everyone here seems to accept as a matter of course that there was a BIT, and that South can be certain it was his partner who broke tempo. What use screens then?

[TimG]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-26, 21:24, said:

I'm not all that familiar with play behind screens, but I thought one of the purposes was to reduce, if not eliminate, BIT problems, since players on one side of the screen can't see who was breaking tempo on the other. And yet everyone here seems to accept as a matter of course that there was a BIT, and that South can be certain it was his partner who broke tempo. What use screens then?

I don't imagine the mystery around who is responsible for a BIT was the primary consideration when implementing screens. Certainly there are enough other ways that UI can be reduced by the use of screens that we shouldn't consider screens useless if they don't always solve BIT issues.

[mycroft]

When normal tempo after the first round is 10 seconds (because it's being carefully controlled by either N or E, which of course is the regulation but nobody does; technically they should do it for the first round too, but how often is it a problem?), when the tray comes back after 25, there was clearly a BIT somewhere, and the auction frequently (but nowhere near always!) can tell you whose BIT it was.

Per the regulation, N bids, and East, if she chooses to delay to maintain normal tempo pulls her call out and shows it to N, but delays putting it on the tray. N, should he choose to delay to maintain normal tempo, sees East's call, and refuses to push the tray through until "normal time".

I know I'm preaching to the choir, here :-)

[Fluffy]

I can't think of any other reason to think before bidding 5♦ than to deide between 4♥ and 5♦ I don't understand why the hesitation suggests 6♦.

3NT is a horrible bid

[ggwhiz]

kgr, on 2012-September-26, 10:47, said:

I hoped that showing D before bidding 4H suggested slam-interest.

If you told me that as a Director I would rule that you made your slam try and your partner declined it slowly.

I'm rolling it back to 5♦ on that basis since the auction was a flounder as pointed out by others.

[kgr]

ggwhiz, on 2012-September-28, 08:48, said:

If you told me that as a Director I would rule that you made your slam try and your partner declined it slowly.

I'm rolling it back to 5♦ on that basis since the auction was a flounder as pointed out by others.

I wasn't clear here.
I hoped that I showed slam interest and had planned to always bid 6♦ if partner would bid 5♦

[TimG]

kgr, on 2012-September-28, 09:16, said:

I wasn't clear here.
I hoped that I showed slam interest and had planned to always bid 6♦ if partner would bid 5♦

A statement like "I always planned to. . ." is seldom of any value at appeal and, I think, should be discounted considerably (perhaps totally) by a director.

[ggwhiz]

kgr, on 2012-September-28, 09:16, said:

I wasn't clear here.

You can't possibly be clear when your pard supresses THAT trump support so I have absolutely no ethical problems with your action but would still disagree. Given that it's imps if this were an ATB hand the 3nt bid gets my vote.