[FrancesHinden]

It's often difficult to know what a slow bid actually suggests without being influenced by seeing partner's hand. So consider this problem first in a vacuum:

You hold

♠Qxxx
♥Kxxx
♦J98xx
♣-

game all, matchpointed pairs (8-board matches converted to VPs on a 20-0 scale).

LHO opens 1♣
Partner makes a takeout double.
RHO passes.
You elect to bid 1♥ (I don't care if you don't agree, live with it)
LHO bids 2♣

Partner bids 2♥ very, very slowly.
Your agreements include that double of 2♣ would be for penalties, and that 2♥ is invitational/strongly constructive; not merely competitive (I don't care if you don't like these agreements, live with them)

What does the slowness of partner's 2H bid suggest about his hand?
What calls with your hand are demonstrably suggested by the slowness of his 2♥ call? Are any other calls logical alternatives?

[Walddk]

Hesitation or not, I think I have a clear 4♥ when 2♥ is described as invitational/strongly constructive. I had a maximum for my 1♥ in the first place.

Although Frances doesn't care, I would have bid 2♣ as my response to the take-out double. That is not game forcing as I play it.

Doubler should not have a strong hand with only three hearts and/or four spades (he could have bid 3♣), so his raise is based on four-card support. The slowness of partner's 2♥ bid suggests that he doesn't have four hearts after all, but after the huddle I am not allowed to bid 3♣, 2♠ or 3♥ to find out.

I have a feeling that he is 4-3 in the majors and not quite strong enough to force to the 3-level (3♣) in case I am weak, but it is not my problem. I must and will bid as if he didn't hesitate. Therefore, 4♥ is my answer.

At least I will win the ethical post-mortem.

Roland

[the hog]

To be honest, its not my problem what partner was thinking about. If his bid shows an invitational hand as pre our agreements, then as Roland says, I have a clear game bid. For all I know, he may have indigestion or be thinking about what wine to order with his dinner.

As does Roland, I also suspect he does not have 4H, and a 2S bid would cater to this, but I don't think that is reasonable now.

[Poky]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 21 2007, 05:16 PM, said:

What does the slowness of partner's 2H bid suggest about his hand?
What calls with your hand are demonstrably suggested by the slowness of his 2♥ call? Are any other calls logical alternatives?

It does sugges nothing special. Maybe he has only 3♥ (strange system), maybe he is a little light for his action. Maybe he is a little strong for his action.

I don't care. I have a clear raise to game with 4-4 majors, so, I bid 3♠, letting p to pick our best fit (he had no other bid with a strong 4342 hand available).

[Walddk]

Poky, on Aug 22 2007, 02:32 PM, said:

I don't care. I have a clear raise to game with 4-4 majors, so, I bid 3♠, letting p to pick our best fit (he had no other bid with a strong 4342 hand available).

I disagree. He had 3♣ available with a strong hand and no clear direction. By the way, I don't think he has a doubleton club. That would give the opponents 11 between them, and then we would have heard more noise.

His shape (after the huddle) is likely 4333 or 4324, likely in the upper or above the notrump range with no club stopper.

Time for Frances to tell why we were overruled when "we" decided to follow up with 2♠, 3♥ or 3♠.

Roland

P.S. I agree with the ruling if it was based on what I think it is.

[Gerben42]

It is unclear if partner was thinking to:

* bid more (because he is close to 3♥)
* pass (because he had just a competetive hand)

so adjusting the score is probably not going to stand.

Anyway, you could NOT pass here I think. This hand is great!
I would pick 4♣, given your agreements it appears your 2♥ is still consistent with:

AKx
AQxx
KQx
xxx

[FrancesHinden]

Walddk, on Aug 23 2007, 12:25 PM, said:

Time for Frances to tell why we were overruled when "we" decided to follow up with 2♠, 3♥ or 3♠.

Roland

P.S. I agree with the ruling if it was based on what I think it is.

I not entirely sure quite what you are thinking.... but what happened was

1. The player at the table bid 3D over 2H, partner raised to 5 and that made.

2. The TD ruled that the slowness of the 2H bid did not demonstrably suggest any particular call, and let the table result stand.

3. The AC (not including me, but including my husband) ruled that the slowness of the 2H bid demonstrably suggested short hearts. The considered various different possible weighted rulings, but eventually adjusted to 4H off some number (probably 2, I can't remember).

4. The original take-out doubler was EXTREMELY upset by this ruling.

5. It is often the case that when you know partner's hand, you think you know the reason why they thought. In a spirit in independent enquiry, I wanted to see what people who had no idea what partner's hand was, thought the slowness of his bid suggested. That seemed a good way of seeing which of the AC and the TD were right.


The player holding this hand was a competent tournament player, but not very strong. Partner, the take-out doubler, is a (previously!) well-respected expert who has won medals in European (EBL) events. Why he wants to make so much fuss about this hand, given what he actually held, is a mystery.

Partner has

KJx
Qx
AKQ10
Axxx

[Walddk]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 23 2007, 02:48 PM, said:

3. The AC (not including me, but including my husband) ruled that the slowness of the 2H bid demonstrably suggested short hearts. The considered various different possible weighted rulings, but eventually adjusted to 4H off some number (probably 2, I can't remember).

<snip>

Partner has

KJx
Qx
AKQ10
Axxx

Not entirely what I thought, but less than four hearts he had. That was obvious, and I agree with the committee's ruling. How difficult could it be for the experienced, competent tournament player to bid 3♣ over 2♣?

A tank for ages, then 2♥ means that he has prevented us from reaching the best spot. I am happy to see that the committee said just that (directly or indirectly) and adjusted the score.

Roland

[skjaeran]

Walddk, on Aug 23 2007, 03:23 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Aug 23 2007, 02:48 PM, said:

3. The AC (not including me, but including my husband) ruled that the slowness of the 2H bid demonstrably suggested short hearts. The considered various different possible weighted rulings, but eventually adjusted to 4H off some number (probably 2, I can't remember).

<snip>

Partner has

KJx
Qx
AKQ10
Axxx

Not entirely what I thought, but less than four hearts he had. That was obvious, and I agree with the committee's ruling. How difficult could it be for the experienced, competent tournament player to bid 3♣ over 2♣?

A tank for ages, then 2♥ means that he has prevented us from reaching the best spot. I am happy to see that the committee said just that (directly or indirectly) and adjusted the score.

Roland

As a TD and often AC member I totally agree with Roland here.

[jtfanclub]

skaeran, on Aug 23 2007, 12:34 PM, said:

As a TD and often AC member I totally agree with Roland here.

As a TD but never a AC member, I agree completely as well. He may as well shout in a megaphone that he has fewer than 4 hearts.

[hatchett]

I also agree with the ruling, as Roland says his hesitation strongly suggests less than 4♥ and it is unreasonable to allow a bid that caters for this when there are other alternatives.