[Phil]

---

I asked South why she bid 4N slowly, and she said I was debating between 4N (natural? really?) and 5♦.

I adjusted to 6♠ -1. Agree?

(This was a tough ruling because West is kind of a loudmouth and NS are salt of the earth and good people).

[blackshoe]

If West can't keep his loud mouth shut when you tell him to, give him a disciplinary penalty. If that doesn't shut him up, give him another one. If that doesn't shut him up, tell him to go home.

If both N and S assert that 4NT is natural in this auction, I would ask if they have any evidence to corroborate that assertion — system cards, system notes, a book, whatever. Absent corroborating evidence, I would poll. A lot depends on the level of experience of NS. What the UI suggests depends on what 4NT means, so figuring out whether UI may have been used is dependent on that.

If 4NT suggests bidding on (BW, or a slam try) North's LAs would seem to be passing, showing his aces (or keycards), or bidding 6♠. If South's hesitation suggests uncertainty about bidding on, or about where to stop, the pass is suggested, and they would probably get to 6♠, which as you've noted is likely to go down one.

[Phil]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-22, 14:49, said:

If West can't keep his loud mouth shut when you tell him to, give him a disciplinary penalty. If that doesn't shut him up, give him another one. If that doesn't shut him up, tell him to go home.

He was relatively well-behaved during the incident. I had to shush him a few times, and after my ruling as NS were complaining, he pleaded his case post hoc.

I mentioned his PP would offset a lot of the adjustment I just gave the table.

[Phil]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-22, 14:49, said:

If both N and S assert that 4NT is natural in this auction, I would ask if they have any evidence to corroborate that assertion — system cards, system notes, a book, whatever. Absent corroborating evidence, I would poll. A lot depends on the level of experience of NS. What the UI suggests depends on what 4NT means, so figuring out whether UI may have been used is dependent on that.
one.

They do not have any system notes. N is an "A" player with about 3,500 MPs. She's plays reasonably well. S is actually one of my students with about 1,000 MPs. She is trying to learn the game properly, and this was a hard lesson, even though the burden is really on North.

[Cyberyeti]

This is even tougher than that.

"4N was natural, if partner gives me a Blackwood response, I bid 6♦ on the way (which is making) or 6N which is making unless they find the club lead (yes you can make it by going up with the ace but in practice you probably won't unless W leads a big one)".

No weighted scores in the US ?

Sort that one out.

Also I'm not sure the thought suggests passing. If I was thinking I'd be trying to work out whether spades or diamonds were the agreed suit for keycard in which case there's no suggestion to pass or it was natural, and if it was natural, whether it was end of auction or invitational.

[Codo]

I do not understand that: Why do they have to go to 6 ♠?
IMO, there are 4 possibilities for 4 NT:
1. It was natural. In this case North can pass or bid diamonds or his KCs. But they will not arrive in 6 ♠. He already showed his 5 card suit twice and did not support partner so far. Insisting on spades would be silly. So maybe south should bid 6 ♠ over a possible 6 ♦? Well this would put the King of Hearts in big jeopardy, so I doubt thatt somebody will do that.
2. It is KC for diamonds- they will reach 6 ♦ or 6 NT, not 6 ♠. Both contracts are usually making.
3. It was KC for spades. Why did the hesitation makes 4 NT a better spot then 5 or 6 spades? So passing was not suggested by the BIT.
4. They have no idea what they are doing. I must admit that I would never think that a slow 4 NT makes it more likely that it is natural. Why should it? The choices are between BC for spades, BC for diamonds and natural. Why on earth should the last possibility be suggested by a slow bid?

So I see no reason for the ruling. Of course it would be much harder to give a correct weighted score here, but your descission looks quite harsh and wrong to me.

[ArtK78]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-October-22, 15:14, said:

".....or 6N which is making unless they find the club lead (yes you can make it by going up with the ace but in practice you probably won't unless W leads a big one)".

Why won't 6NT make on any lead whether or not declarer goes up with the ♣A at trick one? Surely declarer will play at least one top diamond before taking any diamond finesses.

[RMB1]

If I was thinking, it would be because I wanted to work out what I would do over different keycard responses to avoid a slow sign-off on the next round.

[dwar0123]

Is there any reason to suspect they are lying? South might reasonable fear that north think she has 4 spades due to the cue bid and want to play in nt for a wide variety of reasons, a bad spade split suggested by preempt coupled with partner potentially having only 4 spades, defense getting a heart or diamond ruff in early and the mere fact that nt scores more when south has no ruffing value(can't ruff a heart, if partner has 3, lho has 2 and higher trump then dummy) and spades wrong sides her king of hearts, potentially costing an additional trick right off(clearly north has heart length with no heart rise by east)

I really have trouble with the idea of forcing people into good slams that happen to go down due to circumstances neither of them could be aware of(ie, no possible relevant UI about the bad trump split and quick club loser that can only be reasonable gained due to the person on lead having both the kq♣ and the natural trump trick).

North pass on the other hand seems totally normal(assuming nt is natural), never got directly supported, has an additional heart stopper and has the strong hand with the running spade suit promised by bidding it twice.

Unless you think they are actively lying, this strikes me as grossly unfair.

And further, even if you think they are lying and that call was intended to be rkc, why would north pass with that hand? Slow 4nt or not.

