BBO Discussion Forums: Scrabbling for imps? - BBO Discussion Forums

After 24/32 of a KO match, the scores are very close. During the 3rd set, one of the tables has the following auction (explanations included in the diagram):



East asks for an explanation of the auction before leading. NS play 5-card majors, 4-card diamond suit and strong NT. 2♥ was a normal reverse* (in the English style, usually showing 16+ HCP or so, could be lighter with extra playing strength, although this wasn't said in so much detail at the table). South said about 5S "We don't play this as asking for anything in particular, it just asks me if I like my hand for slam". East thinks a bit longer and asks if it is asking for anything in particular, South says "No, it just says bid on with a good hand, it doesn't ask for anything specific" - South has a very slight stammer and couldn't get out the word "specific", North completed it and added "it's just a quantitative invite".

East led the ace of diamonds against 5S, and West (a much weaker player) played the lowest outstanding diamond. East then tried to give West a club ruff, and the contract made with an overtrick (West has the ace of hearts). Declarer has lots of solid spades, a singleton diamond and the rounded suit jacks.

Everyone agrees that the 5S bid was very slow.

After the end of the stanza, East then asks for a ruling. He says that the slow 5S bid demonstrably suggests passing, while South has an obvious slam bid opposite a fast 5S bid (I think the implication is that NS would usually play that 5S asks partner to bid 6 with a diamond control, but being slow suggested that North was looking for something else). He also says that against slam they would have cashed their two aces.

South says that (i) no-one has ever bids 5S quickly in this sort of auction so there was no UI other than North wasn't sure how to bid his hand, and (ii) that having reversed South now has an unsuitable hand with minimum HCP and in particular only one ace and no reason to bid slam.

N/S have a 33-page section of their system notes on competitive bidding, but it doesn't include jumps to 5 of a major (nor does the uncontested system file).

 FrancesHinden, on 2011-May-03, 15:07, said:

That's enough for me to rule no action demonstrably suggested / results stands.

Since South can easily have the same hand but with AK hearts, they are not suitable to accept the slam suggestion with KQ of hearts (IMO).

I agree. South just barely has his reverse, and has little trump support. He can't upgrade it further to a slam acceptance.

 FrancesHinden, on 2011-May-03, 15:07, said:

I can see both arguments. I also would expect an undiscussed 5S to be asking for a diamond control. So, with AKQJxxxx Axx xx none, I would bid 5S on the North hand pretty quickly and expect it to be interpreted as a diamond ask. What does a slow 5S demonstrably suggest? Well, North did not bid Blackwood slowly or quickly, so that would suggest he is looking for a diamond control. But it would not take him too long to realise this. I tend to agree with East; North wants something more than a diamond control, and I would adjust, but I would have to poll players of East's ability to decide how often he would decide to play a heart rather than a club. Note that he would always switch to a club against 5H, as he needs a club ruff and the ace of hearts, and there is much more chance of West playing a high diamond against slam, even if a weaker player.

NS gave an explanation for their bids that matches the hand. On what basis could we make an adjustement?.

I tried the "no player would bid fast on this situation" argument before, after we cuebid all the 4 suits and I signed off slowly. But director still ruled back my partner's decision to raise to slam, the fact that it was a 50% slam didn't matter.

 Fluffy, on 2011-May-05, 09:13, said:

The problem is that South might give an explanation that would fit in with his decision to sign off over a slow 5S. South would know that "asking for a second-round diamond control" would always get a ruling against him, whether slam made or not. The system file was silent on the meaning of 5S, and the director might poll a number of players of similar strength to establish what 5S would mean to them. It seems incorrect to accept South's statement which could be construed as self-serving.

 lamford, on 2011-May-05, 09:36, said:

Maybe South's statement could be construed as self-serving. But polling others to decide what a certain sequence should mean to this pair seems wrong, too.

The only issue should be whether to make the slow-bidder's side bid a slam off 2 Aces by imposing someone else's (my) idea of correct bidding, or just accept that 5S was a general slam try which was declined. Would we also make them bid the slam if declarer had the heart Ace? If, as partner of the slow bidder I might ---if taking the slowness into account---guess that opener does have the heart ace and was afraid to cue one of my suits.

The defense was what it was --an inexperienced player played a suit preference card that wasn't one. How about making them bid the slam making with the same suit-preference signal?

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-May-05, 11:17

 aguahombre, on 2011-May-05, 10:56, said:

You know that there would be no adjustment in favour of the pair who had potential UI, so that part is not worth answering. The only issue is whether a slow 5S demonstrably suggests that South pass rather than bid 6S, which must be the only two options. If an opposing suit had not been bid, I would expect 5S to be a general slam-try, but with an opposing bid, I would expect most strong pairs to play that it asked for a diamond control. In fact I would think that it would be completely universal, and that the stated agreement by North-South would not be mainstream.

We therefore have to decide whether to accept the statement and the director applies
85A1: In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect.

Polling pairs of similar ability is not deciding on what methods this pair plays, but what methods this pair are likely to play when they cannot show from a system file what they are. And the success or otherwise of the slam would be a separate issue, which again involves judgement and consultation.

 FrancesHinden, on 2011-May-03, 15:07, said:

After the end of the stanza, East then asks for a ruling. He says that the slow 5S bid demonstrably suggests passing, while South has an obvious slam bid opposite a fast 5S bid (I think the implication is that NS would usually play that 5S asks partner to bid 6 with a diamond control, but being slow suggested that North was looking for something else). He also says that against slam they would have cashed their two aces.

 lamford, on 2011-May-05, 07:32, said:

I can see both arguments. I also would expect an undiscussed 5S to be asking for a diamond control. So, with AKQJxxxx Axx xx none, I would bid 5S on the North hand pretty quickly and expect it to be interpreted as a diamond ask. What does a slow 5S demonstrably suggest? Well, North did not bid Blackwood slowly or quickly, so that would suggest he is looking for a diamond control. But it would not take him too long to realise this. I tend to agree with East; North wants something more than a diamond control, and I would adjust ....

