[lamford]

---

Matchpoints. Lead 3♠ Table Result 4♦-1 (average).

This was the last-round of the Easter Congress and NS called the TD when dummy appeared. The TD asked for play to be completed, and at the end of play, as there was a lot of clearing up to do, it was agreed to give a ruling the next day.

The TD polled a number of people with the West hand, and all passed 3NT when given the hand without UI. However, the TD, consulting with others, decided that a slow 3NT did not demonstrably suggest that West pulled to 4D and he left the score unchanged. North was playing in a sponsored team the next day so was disinclined to get distracted with an appeal, but I am interested in your opinions on the TD decision.

If 3NT was passed, North stated he would probably have doubled.

[barmar]

Did we poll to find out what West would do if 3NT doubled comes around to them? Or maybe that's not relevant, since I'll bet East would pull it himself.

From West's perspective, East's hesitation is probably based on worry about clubs, and he has those stopped, so the hesitation doesn't suggest pulling.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2018-April-11, 08:34, said:

Did we poll to find out what West would do if 3NT doubled comes around to them?

I don't think the TD did, nor would I expect him to do so.

[Tramticket]

 lamford, on 2018-April-11, 08:13, said:

---

If 3NT was passed, North stated he would probably have doubled.

I am not sure how much value to put on this assertion. Would a double be lead-directing for this partnership and if so, what lead would it suggest? A double would certainly enable west to escape to 4♦ without relying in unauthorised information (unless East makes another slow pass! or more likely pulls the double himself).

It is Authorised Information to West that East bid 3♦ before bidding 3NT and this sequence (rather than bidding 3NT without mentioning the diamonds) would envisage that East could correct to a diamond contract. For me the slow 3NT demonstrably suggests "doubt" about 3NT. Even if the likely doubt over bidding 3NT is because East was considering passing, I think that this could be sufficient to suggest bidding 4♦.

[Cyberyeti]

Also what was the agreement on the X of 2♥, without alert doesn't it show hearts, so shouldn't W bid 4♥ if he's pulling ? Doesn't the slowness suggest 4♦ over 4♥ as partner may be in doubt about what X meant ?

[WellSpyder]

 Tramticket, on 2018-April-11, 09:00, said:

For me the slow 3NT demonstrably suggests "doubt" about 3NT.

I agree. But any player who bids a non-forcing 3♦ before then bidding 3NT without hearing anything useful from partner has also suggested doubt about 3NT via his sequence of bids. So I don't think any particular choice of bids is suggested by the UI.

[steve2005]

 WellSpyder, on 2018-April-11, 09:27, said:

I agree. But any player who bids a non-forcing 3♦ before then bidding 3NT without hearing anything useful from partner has also suggested doubt about 3NT via his sequence of bids. So I don't think any particular choice of bids is suggested by the UI.

Yes I think he has fully described their hand with their bidding. Hesitation shows the same.

The opponents look to be playing weak 1N. It is more normal for double to show mealy a good hand than for lead. But this wasn't stated.

I don't see anybody sitting for 3NX.

[lamford]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-April-11, 09:02, said:

Also what was the agreement on the X of 2♥, without alert doesn't it show hearts, so shouldn't W bid 4♥ if he's pulling ? Doesn't the slowness suggest 4♦ over 4♥ as partner may be in doubt about what X meant ?

I imagine looking at East's hand that double was either hearts or a hand that would double a weak NT. This is quite a common treatment in England but it was not alerted.

[lamford]

 WellSpyder, on 2018-April-11, 09:27, said:

I agree. But any player who bids a non-forcing 3♦ before then bidding 3NT without hearing anything useful from partner has also suggested doubt about 3NT via his sequence of bids. So I don't think any particular choice of bids is suggested by the UI.

That was the argument put forward by the TDs. That the authorised auction suggested doubt about 3NT. If that is the case, my response would be "Why then did ALL those polled pass 3NT without the UI, but this particular West pulled it with the UI?"

I can quite accept that North would pass out 3NT rather than give the opponents a second bite at the cherry, but there was a big difference between +50 and +100.

[Cyberyeti]

 lamford, on 2018-April-11, 11:24, said:

I imagine looking at East's hand that double was either hearts or a hand that would double a weak NT. This is quite a common treatment in England but it was not alerted.

I didn't ask what it was, I asked what their agreement was

E may have UI that his partner hasn't alerted his X so may have chosen 3♦ rather than NTs to emphasize that he doesn't in fact hold hearts.

