[Coelacanth]

ACBL, IMP scoring

---

South called the director at the conclusion of the auction. North thought for approximately one full minute before bidding 4♠. The TD directed that play continue. The slam was poor, but cold on the lie of the cards, and was duly made.

EW system: 2♠ showed exactly one ace and one king. 2NT was 22-24 balanced. Both W (with 3♥) and E (with 3♠) promised four card length in spades.

East had UI after West's BIT; this was agreed by EW.

I'll post the hands later, but I'm interested in thoughts on the following questions just based on the auction:

Does the BIT demonstrably suggest that East bid on?
What kind of hand would East need to have for pass to NOT be a LA over 4♠?

[billw55]

For me, 4♠ looks like a sign off, barring some agreement otherwise. So, pass for opener is obviously a LA under normal circumstances.

Although, considering the specific information about west's hand (an ace and a king), one can construct a 22-24 balanced hand that makes slam very good already, say AKQx Ax KQxx AQx. With such a hand, opener is justified to continue.

[Trinidad]

billw55, on 2012-April-30, 13:50, said:

For me, 4♠ looks like a sign off, barring some agreement otherwise. So, pass for opener is obviously a LA under normal circumstances.

Although, considering the specific information about west's hand (an ace and a king), one can construct a 22-24 balanced hand that makes slam very good already, say AKQx Ax KQxx AQx. With such a hand, opener is justified to continue.

From the 5♥ response to RKCB we know that opener didn't hold this hand: Responder has the ♠K. In this auction, 4NT asked specifically for the king of trump. 2 keycards: king of trumps; 1 keycard: outside king.

Rik

[RMB1]

Coelacanth, on 2012-April-30, 11:43, said:

Does the BIT demonstrably suggest that East bid on?

If 4♠ is to play, then a slow 4♠ is unceertain about playing in 4♠, so suggest bidding on.

Coelacanth, on 2012-April-30, 11:43, said:

What kind of hand would East need to have for pass to NOT be a LA over 4♠?

One that had misbid earlier.

[Trinidad]

Coelacanth, on 2012-April-30, 11:43, said:

Does the BIT demonstrably suggest that East bid on?

Yes. 4♠ is the absolute weakest bid West could make. The BIT shows he has a little bit more than the absolute weakest bid.

Coelacanth, on 2012-April-30, 11:43, said:

What kind of hand would East need to have for pass to NOT be a LA over 4♠?

I would say a hand with trick potential:

♠AQxx
♥Kx
♦Kx
♣AKQJx

Opposite an ace and a king, this is a good slam, but I wouldn't ask for keycards.

Rik

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2012-April-30, 14:13, said:

I would say a hand with trick potential:

♠AQxx
♥Kx
♦Kx
♣AKQJx

Opposite an ace and a king, this is a good slam, but I wouldn't ask for keycards.

Right -- RKC doesn't tell you anything helpful -- you know partner has ♠K, and you don't care which red A they have.

How good is East? Some players ALWAYS go through BW on the way to slam.

[Coelacanth]

Thanks everyone. Your responses are much in line with those of the TD, and the committee.

The TD adjusted to 4♠ making 6 and EW appealed. One committee member commented "we thought it was pretty clear-cut" and another wanted to assess a procedural penalty for pursuing the appeal.

East's hand was ♠AQxx ♥KQx ♦Kxx ♣AKJ. This looked to everyone (except East, obviously) as the worst possible 22-count for a spade slam. In fact, NS's teammate at the other table downgraded it to a 20-21 2NT opener.

West had ♠Kxxx, ♥Jxx, ♦AJx ♣xxx. All the slam needs is a civilized trump split, the ♣Q with North and the ♦Q with South. Guess what.

The only reason I posted this was that West's stated reason for the tank was that he was trying to decide between 4♠ and 3NT. This seems to be a legitimate reason to think for players at this (Flight B) level. IOW, if West might be thinking about strain and not level, does his BIT "demonstrably suggest" bidding on?

The TD ruled, and the committee agreed that 4♠ was the weakest bid he could make on this auction (where they are already in a game force and have found a 4-4 spade fit). Thus, the BIT suggested more than just a bare minimum. Pass was certainly a LA for East with her hand. Thus, EW were assigned +480.

[mycroft]

Coelecanth: it looks like the kind of pair I wouldn't mind playing against even if they do occasionally use tempo-bidding. Neither of them have their bids.

