[Hanoi5]

I was directing this tournament in real life (not internet) and I was called to a table. The players had arrived at 4NT and South thought for a long time before answering 5♥ on this hand after agreeing on Diamonds as trumps:

---

North bid 5♠ (which was West's suit), South bid 5NT and North passed.

I didn't see anything wrong with the bidding concerning the long hesitation, so I let the results stand. Was I right?

[mr1303]

Can you give us the rest of the auction? We don't have enough information to go on at this point.

[Hanoi5]

Well, I don't quite remember (got it now), but I know it was board 15. South opened the hand with 1♦, West overcalled 1♠, North bid 2♣, East passed, South rebid 2H, opponents passed from then on, 2♠ by North, 3♦ by South, 4nt by North, long hesitation and then 5♥, 5♠ by North and 5nt by South putting an end to the bidding.

So:

1♦ 1♠ 2♣ pass
2♥ pass 2♠ pass
3♦ pass 4NT pass
5♥* pass 5♠ pass
5NT all pass

* long huddle 2-3 mins acc. to East.

[paulg]

I would definite advise posting this to the bridgetalk forum rather than this one as it is more appropriate for real-life problems (and there is a very knowledgeable of Directors there).

However, before posting there, I know that they will ask for:

• the jurisdiction as local regulations matter
  
• what damage did East-West claim?
  
• how did North-South explain their bids in the auction?
  
• why did South take so long to respond to 4NT?

Without knowing these points then this problem is a non-starter. (In particular I'd like to know if 2♥ showed extras and, systemically, what were 4NT, 5♥ and 5♠)

Cheers

Paul

[barmar]

Do you have the hands interchanged in the diagram? It looks like North has ♦ and South has ♣, but you said South opened 1♦.

Cardsharp, why does it matter why he took so long to respond? Unless someone is complaining that he deliberately hesitated to mislead the opponents, what matters is what this hesitation suggests to his partner, and whether his partner'ssubsequent actions were demonstrably suggested over other logical alternatives by the hesitation.

I can only think of a few good reasons for taking very long to respond to Blackwood: 1) if playing key cards, not sure which suit is trumps (perhaps the 2♠ bid was intended as a good ♥ raise); 2) if playing with an unfamiliar partner (e.g. a pick-up or individual), unsure whether you're playing key card or regular Blackwood; or 3) you think this might be a natural 4NT.

[blackshoe]

Heh. He did post it on IBLF, and several questions were indeed asked.

However... what damage EW claimed, or even whether they claimed any at all, isn't quite relevant. Most players know that when UI is, or may be, present, there can be problems, and that when there might be problems, they should call the director. That's really all that's needed. It's up to the director to determine if there was damage.

I think that the only regulations that might matter would be an alert regulation or a "skip bid" regulation. Absent violation of either of those (and perhaps even with such violations) this seems a pretty straightfoward laws case - given the answers to the other questions Paul raised.

[Hanoi5]

the jurisdiction as local regulations matter

This was played in Venezuela, I don't know of any special regulations regarding this.

what damage did East-West claim?

They claim N/S would have reached a slam if the huddle hadn't ocurred.

how did North-South explain their bids in the auction?

2H doesn't show extras after the 1 spade overcall and 2 clubs answer by North. 4nt was taken as key-card asking in diamonds and 5h showed only two key cards and no Queen of trumps. 5 Spades obliges 5NT.

why did South take so long to respond to 4NT?

He claims to have been thinking what the real meaning of 4nt was, whether quantitative or key-card in Diamonds. N/S are 'experienced' players who have started to play together recently. South lied about holding the Queen of trumps 'cause he didn't really want to be in a slam.

[paulg]

barmar, on Aug 31 2006, 07:50 PM, said:

Cardsharp, why does it matter why he took so long to respond? Unless someone is complaining that he deliberately hesitated to mislead the opponents, what matters is what this hesitation suggests to his partner, and whether his partner's subsequent actions were demonstrably suggested over other logical alternatives by the hesitation.

I agree.

However understanding the reason for the hesitation may help reveal the systemic agreements, or lack of, in this auction. This may assist in determining the logical alternatives for subsequent actions.

As you will note, there are lots of 'may help' in the above sentence!

Paul

[paulg]

Hanoi5, on Sep 1 2006, 10:24 AM, said:

the jurisdiction as local regulations matter

This was played in Venezuela, I don't know of any special regulations regarding this.

Thanks.

Just to give two examples of the difference local regulations may make:

• Alert regulations differ: in Scotland, the 4NT bid would be alertable if Blackwood/Keycard. In England it is not alertable whatever it means. So an alert for 4NT, or the absence of one, could be important.
  
• Awarding adjusted scores. In some countries, if you considered an adjustment were needed, then you could award something like 30% of 6♦-1 and 70% of 5NT=. In other countries this form of weighted score is not used.

Paul