[nige1]

 lamford, on 2018-April-11, 08:13, said:

The TD polled a number of people with the West hand, and all passed 3NT when given the hand without UI. However, the TD, consulting with others, decided that a slow 3NT did not demonstrably suggest that West pulled to 4D and he left the score unchanged.

The poll shows that pass is an LA for West. East's hesitation implies doubt and suggests pulling. Hence, IMO NS were damaged by West's putative use of UI and the director should adjust to 3N-3 or more. 3NX is an unlikely contract because East or West would probably run,

[paulg]

 Tramticket, on 2018-April-11, 09:00, said:

For me the slow 3NT demonstrably suggests "doubt" about 3NT.

 WellSpyder, on 2018-April-11, 09:27, said:

I agree. But any player who bids a non-forcing 3♦ before then bidding 3NT without hearing anything useful from partner has also suggested doubt about 3NT via his sequence of bids. So I don't think any particular choice of bids is suggested by the UI.

Double, then 3♦ followed by a fast 3NT shows a little bit of doubt - probably an unguarded suit with running diamonds
Double, then 3♦ followed by a 3NT in tempo shows doubt - probably an unguarded suit with strong, but not running, diamonds
Double, then 3♦ followed by a very slow 3NT shows a lot of doubt - hoping to make it on a spade lead but uncertain

West's peers are not bidding so it is reasonable to assume that only the UI has suggested bidding. I think the directors were wrong.

[sanst]

 lamford, on 2018-April-11, 08:13, said:

The TD polled a number of people with the West hand, and all passed 3NT when given the hand without UI. However, the TD, consulting with others, decided that a slow 3NT did not demonstrably suggest that West pulled to 4D and he left the score unchanged. North was playing in a sponsored team the next day so was disinclined to get distracted with an appeal, but I am interested in your opinions on the TD decision.

If 3NT was passed, North stated he would probably have doubled.

Why have a poll and decide against the outcome?? I really don't understand this. Gave the TD a reason for it?
The real problem for me is North's claim that he probably would have doubled, in which case I would allow the 4♦ by W. My decision would be a splitscore, 3NT-3 for EW, 4♦-1 for NS.

[lamford]

 sanst, on 2018-April-12, 02:21, said:

Why have a poll and decide against the outcome?? I really don't understand this. Gave the TD a reason for it?
The real problem for me is North's claim that he probably would have doubled, in which case I would allow the 4♦ by W. My decision would be a splitscore, 3NT-3 for EW, 4♦-1 for NS.

That is illegal and would only be allowed if West passed, North actually doubled and it was deemed ESEWoG. North can pass out 3NT and get the same 150 as EW! The TD stated that he did not think there was a significant difference between an in-tempo 3NT and a slow 3NT. I also thought this was bizarre, given that none of those polled bid over 3NT, and would have appealed if I had not been playing by now in another event. Perhaps a member of the TD team at the event can explain their reasons more fully.

[Cyberyeti]

 sanst, on 2018-April-12, 02:21, said:

Why have a poll and decide against the outcome?? I really don't understand this. Gave the TD a reason for it?
The real problem for me is North's claim that he probably would have doubled, in which case I would allow the 4♦ by W. My decision would be a splitscore, 3NT-3 for EW, 4♦-1 for NS.

You don't double 3N in these circumstances (unless you're barefaced bluffing) if you're not also doubling 4♦

[Cascade]

 lamford, on 2018-April-11, 11:30, said:

That was the argument put forward by the TDs. That the authorised auction suggested doubt about 3NT. If that is the case, my response would be "Why then did ALL those polled pass 3NT without the UI, but this particular West pulled it with the UI?"

I can quite accept that North would pass out 3NT rather than give the opponents a second bite at the cherry, but there was a big difference between +50 and +100.

Maybe this West would have pulled it without the UI.

[lamford]

 Cascade, on 2018-April-15, 00:54, said:

Maybe this West would have pulled it without the UI.

Even if he would have done, he is now obliged to carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI.

[barmar]

 Cascade, on 2018-April-15, 00:54, said:

Maybe this West would have pulled it without the UI.

The important thing to remember about UI laws is that they're not really based on what the player in question thinks or would have done, they're based on a hypothetical set of "players of the same class, playing the same methods". This is why explanations like "I was always going to do X" do not protect the player, and why we can use polls to determine LAs and what is suggested.