I presume North did not have a strong jump shift available on the first round!

I think another reason for a slow five spades is that North can see that the auction has moved out of his control and the meaning of 4NT is becoming less clear. Certainly the opportunity to keycard in spades looks small and is unlikely to improve (three spades is clearly forcing and if partner raises all is fine, but over anything else we are poorly positioned).

I also feel that there is no significant difference between slow and very slow. Once you have demonstrated that you have a problem, might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb.

So I'm tending towards the no-adjustment vote.

 lamford, on 2011-May-05, 11:22, said:

It seems to me that you are saying...

A pair that doesn't have an agreement documented in their system notes is deemed not to have an agreement.

I can accept this in many (most) cases but in this instance both North and South gave the same explanation, which is evidence that they actually had an agreement. When North's hand clearly shows that the "universal" second-round-control meaning does not apply, why should we not accept their explanation of quantitative?

 richlp, on 2011-May-05, 12:44, said:

Not only that both hands are consistent with the explanation.
If a slam-try has a specific meaning, for example bid slam with a control in the opponents suit,
it seems highly obscure to make this bid slowly when you already have the control and then for partner
to wire out you already have the control and are looking for something else.

Yeh, but the Law dogs would have such fun ruling 6♠ making.

Many pairs leap to five of one of their three suits to ask for control the remaining suit but this pair's explanation seems plausible and consistent with both their hands.

 lamford, on 2011-May-05, 07:32, said:

If you ask NS what a jump to 4NT over 3D would have meant, they will tell you it is natural and not Blackwood in any suit. So North is not able to bid Blackwood at any speed. (This one is in the system file: "A jump to 4NT in competition is never RKCB unless we have explicitly agreed a major")

Quote

This is an interesting idea which I don't think I've seen before. Since when do we poll to decide what methods a pair are likely to play? If a sequence were undiscussed or 'no agreement' you might poll to find out what alternatives are logical interpretations, but here you have a pair claiming they have a specific agreement, it's just that you don't believe them. You are as a TD entitled to rule on the basis that they don't have the agreement they claim to have, but I don't think a poll is any way to prove that one way or the other.

If the director mistrusted the evidence of NS's statements, a poll might provide evidence that he'd regard as more reliable. If, for example, 80% of pollees said they played it the same way as NS's claimed agreement, that would make it less likely that NS were lying.

Or maybe we could we use a poll to determine how trustworthy NS are perceived to be by their peers? "X says his methods are this. Should we believe him?" I suspect that this would usually (but not always) produce the right answer.

I'm not suggesting that the director should do any polling in this particular case. With the facts as described, it seems obvious that NS were telling the truth.

I don't see that a poll in this case would serve much purpose. The case for polling at all depends on the words of the present Law 16:

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. [emphasis mine]

One uses a poll not to determine what the methods of a partnership are, but to determine what logical alternatives exist given that the methods of the partnership are what they are. In the actual case, there is compelling evidence that since North had a diamond control himself, he wasn't asking South for one - he was just issuing a quantitative slam try. Since that was what South said North was doing, there has been no infraction of Law, and I would incline to fine East-West enough IMPs to lose the match for wasting police time.

 gnasher, on 2011-May-05, 17:01, said:

It seems to me that there are two possibilities. North had a hand clearly too good to bid 4S, and he (or she) wanted to make a slam-try, he knew 4NT was likely to be interpreted as natural - indeed we are told that this was in the system file. He might have considered bidding 3S and then 5S, or 3S and then 4NT, and would have been wondering what they meant. He might have been unsure what 5S meant, as I feel sure that many would worry that partner would pass with two small diamonds, but in the end he decides to bid this. South might think: "I know this is not in the system file, and there are two possible meanings, a general invite or asking for a diamond control. If partner was sure it asked for a diamond control, he would have bid it immediately if that is what he wanted. I don't think he just wants a diamond control, but wants extras."

The other possibility, perhaps more likely, is that the agreement was specifically that 5S was just invitational as stated, and North was indeed considering other bids and South viewed that he was minimum.

I am sure we all agree that having either meaning for 5S - invitational if slow and asking for a diamond control if fast - would be a serious breach of the proprietries, especially if South answered "invitational or asking for a diamond control" in each case, and North knew that confirming the agreement was always the better option. Even if the meanings were just conveyed by previous experience of what partner has when he bids slowly or quickly.

My guess on this hand is that North-South were indeed telling the truth. If it is the Spring Fours quarter-final match I think it is, and the North-South pair are who I think they are, then I would be almost certain they are telling the truth. But should we take into account our view of the pair in ruling? I think so; that is all part of the evidence the TD is able to collect. So if the facts are as I think they are, I would change my view to no adjustment.

 lamford, on 2011-May-06, 04:04, said:

Yes, we should, in situations where there is doubt. But why would there be doubt? All the evidence of NS's statements and actions points one way, and the only evidence pointing in the other direction is a perception that their claimed agreement is unusual. Even a pair with a reputation for dishonesty should be believed here.

 gnasher, on 2011-May-06, 05:32, said:

Not so. The evidence is equally consistent with the CPU that a slow jump to the five-level is quantitative and a fast jump to the five-level asks for a control in the opponent's (or fourth) suit. Whether through previous experience or by illegal agreement. I am sure this is not the case here, but with some players it might be.