[Cyberyeti]

OK, their convoluted agreements make this more awkward. I have no experience with this sort of system.

4N cannot be straight blackwood sensibly when an ace has been denied. I'd be inclined to bid that, and partner should bid 6♣ where we would rest for a touch above average, and would be the right spot from W's POV if E was lacking Q♦.

[sanst]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-06, 13:50, said:

There is no way in this world I'm passing 4♥, I don't even consider it, but it is possible to stop short of a slam.

Why? What makes you think that your hand is worth more than you’ve already shown? Partner can be without values and only have a long hearts suit. Or are you a descendant of king Charles II, who, according to Jenny Uglow in her book on the Restoration, was ‘A Gambling Man’.

[lamford]

I don't think anything is suggested, nor, more relevantly, demonstrably suggested. All the slow 4H bid tells West is that East was thinking of bidding something else.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2019-February-07, 09:39, said:

Why would W expect any values at all? Passing in NT with a long suit and no values means that there are no tricks to be made, whereas there are in a suit contract.

That is certainly sound reasoning in general, but maybe more borderline here where W is promising (and has) enough strength to make 3NT on her own. The opponents might have 5 trumps and some potential to ruff too.

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2019-February-07, 10:30, said:

I don't think anything is suggested, nor, more relevantly, demonstrably suggested. All the slow 4H bid tells West is that East was thinking of bidding something else.

Ok but here we are at the crux of the matter.
How should or can the hypothesis of suggestion be demonstrated?
Does demonstration require a poll of peers who affirm it, at least if this is practical to organise?
Should the Director poll first to establish the LAs and only then to establish any suggestion?

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2019-February-07, 10:19, said:

Why? What makes you think that your hand is worth more than you’ve already shown? Partner can be without values and only have a long hearts suit. Or are you a descendant of king Charles II, who, according to Jenny Uglow in her book on the Restoration, was ‘A Gambling Man’.

I have a potentially cold slam opposite a yarborough and partner can have a lot more than that

[sanst]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-07, 11:40, said:

I have a potentially cold slam opposite a yarborough and partner can have a lot more than that

So you’re final call will be 10NT. I don’t know what you considered a ‘cold slam’, but nine tricks don’t count as one in my book. Or means cold -800?

[BudH]

Bidding 6NT after an in tempo 4H, likely because of not being certain if 4H is natural, is "authorized panic" and is legal.

However, after a long hesitation before the 4H bid, opener is going to find it difficult to justify the 6NT bid as not being "unauthorized panic".

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2019-February-07, 12:12, said:

So you’re final call will be 10NT. I don’t know what you considered a ‘cold slam’, but nine tricks don’t count as one in my book. Or means cold -800?

xx, xxxxxx, void, xxxxx is an EXCELLENT 6♣ (and pretty good 7), partner is known to hold 6 hearts for the 4♥ bid, you can underwrite 10 tricks in hearts if they break (and he only has 6) and would be unlucky not to have 11.

Don't be ridiculous also, I said I wouldn't bid 6, but I would make a try and partner would bid 6.

[weejonnie]

lamford, on 2019-February-07, 10:30, said:

I don't think anything is suggested, nor, more relevantly, demonstrably suggested. All the slow 4H bid tells West is that East was thinking of bidding something else.

Yes - so West took steps to ensure that a slam wasn't missed, no matter what the bid meant nor of what east was thinking. that is not 'carefully avoiding' making use of the UI.

I don't know the system being used and it is quite possible that 4♥ meant - "I don't have a bust partner" in which case I accept that 6NT looks perfectly reasonable missing an Ace since there are plenty of smaller cards East may have that makes the contract reasonable. (and west may not be able tofind out what they are).

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2019-February-07, 14:45, said:

I don't know the system being used and it is quite possible that 4♥ meant - "I don't have a bust partner" in which case I accept that 6NT looks perfectly reasonable missing an Ace since there are plenty of smaller cards East may have that makes the contract reasonable. (and west may not be able tofind out what they are).

