[Winstonm]

Couple of things here IMO. Playing MPs, what would the South hand do if North had bid a quick 3N? Wouldn't he likely hold along the lines of KJ9x, x, AQx Qxxxx?

Pass is now reasonable opposite this hand. Also, there is nothing to suggest that there are extra tricks available in a suit verses NT unless it is 5C making 6 verses exactly +600 in NT because the only ruffing tricks available are in the South hand.

Seems to me before you could rule you would have to know much more - what are the N/S methods, would N in this auction show doubleton heart or would that confirm 3-card support. If N would only bid 3H with 3-card support there is a better argument for a 4H call with the S hand; if not, then I don't see how S can move over 3N in hopes that 5C is exactly right or will outscore 3N.

Winston

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Sep 26 2005, 06:59 PM, said:

edit: What I meant to say was it is hard for me to argue that pass is not a logical alternative if someone would actually bid it, however I will say had I been the partner of the hesitator I would bid 4H no matter how long he tanked and it would never have occured to me that this was the least bit unethical. I guess I would lose the committee though

This concept is related to the BW editorial that discussed filing a 'flight plan' in case pard makes a hitch.

In other words, if there is a mechanism where you can plan your calls out in advance, it should take you off the hook in case pard hesitates.

On the subject hand, when you bid 3♣, you make a note on the explanation pad (assuming screens are used) thats says "Im bidding 4♥ over 3N in any case".

[mike777]

Jlall, on Sep 26 2005, 09:59 PM, said:

edit: What I meant to say was it is hard for me to argue that pass is not a logical alternative if someone would actually bid it, however I will say had I been the partner of the hesitator I would bid 4H no matter how long he tanked and it would never have occured to me that this was the least bit unethical. I guess I would lose the committee though

To determine if pass is a logical alternative then give this hand to peer players and do not tell them about hesitation.

If 80-90% bid on then pass is not a logical alternative?

Key here is not tell us about the hesitation at all in the post.

[Fluffy]

I think this is very very close also, 4♥ seems the best, and pass is an alternative if 3NT was bid quick.

I would check what the strong field did on similar auctions to make a decision.

BTW: was 2♣ forcing?

[Walddk]

Fluffy, on Sep 28 2005, 04:38 PM, said:

BTW: was 2♣ forcing?

Yes. 3♣ was not, which is quite common (unless you play MikeH's method). Opener was reluctant to splinter (3♠) or jump to 4♣ at matchpoints.

Roland

[Walddk]

Room for more discussion. The EBL certified TD ruled:

4♥ permissible, the raise to 6♣ was not. Result: 5♣ +1 = 620.

For the record, 6♣ is down on a diamond lead. West had ♦AK. Responder's hand:

AKQJ6
void
Q73
K9543

Roland

[Fluffy]

Quite different hehe, in Spain it would go if I the non offendin one:

Your opponents are weak, I won't rule against them because they wouldn't appeal, so I rule against you, and then if you wanna risk your money you appela to the comitee.

The I would appeal and they would rule:

Your opponents have cheated, we will give them an average, but sincee you had the chance of getting a very good score by leading a ♦ that you missed, and it is in our opinion (we can look at the cards now after all and we are good) that you should lead it by any means, therefore your score stands in 6♣ making or overtrick.

I know what I am talking about, this kind of thing has happened to me 4 or 5 times, opponents help themselves unethically into the 5 level, the I make a wrong decision at that 5 level and my result stands.

[mycroft]

Walddk, on Sep 28 2005, 08:45 AM, said:

Fluffy, on Sep 28 2005, 04:38 PM, said:

BTW: was 2♣ forcing?

Yes. 3♣ was not, which is quite common (unless you play MikeH's method). Opener was reluctant to splinter (3♠) or jump to 4♣ at matchpoints.

Roland

There's the bit right there: if 3S or 4C are worrisome at MP, why? If it's because 3NT is now out of the picture, then 3NT is passable (how else are you going to get to 3NT?). If it's because partner will launch into a club slam with the wrong values, then why did this hand launch into a club slam with no more idea what values partner has except for the stiff or void heart? If it's none of those reasons, what is it?

I happen to be with the majority, however; 4H seems automatic to me. It's been too long since I played 1H-(1S)-2C; 3C NF (or at least "NF, but he never passes, especially at MPs) to give a great answer, however.

Michael.

[junyi_zhu]

Walddk, on Sep 26 2005, 07:38 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

---

Hecht Cup, Copenhagen, Denmark. Matchpoints, strong field.

You open 1♥ first in hand, LHO overcalls 1♠, and your partner bids 2♣. Pass by RHO and you support to 3♣. Partner hesitates (no dispute) for about 30 seconds before bidding 3NT.

Can you bid 4♥ now? Are you allowed to bid at all? Say you bid 4♥ and get 5♣ from partner. Will they allow you to raise to 6♣? In other words:

1. Is 4♥ obvious?
2. If yes, is 6♣ obvious because it's pairs?

Roland

3C is probably an underbid. Here, I have a gadget, direct 3C is gameforcing.
With minimum, you can bid 2S which relays to 2NT, then you can bid 3C to show your minimum hand. This is especially useful for sequence like 1C 1S 2H, now you can bid 2S which relays to 2NT, then you can bid 3C to show weak hand with long C, 3H: minimum raise. Of course, you can assign some useful meaning to other three level bids. For your hand, over a game forcing 3C, partner bid 3NT, you still can pull to 4H to finish your shape description. Anyway, 6-4 shape is always hard to describe.