[lamford]

---

I was asked my opinion on the above by a TD. He ruled and his ruling was not appealed. There was a BIT before South's penultimate pass.

a ) Would you allow the 5♠ bid? North was a top player.
b ) What bid do you think is demonstrably suggested?

It is matchpoints, and the table result was 5SX-1.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2010-December-30, 19:00, said:

I was asked my opinion on the above by a TD. He ruled and his ruling was not appealed. There was a BIT before South's penultimate pass.
a ) Would you allow the 5♠ bid? North was a top player.
b ) What bid do you think is demonstrably suggested?

---

I don't know what inference you should draw from a fast-pass, here. According to players, whom I've consulted, however, In normal circumstances, a slow-pass suggests bidding on. Directors often decide that no particular action is suggested over others. "Don't shoot the hesitater". IMO, it is a matter of experience and judgement.

[barmar]

South could have been thinking of doubling, or he could have been thinking about bidding on. The first suggests passing, the second suggests bidding. Since neither one is demonstrably suggested, North is off the hook.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2010-December-30, 23:18, said:

South could have been thinking of doubling, or he could have been thinking about bidding on. The first suggests passing, the second suggests bidding. Since neither one is demonstrably suggested, North is off the hook.

The argument that partner could have been thinking of either bidding on or doubling applies to a high percentage of BIT situations, and the problem is the phrase "is demonstrably suggested". This is interpreted more liberally, so that TDs adjust when they think it is more likely that partner was thinking of bidding on than doubling, and this is a correct approach. North may have previous experience of his partner's BIT and the hand types that caused them, and that makes the choice demonstrably suggested.

[pran]

Another case clearly demonstrating the advantage of having compulsory STOP, not only with skip bids but also in competitive auctions.

Even without such regulation in force I would have considered (and ruled) that the situation for South after the 5H bid is such that an immediate PASS would have given away lot of UI to partner while a reasonable pause would just reflect the surprising situation he found himself in.

[MickyB]

The UI definitely suggests bidding, pass is definitely an LA. You could well be going for 500 or pushing oppo into a cold slam, both of these are less likely when pard has tanked.

[bluejak]

Even if partner had doubled 5♠ might be right. Certainly a slow double would suggest bidding 5♠. So 5♠ is suggested for the reasons Micky gives.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2010-December-30, 19:00, said:

I was asked my opinion on the above by a TD. He ruled and his ruling was not appealed. There was a BIT before South's penultimate pass.

a ) Would you allow the 5♠ bid? North was a top player.
b ) What bid do you think is demonstrably suggested?

It is matchpoints, and the table result was 5SX-1.

Your questions need to be considered in reverse order, so I'll answer b ) first.

It is right for North to bid 5♠ if either N/S can make 11(+) tricks in spades or N/S can make 10 tricks in spades with 5♥ making. North has no defence at all, and combining this information with the fact that South didn't double suggests that it will be right to bid whenever spades makes at least 10 tricks.

If South was considering bidding 5♠, that obviously makes it more attractive for North to compete with 5♠. What if South was considering doubling? In that case, the slowness of the Pass implies extra values without 3 certain defensive tricks. But the more values South has, the higher the expected number of tricks available in spades becomes. Even if South has the apparently wasted ♥A, an opening heart lead allowing a fruitful club discard is a possibility.

So 5♠ is demonstrably suggested over Pass.

To answer (a),it is necessary to determine whether Pass is a logical alternative. I would ask the North player to explain the reasoning for his bid. I would also perform a poll of other "top" players at the event, if possible.

[ggwhiz]

I can't necessarily tell if the BIT was thinking of bidding or doubling and a reasonable pause as opposed to a fast pass is called for at the 5 level.

I have seen a few NABC appeal cases where they found no UI from a thoughtful pass in auctions like this and the statement that there was a BIT is not quite enough info for me.

[bluejak]

I sat on a case in Orlando where we decided that an 8 to 10 second pause did not constitute a BIT in a complex auction.

But the OP did not say that: he said there was a BIT: if it is agreed there was a BIT then the ruling that some pause for thought does not constitute a BIT is irrelevant.

