[hrothgar]

Here's an odd little hand that just got posted on the Bridge Laws mailing list

Life Master's Pairs
White versus Red you hold:

♠ T3
♥ 9653
♦ KT732
♣ K5

Here's the auction

1♦ - (2♣) - 2♦ - (2♠)
P - (P) - ???

Name your poison

[pbleighton]

3D, what I should have bid the first time.

Peter

[kenrexford]

At IMPs this seems easy -- pass and hedge against the opponents missing 4♠. At MP I might push once more.

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Mar 8 2007, 12:46 PM, said:

Here's an odd little hand that just got posted on the Bridge Laws mailing list

White versus Red you hold:

♠ T3
♥ 9653
♦ KT732
♣ K5

Here's the auction

1♦ - (2♣) - 2♦ - (2♠)
P - (P) - ???

Name your poison

I'll pass...while I would be happy to have bid 3♦ the first time, I don't see a big advantage here. I don't like pushing in a non-fit auction, and partner might read my slow-bid (instead of bidding 3♦ the first time) as showing a stronger hand than this.

[inquiry]

Pass or DBL... depends a bit on bidding conditions, and of course the meaning of 2♠ and the type of contest. I would not simply bid 3♦.

[pclayton]

Selling out to 2♠ is matchpoint suicide, so a painless 3♦. Double is crazy.

Non-fit auction? Uh; aren't we looking at a likely 9 card diamond fit?

This is the LM pairs; the opponents don't have 10 tricks in spades. Sounds like 2♠ is a generic NF 2♠ call on AQ-6th and out.

I would have made a negative double with this, although I'm OK with 3♦ at IMPs.

I'm curious why this turned up in a laws thread.

[paulg]

This is the type of problem that is often difficult. Presumably we are discussing what the logical alternatives are in this auction and most of the responders have already disqualified themselves ... since it is only LAs that a player who responds 2♦ initially would consider that count.

So I think if you've started with 2♦, you'd probably pass now.

[jtfanclub]

pclayton, on Mar 8 2007, 01:42 PM, said:

Selling out to 2♠ is matchpoint suicide, so a painless 3♦. Double is crazy.

Non-fit auction? Uh; aren't we looking at a likely 9 card diamond fit?

Non-fit auction? Uh; aren't we looking at a likely 9 card diamond fit?

If we do have a 9 card diamond fit, then they also have a fit, but it could just as easily be clubs. They could have a 7 card spade fit, maybe even 6, depending upon how 'constructive' the 2♠ call is.

I feel that partner knows more about my hand than I know about his. His pass makes me nervous. If I wasn't willing to bid 3♦ the first time, what about the auction has made 3♦ now more likely to be successful?

[cherdano]

jtfanclub, I will try it once more (after the long thread a couple of days ago): There is no non-fit auction when we know we have a fit. The concept of non-fit auctions is meant to apply to auctions where it is entirely possible that noone has a fit. (1D) P (1S) P (2D). Not 1D (s.th.) when we have 5 diamonds, are (1x) 1S (X) when we have 4 spades.

[jtfanclub]

cherdano, on Mar 8 2007, 03:14 PM, said:

jtfanclub, I will try it once more (after the long thread a couple of days ago): There is no non-fit auction when we know we have a fit. The concept of non-fit auctions is meant to apply to auctions where it is entirely possible that noone has a fit. (1D) P (1S) P (2D). Not 1D (s.th.) when we have 5 diamonds, are (1x) 1S (X) when we have 4 spades.

OK, I apologize then. I clearly need to work on my terminology.

If you said to me earlier, I'm sorry for having missed it.

[hrothgar]

Same hand, but now you're sitting North

Red versus white you hold

♠ 876542
♥ AQJ
♦ J
♣ 732

The auction starts

(1♦) - 2♣ - (2♦) - 2♠
(P) - P - (3♦) - ???

Do you take another call or are you going to sell out to 3♦?

[pclayton]

So I pass. WTP?

[cherdano]

jtfanclub, on Mar 8 2007, 02:29 PM, said:

cherdano, on Mar 8 2007, 03:14 PM, said:

jtfanclub, I will try it once more (after the long thread a couple of days ago): There is no non-fit auction when we know we have a fit. The concept of non-fit auctions is meant to apply to auctions where it is entirely possible that noone has a fit. (1D) P (1S) P (2D). Not 1D (s.th.) when we have 5 diamonds, are (1x) 1S (X) when we have 4 spades.

OK, I apologize then. I clearly need to work on my terminology.

If you said to me earlier, I'm sorry for having missed it.