West: if he was trying to decide between 3NT and 4♠, why did he give the game away - especially at IMPs, where it's not likely to matter (you're not making exactly 9 tricks on this hand!), except possibly negatively? Either after 2NT or after 3♦ is the right time to be making that decision.

Not that I don't believe him, but let's just say that a player who was trying to get a favourable ruling after slam-tanking and having partner go along with it would have said the same thing. Maybe it's time to educate this pair about this, in case their bidding skills improve.

East: Exactly what was 4NT supposed to accomplish? We already know that partner has a red Ace and the ♠K - and no other keycards - including the ♠Q. Were we just trying to get them to sacrifice in 7♥ when it's right? It's not going to work - they didn't double 3♥.

I'd rule back ...4♠-6♠, too, but I'd at least have some sympathy for it.

The UI says "I'd like to do something other than bid 4♠." Even if that is "bid 3NT", it still says that there's likely a higher-scoring place than 4♠, and that trying for 6 is worth it. But at IMPs, I can't imagine partner mapping my hand out like that and then deciding on 3NT vs 4♠, so even if West didn't "have his UI", we still have to rule that pass is a LA to taking further action, unless the hand means it isn't - and as everyone is saying, that hand ain't it.

[Mbodell]

Trinidad, on 2012-April-30, 14:13, said:

Yes. 4♠ is the absolute weakest bid West could make. The BIT shows he has a little bit more than the absolute weakest bid.

I would say a hand with trick potential:

♠AQxx
♥Kx
♦Kx
♣AKQJx

Opposite an ace and a king, this is a good slam, but I wouldn't ask for keycards.

Rik

If you are going to do it legitimately and also keycard I think you need to be missing the spade KQ, and some other K. So make the hand in question:

AJTx
Kx
AQ
AKQJx

You know responder has the heart A, clubs look promising for tricks, and the diamond lead is protected. But if responder has the diamond K instead of the spade K then we certainly need partner with the spade Q. And if partner has the spade K, but no Q, then we only want to be in 6. Some people might upgrade that great 24 count, but change the club J to the club T and far fewer would upgrade to 25 and it is still a hand worth keycarding IMO.

[billw55]

Trinidad, on 2012-April-30, 14:01, said:

From the 5♥ response to RKCB we know that opener didn't hold this hand: Responder has the ♠K. In this auction, 4NT asked specifically for the king of trump. 2 keycards: king of trumps; 1 keycard: outside king.

Yes I realize that. I was answering the question in the OP: what sort of hand would continue over 4♠?

Trinidad, on 2012-April-30, 14:13, said:

I would say a hand with trick potential:

♠AQxx
♥Kx
♦Kx
♣AKQJx

Opposite an ace and a king, this is a good slam, but I wouldn't ask for keycards.

Agree, my construct also would have no need for keycard. I don't think that matters though; the decision is whether bidding on at all is a LA, not *which* bid to choose.

Mbodell, on 2012-May-01, 01:17, said:

If you are going to do it legitimately and also keycard I think you need to be missing the spade KQ, and some other K. So make the hand in question:

AJTx
Kx
AQ
AKQJx

You know responder has the heart A, clubs look promising for tricks, and the diamond lead is protected. But if responder has the diamond K instead of the spade K then we certainly need partner with the spade Q. And if partner has the spade K, but no Q, then we only want to be in 6. Some people might upgrade that great 24 count, but change the club J to the club T and far fewer would upgrade to 25 and it is still a hand worth keycarding IMO.

Agree, for keycard to make sense. But I still don't think keycard specifically has to make sense to be allowed to bid it by ruling.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2012-April-30, 16:17, said:

West: if he was trying to decide between 3NT and 4♠, why did he give the game away - especially at IMPs, where it's not likely to matter (you're not making exactly 9 tricks on this hand!), except possibly negatively? Either after 2NT or after 3♦ is the right time to be making that decision.

Because he's not a very good player? There are plenty of mediocre flight B players.

[mycroft]

I know - I'm one of them. But it's time to educate that there are times and times, and some times will put your partner under ethical obligations, and this is one of them, because...

Whenever I make a practise bid, I get really annoyed with myself (after the hand). It doesn't happen very often, any more. When I make a practise bid that knocks out partner's judgement (either because "I can't have that hand" or UI) I really get upset - and take my zero. I earned it. I certainly don't take it to appeal. But I know more about my ethical obligations than any reasonable player would want to :-)