[ggwhiz]

bluejak, on 2010-December-31, 16:17, said:

I sat on a case in Orlando where we decided that an 8 to 10 second pause did not constitute a BIT in a complex auction.

But the OP did not say that: he said there was a BIT: if it is agreed there was a BIT then the ruling that some pause for thought does not constitute a BIT is irrelevant.

Agreed, sort of. The poster states that there was a BIT, not the Director or the Committee. If I'm wrong, so be it. I appreciate your experience and expertise which is what these forums are for.

[mrdct]

Don't we need to ascertain what north-south's systemic agreements are first, particularly their rules for forcing pass situations?

I would almost certainly allow the 5♠ bid for several reasons:
- I am extremely reluctant to ever defend holding a 6-5 with a known 10 card fit;
- If South's pass is forcing, I'm not allowed to pass;
- If South's pass is not forcing and partner couldn't find a double, 5♥ feels like it's cold and on a total trick basis the unfavourable sacrifice look to be a good shot and might even make given that we probably don't have wastage in ♥ and could set up my ♦ suit.

[barmar]

Does anyone actually play that pass is forcing after partner makes a preemptive raise to game? Most of the time in these auctions, no one knows whose hand it is, and you just hope that your side doesn't make the last wrong guess.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2010-December-31, 12:16, said:

To answer (a),it is necessary to determine whether Pass is a logical alternative. I would ask the North player to explain the reasoning for his bid. I would also perform a poll of other "top" players at the event, if possible.

I agree with you on ( b ). On ( a ), I would have passed, as would a strong player at my table when the TD asked us. The TD stated to me he found quite a few people who would bid, but Pass was clearly an LA, and he did rule it was demonstrably suggested. The BIT was considerable, around 40 seconds according to the non-offenders who are known to me. 100% of 5H= was imposed, around a 65% score for E/W.

[mycroft]

"So, if you weren't going to let them play 5H, why did you only bid 4S the first time?"

For a moderately experienced player, the answer is obvious - they weren't thinking about it. For a top player, it is a question that needs an answer; "I was lazy" is acceptable, but then he has lost his chance to recover after the BIT. This is one situation that the newer players will get a better "result" than the experts, to make up for the claims that go the expert's way that they don't get.

I agree that both "want to bid on" and "want to defend" thinks suggest bidding with this zero count - the only bad hand would be something like where the two tricks South expected to take were his HKJx "and maybe a spade".

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2011-January-03, 02:28, said:

"So, if you weren't going to let them play 5H, why did you only bid 4S the first time?"

For a moderately experienced player, the answer is obvious ... <snip>

... they have not bid 5H yet, and partner might be doubling it - he might have QJ10x of hearts and a cashing ace. It is very rare that someone bids 1S - (Dble) - 5S pre-emptively at red against green. So I would not disallow 5S for that reason; indeed the only test is whether Pass is an LA, and whether it is demonstrably suggested. Most seem to think both apply, and I agree.

[Cyberyeti]

I would always bid 5♠ on the north hand, the only thing that would definitely persuade me not to is a slow double as I'm not going to get that past the appeals committee. An in tempo double I would think about and probably pass merely for partnership confidence. It's not like I've promised any defence.

If partner doesn't double, this is not a FP situation so he doesn't reckon he's got this beat in his own hand, so I will bid 5♠. Partner is about equally likely to be thinking of doubling as bidding, as he knows I'm quite likely to bid on if he doesn't double.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-January-07, 10:03, said:

<snip> the only thing that would definitely persuade me not to is a slow double as I'm not going to get that past the appeals committee. <snip>

Good to see someone following 73C and "carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI".

[AlexJonson]

I think we are missing the point. The hesitation reduces the risk for North that the opponents are making slam.

This is not a complex auction (pace Pran). High-level is not the same thing as complex or surprising.

I would be very disappointed as a player if NS could get away with this.

[pran]

AlexJonson, on 2011-January-10, 15:45, said:

I think we are missing the point. The hesitation reduces the risk for North that the opponents are making slam.

This is not a complex auction (pace Pran). High-level is not the same thing as complex or surprising.

I would be very disappointed as a player if NS could get away with this.

I didn't write complex auction, I wrote competitive auction.