[Cyberyeti]

Trinidad, on 2019-February-11, 04:37, said:

That potentially cold slam you also had the round before... yet you chose to bid a non-forcing 3NT.

The problem is to demonstrate that the hesitation suggested to bid 6NT.

The problem is not to demonstrate that pass is an LA to someone who was willing to play 3NT the round before.

I can see only one reason for bidding 6NT: If West doesn't know the meaning of 4♥ (natural/transfer ?!?), then 6NT is a reasonable shot to run from a disaster to something that just might work out well. But then I would expect West to tell that immediately to the TD.

Rik

The facts change with the 4♥ bid, the chance of a slam MASSIVELY improves in the knowledge that partner has a 6 card heart suit.

I outlined the other reason that suggested 6N over 6♥, many of the hands where 6♥ is the right slam would stem from an in tempo 4♥.

[pescetom]

Trinidad, on 2019-February-11, 04:37, said:

I can see only one reason for bidding 6NT: If West doesn't know the meaning of 4♥ (natural/transfer ?!?), then 6NT is a reasonable shot to run from a disaster to something that just might work out well. But then I would expect West to tell that immediately to the TD.

I imagine that if West had jumped to 6NT on such a basis the TD would take a dim view, whether or not West volunteered the information immediately.
But here West denied that there was any doubt that the bid might not be natural.

[Trinidad]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-11, 05:57, said:

Trinidad, on 2019-February-11, 04:37, said:

That potentially cold slam you also had the round before... yet you chose to bid a non-forcing 3NT.

The problem is to demonstrate that the hesitation suggested to bid 6NT.

The problem is not to demonstrate that pass is an LA to someone who was willing to play 3NT the round before.

I can see only one reason for bidding 6NT: If West doesn't know the meaning of 4♥ (natural/transfer ?!?), then 6NT is a reasonable shot to run from a disaster to something that just might work out well. But then I would expect West to tell that immediately to the TD.

Rik

The facts change with the 4♥ bid, the chance of a slam MASSIVELY improves in the knowledge that partner has a 6 card heart suit.

I outlined the other reason that suggested 6N over 6♥, many of the hands where 6♥ is the right slam would stem from an in tempo 4♥.

The facts did change by the 4♥ bid... But not in favor of bidding 6NT.

That is easy to see since the actual dummy provided 0 (zero) tricks in hearts. The fact that 6NT made was due to dummy's values in diamonds and dummy's length and values in clubs. I do not believe that 4♥ showed those.

If dummy would have shown up with ♥QJxxxx and out (3 more HCPs than he promised) declarer would have gotton what he deserved: An absolutely silly and unmakeable slam. In that case, 6♥, would make on a winning diamond finesse and a bit of luck in the breaking of the other suits.

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

Trinidad, on 2019-February-12, 03:37, said:

The facts did change by the 4♥ bid... But not in favor of bidding 6NT.

That is easy to see since the actual dummy provided 0 (zero) tricks in hearts. The fact that 6NT made was due to dummy's values in diamonds and dummy's length and values in clubs. I do not believe that 4♥ showed those.

If dummy would have shown up with ♥QJxxxx and out (3 more HCPs than he promised) declarer would have gotton what he deserved: An absolutely silly and unmakeable slam. In that case, 6♥, would make on a winning diamond finesse and a bit of luck in the breaking of the other suits.

Rik

You massively miss the point. If dummy turned up with QJxxxx and out, he would not have been thinking before bidding 4♥, so he doesn't have that.

[Trinidad]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-12, 04:42, said:

You massively miss the point. If dummy turned up with QJxxxx and out, he would not have been thinking before bidding 4♥, so he doesn't have that.

Probably I misunderstood. So, we agree that pass is an LA (and perhaps the only "A")?

So, your reasoning is that since dummy cannot have QJxxxx and out (due to the BIT), the odds for slam increase and you have demonstrated that the 6NT bid could be inspired by the BIT. Do I understand that right?

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

Trinidad, on 2019-February-12, 05:10, said:

Probably I misunderstood. So, we agree that pass is an LA (and perhaps the only "A")?

So, your reasoning is that since dummy cannot have QJxxxx and out (due to the BIT), the odds for slam increase and you have demonstrated that the 6NT bid could be inspired by the BIT. Do I understand that right?

Rik

Odds of a slam increase massively by the 4♥ bid with or without BIT, sufficiently for me that I DON'T consider pass a LA, I would always make some sort of try.

Odds of 6N being better than 6♥ increase by the BIT.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-12, 06:16, said:

Odds of a slam increase massively by the 4♥ bid with or without BIT, sufficiently for me that I DON'T consider pass a LA, I would always make some sort of try.

