[nige1]

Rather than undergo mental contortions, a lot of players always make the bid they would make anyway. In their defence, they usually say "let the director sort it out". Suppose North is such a player and when you impose a PP on him, he appeals, quoting The ACBL Club Directors Handbook

Quote

Players are generally well advised to take the action they would have taken had there been no huddle.

[mjj29]

nige1, on 2010-November-06, 19:21, said:

Rather than undergo mental contortions, a lot of players always make the bid they would make anyway. In their defence, they usually say "let the director sort it out". Suppose North is such a player and when you impose a PP on him, he appeals, quoting The ACBL Club Directors Handbook

I would _generally_ assess score adjustments under L16 and PPs under L73. The standard I would have for the latter is "making the bid they would anyway" (if there is one such bid, I may be unimpressed if they think it's a toss up between two calls and make the suggested one). Adjusting under L16 but not applying a PP under L73 is, IMO, the most common situation.

[FrancesHinden]

bluejak, on 2010-November-06, 18:34, said:

I do not understand the argument about partner bidding 4♠ most of the time. How does that affect whether I bid 4♠ for him?

It doesn't.
But when you come to make a ruling, it's not enough to say that you disallow responder's 4S bid. You must also look at how the auction would have gone after a pass, or after a double. So any final adjustment is not necessarily (or even likely) to be 4H undoubled.

[jallerton]

FrancesHinden, on 2010-November-06, 05:03, said:

Do they really?
I was given the hand as a problem without knowing about the hesitation (and without knowing it was a ruling question). I doubled, and thought it obvious.

Next I was asked what the slow pass demonstrably suggested, and I said bidding 4S.
So what would I do as an ethical player? I would double.
If I pass in tempo, it is extremely likely that hestitating partner is going to bid 4S. Whether or not one agrees with arguments about pass being forcing, it's still pretty likely that partner isn't going to pass out 4S.

(on the original hand that led to the ruling, isn't there going to be a high percentage of a 4S contract with opener bidding 4S when responder passes in tempo?)

(Not really.) Without the UI, you might double to try for +300 against the +140/+170 you were about to collect in 3♠ when partner has a 5233 minimum. The UI suggests that partner has either extra shape or extra high cards, and as you say partner will probably bid and make a vulnerable 4♠ in either case if we pass 4♥ round to him. The one thing that might put partner off bidding 4♠ is if we double because then partner would envisage heart wastage and less offence opposite.

Therefore, it seems to me that Double "could demonstrably be suggested" over both Pass and 4♠, so as long as Double is judged to be a logical alternative* this is the action Responder should take at this point. A weighted score might still be appropriate if Opener has a hand where he might pull 4♥x and/or the number of tricks 4♥x might make is unclear.

* this is where polls come in very handy. It is all very well for some experienced TDs to rely on their own judgement, but no-one thinks of everything and often polls and consultations give the TD additional information which is helpful in forming his judgement ruling on whether a Law has been breached and how.