Sorry if I sounded rude. Anyway, now that we got the terminology out of the way, I would argue that you also shouldn't apply the principles of non-fit auctions in the situation here. Non-fit auctions are auctions where you should be very careful about(pre-) balancing as possibly neither you nor opponents have a fit. This obviously isn't the case here.
Could it be that opponents are in a 7-card spade fit while they have a 9-card club fit? (The 6-card spade fit you mentioned earlier is impossible.) Highly unlikely against competent opponents, more likely that they have an 8-card spade fit, and even if it is a 7-card spade fit, it may well be right to bid.

[jtfanclub]

You were not rude, thank you for telling me.

You're right, a six card spade fit is possible, but not with my actual hand.

This hand just makes me nervous. I have 6 hcp, shortness in both of their suits, and length in partner's. LHO has supposedly shown a hand that's pretty weak. So what's going on? How can neither my partner nor RHO have another call? If partner had 4 diamonds, why did he not bid 3♦?

I think it comes down to, I took a position for some reason when I only bid 2♦. The rest of the auction re-enforces that position, it doesn't do anything to contradict it. Whatever warning bell made me bid 2♦ the first time has turned into a full blown siren. Something fishy is going on here.

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Mar 8 2007, 03:31 PM, said:

Do you take another call or are you going to sell out to 3♦?

Hmmm...partner should be able to look at his hand and predict my diamond shortage. Sounds like they have the majority of the points, and I'm more concerned about them missing game than us.

Looks like a clear pass to me. If I were in balancing seat, I'd have to think about it, but in direct this should be automatic. If partner doubles, I will bid 4♣.

I don't think i'm selling out, just leaving this for partner.

[hrothgar]

I'm now going to provide the complete hand along with some of the commentary.
The complete case is available at http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Honolulu200...BC+%20063-1.pdf

---

The auction went as follows

1♦ - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠
P - P - P* - 3♦ (* = Break in Tempo)
3♦ - 4♣ - All pass

4♣ made 4

East / West called the director and claimed that the BIT in tempo made North's 4♣ bid more attractive. The Director agreed and changed the result to 3♦-1. North / South took this to committee and managed to get the result reversed to 4♣ ==.

I found the case interesting because Bobby Wolff has start pushing another of his new theories of jurisprudence. In this case, he is (seems to be) arguing that North / South is should not be allowed to appeal.

On this hand, a number of top players felt that West's 3♦ bid was "automatic" in a pairs event. In a similar vein, the bulk the posters didn't believe that further action was North was warrantly. (I'd argue that South's hesitation during the actual auction made action by North much more attractive).

However, Wolff believes that East / West shouldn't be allowed to claim damage from the hesitation because West knew of the hesistation before chosing to bid 3♦. I was interested to see how many people felt that the 3♦ was automatic as opposed to hoping for some kind of double shot.

Commentary by Bobby Wolff

I had brought this type of case before the ACBL Laws Commission where a hesitation was made by a player who (as far as she was concerned) was in the pass out position making it such that there is no chance she was committing what I call hesitation disruption (HD) which would impart UI to a partner who was certain to be advantaged by it. Here, if her LHO now passed that would end the auction. In spite of knowing that South was considering bidding on West competed further therefore, at least to me, forfeiting her rights, or at least lessening her advantage to be able to cry out "HD". The ACBL Laws Commission made no comment and certainly did not pursue it.

[jtfanclub]

You have a couple of extra bids in there, but the meaning was clear.

I don't know how the noticable hesitation made it clearer for North to bid 4♣. In fact, were I North, the hesitation would make it less clear- one of the bids partner may have been considering would have been 3♠, and my 4♣ would ruin an otherwise good score.

If anything, I would argue that the 4♣ was a bend-over-backwards attempt by North to take the least successful action based on the hesitation. Since that's exactly what happened (any other action would have had a better result), I think he should be applauded for his 4♣ decision.

[FrancesHinden]

hrothgar, on Mar 9 2007, 05:34 PM, said:

In spite of knowing that South was considering bidding on West competed further therefore, at least to me, forfeiting her rights, or at least lessening her advantage to be able to cry out "HD". The ACBL Laws Commission made no comment and certainly did not pursue it.

Wolff is a great player but his ideas on the laws are, to say the least, idiosyncratic.

I'm sorry, but this is rubbish.

You have no idea what South was thinking about over 2S. It might have been whether 2S was forcing or not. It might have been that South had no spade fit and was considering bidding pulling to 3C. It might have been that South was thinking of bidding 3S, but in fact 3D is making exactly and 3S is one off.

As it is, EW improved their score by bidding 3D: 2S is making 9 tricks fairly easily for 140 to NS. So how can bidding over 2S - got a better matchpoint score than passing - be in any sense a double shot or lead to a forfeit of rights?