[blackshoe]

As far as agreements are concerned, the question is what agreements the pair involved at the table have, not what agreements posters here might have.

[bluejak]

I think playing forcing passes after limit bids that are not game forcing is just awful bridge. Sounds like a sure way to increase your minus scores.

I have not been directing that long, Ed, but I have been playing against unethical players that long.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2010-October-28, 18:35, said:

I have not been directing that long, Ed, but I have been playing against unethical players that long.

Fair enough.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2010-October-28, 16:22, said:

As far as agreements are concerned, the question is what agreements the pair involved at the table have, not what agreements posters here might have.

This is very true, but around here it's a pretty common agreement. At pairs particularly, surely it must be correct not to allow opps to play 4♥ undoubled when you have 21 points and them 19 and it appears both sides have most of the points in their long suits. The usual result will be down 1 or 2 when you're making 140 (or possibly down 3 when you're making 170). If they make 4♥ you're probably in for a poor board anyway.

Cancelling the 4♠ bid is easy, but what do you do as the director if the pair say that it is impossible for the auction to rest in 4♥ undoubled ? and must be either 4♥X or 4♠ by system. This is not an agreement that's likely to sit on their convention card. Is this another case where a director tells the pair they don't play their own system as seems to happen quite a lot ?

[WellSpyder]

Cyberyeti, on 2010-October-29, 02:57, said:

... if the pair say that it is impossible for the auction to rest in 4♥ undoubled and must be either 4♥X or 4♠ by system .... not an agreement that's likely to sit on their convention card.

Wht not? If you have clear agreements about forcing pass situations, I would have thought it was very much in your interests to ensure this was recorded on your convention card in order to provide evidence in just this sort of situation.

[gordontd]

Cyberyeti, on 2010-October-29, 02:57, said:

Is this another case where a director tells the pair they don't play their own system as seems to happen quite a lot ?

It would happen less if pairs with surprising, unlikely agreements made sure they were adequately recorded on their system cards or in their notes.

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2010-October-29, 03:34, said:

It would happen less if pairs with surprising, unlikely agreements made sure they were adequately recorded on their system cards or in their notes.

Do you take your notes with you to the club or record the really detailed agreements on the "front of scorecard" convention cards often used there.

[bluejak]

This is all very well, but as so often happens, if you change the question, you change the answer. Nothing in the OP suggests that pass would be forcing, and despite the agreements some pairs here have [I would like to play against them with those agreements ] the player was asked the reason for his actions, and did not say "3. If I pass it would be forcing and I feel better able to judge than partner".

So my reply stands unchanged in the scenario given to us by the OP. If the scenario was different it is true my answer might be different.

[gordontd]

Cyberyeti, on 2010-October-29, 05:28, said:

Do you take your notes with you to the club or record the really detailed agreements on the "front of scorecard" convention cards often used there.

I would if I were going to cite unusual agreements in support of decisions to make calls suggested by UI.

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2010-October-29, 06:48, said:

I would if I were going to cite unusual agreements in support of decisions to make calls suggested by UI.

Yeah, but in reality I haven't seen a system file at anything less than a national congress in 30 years. I know ours only exists on a computer.

[bluejak]

I take my system file to club nights. But that is not for winning rulings!

[Trinidad]

Whenever somebody claims that he makes a bid "because his partner must be short in the opponents' suit" I ask whether he has ever played in a 4-3 fit (or worse). Since the answer is inevitably "yes", the next question is what made him so sure that his opponents would never be in a bad fit. After that, I point out that the only person at the table who can tell with reasonable accuracy whether his partner is short in the opponents' suit is his partner.

Rik

[jallerton]

pran, on 2010-October-28, 10:57, said:

Neither would I.
In a situation like this I would consult other fellow directors if available, but my basic guts feeling is that East must now pass and leave the decision to West.

If you don't carry out a poll, how do you determine what the logical alternatives are? Polling fellow directors is only useful if the fellow directors are considered to be peers of the player who bid 3♠.

[bluejak]

When you make a judgement, you make a judgement, not someone else makes a judgement. There are recommendations on how to make a judgement. Polling is one of those recommendations, but there is no way that polling is the only way nor does it replace other forms of judgement. If a TD makes a judgement without a poll, so be it, but asking him how he makes the judgement is pretty pointless: based on his logic, his knowledge, his experience and so on, I suppose. People have gone overboard on polling these days, and think it replaces judgement. It sounds just like the players who think slams make if an only if you use Blackwood.



As to knowing partner is short, a pretty good-natured opponent swore at my partner and myself. We took it as a compliment, which it was clearly intended as. I had overcalled in hearts, partner had raised, and the good player, holding four hearts, had gone on to four spades, as he admitted, partly because he knew partner was short in hearts.

We quickly cashed three heart tricks, leaving the thirteenth in the dummy.

[Free]

It depends a lot on what 3♠ means. If it's INV with 3+♠ then I'd definitely would allow the 4♠ bid.

(in my partnership this hand is a GF minisplinter, so 3♠ would be a huge underbid)

[phil_20686]

It seems like you might struggle to find "peers" who would not have bid 4S the first time. In the absence of intelligent choices I don't think many good players would have chosen a "limit raise" with this hand.

Reminds me of a hand from my youth:

I held

x
xxxx
AJ9xxx
xx

1c on my right at all red so stuck in a comedy 1d bid, the auction went:

1c-1d-1s-3d
4s-p* p 5d
AP

my pass was quite slow: I was playing with my dad and he doesnt like making preemptive raises that might go off, so i felt sac might be right at MP. Anyway the director got called took a look at my dads hand and wandered off to make a ruling. Dummy hit with

Axx
-
KQxxx
AQxxx

The director came back to say no change obviously, and sheepishly admitted in the bar later that most of the players he had polled had wondered if after the obvious "slow play" of 3d the hesitation barred you from bidding slam.

The LOL questioned the director wuite a lot - they didnt seem to think this was a "completely obvious" 5d (at least!) bid. Pretty funny. I enjoy playing with my dad - its never boring

EDIT: forgot my dads comment: "Its hard to bid intelligently when you overcall on such rubbish". Classic.

[FrancesHinden]

pran, on 2010-October-28, 10:57, said:

Neither would I.
In a situation like this I would consult other fellow directors if available, but my basic guts feeling is that East must now pass and leave the decision to West.

Why, are your fellow directors better players than those playing?

[FrancesHinden]

bluejak, on 2010-October-28, 06:58, said:

No, I would not allow it. Typical 'now I have unashamedly used UI I better think of an excuse to avoid being ruled against' response. Ethical players pass over 4♥ here almost without looking at their hand.

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?)

[dburn]

Post deleted because it was in the wrong thread. Sorry.

[bluejak]

Fair enough: I was not really thinking abut double. I just do not believe an ethical player will bid 4♠.

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