Odds of 6N being better than 6♥ increase by the BIT.

That's the way I would figure too, if I was in West and just looking for the best contract.

[sanst]

What anyone here might or might not do, is totally irrelevant. The real question is whether there is a logical alternative as defined in Law 16B1(b): “A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select.” To me it seems that that’s the case, since 42 out of 130 pairs ended in 4♥. But here a poll would have been necessary and I’m surprised that this wasn’t done in a tournament of this size.

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2019-February-12, 14:25, said:

What anyone here might or might not do, is totally irrelevant. The real question is whether there is a logical alternative as defined in Law 16B1(b): “A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select.” To me it seems that that’s the case, since 42 out of 130 pairs ended in 4♥. But here a poll would have been necessary and I’m surprised that this wasn’t done in a tournament of this size.

You can't tell purely from the final contract, could be a variety of different auctions/point ranges shown. I agree you should poll.

[Trinidad]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-12, 06:16, said:

Odds of a slam increase massively by the 4♥ bid with or without BIT, sufficiently for me that I DON'T consider pass a LA, I would always make some sort of try.

Odds of 6N being better than 6♥ increase by the BIT.

The only reason why odds for slam increase by the 4♥ bid is that there seems to be a fit. (Or an other way of looking at it: The difference between contracting for 12 tricks and 9 = 3. The difference between contracting for 12 tricks and 10 = 2. 2 < 3. So if we can play 4♥ we are closer to slam than if we can play 3NT.)

Nevertheless, the odds for slam (without a BIT) should be poor. Partner has seen your bids, you have described your hand (Balanced, 25-27) and partner signs off in 4♥. Partner knows that she needs very little to try for slam. She doesn't try for slam, therefore she shouldn't have that very little.

When I bid 6♥ with that West hand, my partner will turn out to have the hand that the 4♥ bid actually shows:
♠Jxx
♥xxxxxx
♦xx
♣xx

Then I have turned a good (but not cold) 4♥ contract into a no play 6♥ contract.

So, East is the one who should suggest slam. Her bid didn't, but her BIT did.

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

Trinidad, on 2019-February-13, 05:18, said:

The only reason why odds for slam increase by the 4♥ bid is that there seems to be a fit. (Or an other way of looking at it: The difference between contracting for 12 tricks and 9 = 3. The difference between contracting for 12 tricks and 10 = 2. 2 < 3. So if we can play 4♥ we are closer to slam than if we can play 3NT.)

Nevertheless, the odds for slam (without a BIT) should be poor. Partner has seen your bids, you have described your hand (Balanced, 25-27) and partner signs off in 4♥. Partner knows that she needs very little to try for slam. She doesn't try for slam, therefore she shouldn't have that very little.

When I bid 6♥ with that West hand, my partner will turn out to have the hand that the 4♥ bid actually shows:
♠Jxx
♥xxxxxx
♦xx
♣xx

Then I have turned a good (but not cold) 4♥ contract into a no play 6♥ contract.

So, East is the one who should suggest slam. Her bid didn't, but her BIT did.

Rik

And this is why I said several times that I would not BID the slam, I would invite it and play 5 opposite what you suggest (not ideal, but better than 6). I might not bid 4♥ on that hand however, I would not expect partner to be 6322 very often holding the big hand, I would expect some shape. It's embarrassing when partner has AKQx, Kx, AKQJ, Axx and you lose 4 trump tricks in 4♥ with 3N cold. I'm also used to partner jumping to 3N when somewhat offshape to show his values and be looking at a stiff ace of hearts.

[blackshoe]

In the presence of UI that suggests a slam might be there, even inviting slam is taking advantage of UI.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2019-February-13, 09:32, said:

In the presence of UI that suggests a slam might be there, even inviting slam is taking advantage of UI.

AI also suggests a slam may be there, this is what the question's about, 4♥ needn't suggest any points, but the 6 hearts it does imply means you may well have enough tricks.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-13, 10:08, said:

AI also suggests a slam may be there, this is what the question's about, 4♥ needn't suggest any points, but the 6 hearts it does imply means you may well have enough tricks.

And I don't think a slow 4H demonstrably suggests anything different to that which a quick 4H would suggest. That is the comparison.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2019-February-12, 14:25, said:

What anyone here might or might not do, is totally irrelevant. The real question is whether there is a logical alternative as defined in Law 16B1(b): “A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select.” To me it seems that that’s the case, since 42 out of 130 pairs ended in 4♥. But here a poll would have been necessary and I’m surprised that this wasn’t done in a tournament of this size.

The 130 results for the hand were at national level: locally only 7. But a poll would still have been feasible.