I know the system quite well (it was inflicted on me for a couple of years) and I am fairly sure that 4♥ is unexpected (strong partner's bid of game/slam following the opening convention is nominally and almost always a signoff) but nevertheless legitimate and natural non-forcing. So the implication is certainly "we are not in the usual situation partner", but not necessarily "I don't have a bust partner", although some might argue that the latter is a due inference from normal bridge logic.

[weejonnie]

pescetom, on 2019-February-07, 15:37, said:

I know the system quite well (it was inflicted on me for a couple of years) and I am fairly sure that 4♥ is unexpected (strong partner's bid of game/slam following the opening convention is nominally and almost always a signoff) but nevertheless legitimate and natural non-forcing. So the implication is certainly "we are not in the usual situation partner", but not necessarily "I don't have a bust partner", although some might argue that the latter is a due inference from normal bridge logic.

OK - so partner says (bridge logically) "I know I am supposed to shut up but I really don't like NT, let's play hearts". I am now more predisposed to allow 6N ("When facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" JM Keynes)

[pescetom]

A doubt about the application of 12C1b - if the Director were to assign a score based upon a contract of 4♥, should he assume 12 tricks taken as the probable outcome at the table, even if this exceeds the 11 trick maximum listed on his tournament notes (calculated double-dummy)?

I imagine yes, but prefer to be sure.

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2019-February-08, 08:26, said:

A doubt about the application of 12C1b - if the Director were to assign a score based upon a contract of 4♥, should he assume 12 tricks taken as the probable outcome at the table, even if this exceeds the 11 trick maximum listed on his tournament notes (calculated double-dummy)?

I imagine yes, but prefer to be sure.

If the facts were different, you might well adjust to 4H, but you would poll Souths of similar ability and find out how many of them led a diamond against 4H. Just because 6H made does not mean 4H will make +2 and some weighting of +1 might well be appropriate.

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2019-February-08, 09:03, said:

If the facts were different, you might well adjust to 4H, but you would poll Souths of similar ability and find out how many of them led a diamond against 4H. Just because 6H made does not mean 4H will make +2 and some weighting of +1 might well be appropriate.

Makes sense.
But I was wondering about what would happen if some unsatisfied hothead appealed to have 4H+1 because 4H+2 cannot be made against optimal defence (an unlikely diamond from the hand I posted earlier). I trust it would be thrown out.

[weejonnie]

pescetom, on 2019-February-08, 13:26, said:

Makes sense.
But I was wondering about what would happen if some unsatisfied hothead appealed to have 4H+1 because 4H+2 cannot be made against optimal defence (an unlikely diamond from the hand I posted earlier). I trust it would be thrown out.

I think a poll would be done and if there is evidence that some players would find the diamond lead then a weighted decision made.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2019-February-08, 13:26, said:

Makes sense.
But I was wondering about what would happen if some unsatisfied hothead appealed to have 4H+1 because 4H+2 cannot be made against optimal defence (an unlikely diamond from the hand I posted earlier). I trust it would be thrown out.

When you assign an adjusted score, you're generally supposed to assume the likely result. That doesn't necessarily mean optimal defense if it would be hard to find.

Weighted scores can be assigned when you think multiple results are reasonably likely. E.g. if there's a 2-way finesse and you can't predict which way declarer would go, you can give each result 50% weight.

[gordontd]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-07, 11:40, said:

I have a potentially cold slam opposite a yarborough and partner can have a lot more than that

"Opposite a yarborough" doesn't usually mean "opposite a truly remarkably-shaped yarborough"!

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2019-February-11, 01:19, said:

"Opposite a yarborough" doesn't usually mean "opposite a truly remarkably-shaped yarborough"!

OK, maybe I should have said opposite the right yarborough, and it's not that remarkable given that he's known to hold 6 or more hearts and it's only a very minor variation on the shape he actually held.

More seriously, QJxxxx and out is at least a 50% 6♥ and could be a lot better than that (Q 7th and out, you have to find the diamond lead to make it 50% IF the heart hand has as many as 2). My contention is that the hesitation suggests 6N over 6♥ as 6♥ is better on many hands that have an auto 4♥ bid rather than one with a hesitation.

[Trinidad]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-07, 11:40, said:

I have a potentially cold slam opposite a yarborough and partner can have a lot more than that

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