Really looking forward to seeing how I am understanding this wrong cause it looks grossly unfair to me right now(not a director)

[Phil]

dwar0123, on 2012-October-22, 15:37, said:

Unless you think they are actively lying, this strikes me as grossly unfair.

Hundreds of Directors and AC members would no doubt disagree with you.

[Phil]

Codo, on 2012-October-22, 15:30, said:

I do not understand that: Why do they have to go to 6 ♠?
IMO, there are 4 possibilities for 4 NT:
1. It was natural. In this case North can pass or bid diamonds or his KCs. But they will not arrive in 6 ♠. He already showed his 5 card suit twice and did not support partner so far. Insisting on spades would be silly. So maybe south should bid 6 ♠ over a possible 6 ♦? Well this would put the King of Hearts in big jeopardy, so I doubt thatt somebody will do that.
2. It is KC for diamonds- they will reach 6 ♦ or 6 NT, not 6 ♠. Both contracts are usually making.
3. It was KC for spades. Why did the hesitation makes 4 NT a better spot then 5 or 6 spades? So passing was not suggested by the BIT.
4. They have no idea what they are doing. I must admit that I would never think that a slow 4 NT makes it more likely that it is natural. Why should it? The choices are between BC for spades, BC for diamonds and natural. Why on earth should the last possibility be suggested by a slow bid?

So I see no reason for the ruling. Of course it would be much harder to give a correct weighted score here, but your descission looks quite harsh and wrong to me.

I thought about many of these issues and here's the conclusion I came to. Agree with Blackshoe that polling players would be useful, but this isn't available, and I need to rely on my own judgment.

After an 'in tempo' 4N, North responds to 1430 with 5♣. After 5♣, I think South bids 5♥ asking for the trump Q and North bids 6♠. South really doesn't know about the diamond xxx and doesn't have any substantial reason to put it in 6N (which makes 7 btw).

[dwar0123]

Phil, on 2012-October-22, 15:39, said:

Hundreds of Directors and AC members would no doubt disagree with you.

I look forward to hearing why, as the only reason I can find to agree with your ruling right now is that you think they are actively cheating and have an agreed system were a slow 4nt is natural and an in tempo nt is rkc.

I can think of lots of reasons why a BIT can lead to UI that would suggest alternatives that don't require active cheating/lying. Which is what I think you are trying to suggest with the above quote, but I don't see how they apply here, which is what I meant with my quote.

[dwar0123]

deleted

[Phil]

dwar0123, on 2012-October-22, 15:53, said:

censored

withdrawn

[Phil]

dwar0123, on 2012-October-22, 15:50, said:

I look forward to hearing why, as the only reason I can find to agree with your ruling right now is that you think they are actively cheating and have an agreed system were a slow 4nt is natural and an in tempo nt is rkc.

I can think of lots of reasons why a BIT can lead to UI that would suggest alternatives that don't require active cheating/lying. Which is what I think you are trying to suggest with the above quote, but I don't see how they apply here, which is what I meant with my quote.

Read Blackshoe's original post again. The would need to demonstrate a firm agreement that 4N is natural here in light of the UI.

[dwar0123]

Phil, on 2012-October-22, 16:02, said:

No, the only reason to be in 6♠ is because you can establish diamonds with a ruff.

Would you always give the offenders this much latitude?

You are correct, I realized my mistake and deleted my post before you finished replying.

[dwar0123]

Phil, on 2012-October-22, 16:04, said:

Read Blackshoe's original post again. The would need to demonstrate a firm agreement that 4N is natural here in light of the UI.

If they had such evidence, I can see why that would shut the door on the case in north souths favor. However that seems a ridiculously high standard to require to instead rule against them. So I can understand why Blackshoe would ask for it, as it would end the question instantly. However, lacking it, I don't see why that does anything but going back to looking at the problem.

[Phil]

dwar0123, on 2012-October-22, 16:09, said:

You are correct, I realized my mistake and deleted my post before you finished replying.

I didn't notice. I'll censor mine then.

[Cyberyeti]

ArtK78, on 2012-October-22, 15:31, said:

Why won't 6NT make on any lead whether or not declarer goes up with the ♣A at trick one? Surely declarer will play at least one top diamond before taking any diamond finesses.

Because I can't count tricks, I thought you needed the squeeze for the 12th not the 13th, and if you ducked, you squeezed dummy first, now you may go up with the ace and 7 falls in your lap.

Quote

After an 'in tempo' 4N, North responds to 1430 with 5♣. After 5♣, I think South bids 5♥ asking for the trump Q and North bids 6♠. South really doesn't know about the diamond xxx and doesn't have any substantial reason to put it in 6N (which makes 7 btw).

Depends on methods. N bids 5N to show Q♠ and no further kings, S bids 6♦ whether it's suggesting an alternative contract or inviting 7 with the Q♦, now you don't have to bid 6♠. N knows S only has 3 spades, so can visualise the issue, and holding 3 diamonds himself it's not a hugely difficult pass if he reckons 6♦ was offering an alternative contract, he knows the diamonds won't be establishable with a ruff but the spades may be.

[karlson]

Sorry, but I really don't get this ruling. I've read the thread and I don't see any convincing arguments that a slow 4N suggests passing. Seems like north took a view. It's a pretty crazy view, but with no other evidence, I just don't see the basis for adjustment.

Why would you ask south why she bid 4n slowly? Shouldn't you ask north why he passed?