[bluejak]

Scoring: MP

     1♠  Dbl   3♠
 P   P 3NT[1] P
4♣  P   5♣    P
 P  Dbl  P     P
 P

Result
5♣ dbld =
NS -850

---

[1] Agreed slow.

Well?

[pran]

This is a matter of regulation.

In Norway this auction is defined as a competitive auction where STOP shall be used with every call starting with the 3♠ bid until both players on one side has passed with no intervening call other than pass from either of them.

Under our regulation there seems to be no cause for adjustment.

[jallerton]

The opening post says "agreed slow", so let's rule on the basis that East's call was out of tempo, Sven. If you want to translate this into a Norwegian problem, assume that East paused for significantly longer than the Norwegian regulation demands.

I'm a little surprised to see this in the Simple Rulings forum. It is not immediately obvious whether certain actions are demonstrably suggested by the slowness of the 3NT bid. Perhaps the reason for the TD call was procedural. Apparently, the players had entered the score in the Bridgemate as only 11 tricks but were still confused about how the score of 850 was arrived at!

[bluejak]

pran, on Dec 31 2009, 03:36 PM, said:

This is a matter of regulation.

In Norway this auction is defined as a competitive auction where STOP shall be used with every call starting with the 3♠ bid until both players on one side has passed with no intervening call other than pass from either of them.

Under our regulation there seems to be no cause for adjustment.

So what?

Are you saying you would ignore the regulations in force when giving a ruling? That seems pretty silly to me.

Or are you saying that you do not know that we always refer to an action as slow or a hesitation we automatically mean slower or a hesitation in excess of any mandated pause?

Or are you just assuming I am asking a question where there is no infraction to see if anyone is awake?

To be completely honest, pran, I can really so no point to your post whatever. Perhaps you could explain.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on Dec 31 2009, 07:16 PM, said:

I'm a little surprised to see this in the Simple Rulings forum.  It is not immediately obvious whether certain actions are demonstrably suggested by the slowness of the 3NT bid.  Perhaps the reason for the TD call was procedural.  Apparently, the players had entered the score in the Bridgemate as only 11 tricks but were still confused about how the score of 850 was arrived at!

I just thought it was direct enough for no legal problems of the sort we get in Laws & Rulings. It never occurred to me that anyone would suggest ruling under different regulations or anything similar.

As to the score, I am very tired. Just change it to whatever it should be. I worked it out in my head.

[awm]

West passing 3NT is certainly a logical alternative -- who knows what east has, and either minor could be a source of tricks. The slow 3NT bid suggests removing (and 4♣ is more flexible than 4♦).

I'd roll the result back to 3NT by east. The number of tricks taken depends greatly on the lead -- on a spade lead ten tricks are pretty easy, but a diamond lead will hold declarer to nine (assuming he ducks the diamonds repeatedly). It may be worth considering a weighted score based on the odds of the various leads -- perhaps 50% for 3NT making and 50% for 3NT+1.

[pran]

bluejak, on Dec 31 2009, 08:14 PM, said:

pran, on Dec 31 2009, 03:36 PM, said:

This is a matter of regulation.

In Norway this auction is defined as a competitive auction where STOP shall be used with every call starting with the 3♠ bid until both players on one side has passed with no intervening call other than pass from either of them.

Under our regulation there seems to be no cause for adjustment.

So what?

Are you saying you would ignore the regulations in force when giving a ruling?

Certainly not. But as I don't know what regulations actually were in force I referred to the regulations we have in Norway and indicated how I would approach this situation under these.

bluejak, on Dec 31 2009, 08:14 PM, said:

That seems pretty silly to me.

Ignoring relevant regulations is of course silly. WTP?

bluejak, on Dec 31 2009, 08:14 PM, said:

Or are you saying that you do not know that we always refer to an action as slow or a hesitation we automatically mean slower or a hesitation in excess of any mandated pause?

Precisely. I have no count of how many times I hear an allegation that an opponent has hesitated only to discover that this "hesitation" was within the required stop period and/or that STOP had not been used properly.

Do the relevant regulations in force here include STOP in competitive auctions? Was STOP properly used? And was the alleged hesitation indeed excessive?

bluejak, on Dec 31 2009, 08:14 PM, said:

Or are you just assuming I am asking a question where there is no infraction to see if anyone is awake?

To be completely honest, pran, I can really so no point to your post whatever.  Perhaps you could explain.

I am sorry for that. My experience with you is that you "misunderstand" me far more than other people do so I probably cannot help you.

[FrancesHinden]

I don't think a slow 3NT bid demonstrably suggests any particular call.
All it does is tell me that partner wasn't certain about bidding 3NT, but as I've never had this auction I doubt I would ever bid 3NT quickly.

If anything - and I think this is a bit stretched - a fast 3NT suggests a spade stop and a running minor that thinks it can see 9 tricks (and that thought it was too strong to overcall 3NT on the first round) while a slow 3NT suggests a balanced 23-count or so.

But it's not clear what the right action on my hand is opposite either of those hand types. On either itcould be right to pass, and on either it could be right to bid.

I would rule that the table result stands.

(I would have expected 5Cx to make an overtrick, by the way).

[mjj29]

pran, on Dec 31 2009, 05:28 PM, said:

Certainly not. But as I don't know what regulations actually were in force I referred to the regulations we have in Norway and indicated how I would approach this situation under these.

As the sub-title suggests (London, UK) It was under the auspices of the EBU. The regulations here say that stop is used after skip bids but not elsewhere.

[RMB1]

awm, on Dec 31 2009, 08:13 PM, said:

I'd roll the result back to 3NT by east. The number of tricks taken depends greatly on the lead -- on a spade lead ten tricks are pretty easy, but a diamond lead will hold declarer to nine (assuming he ducks the diamonds repeatedly). It may be worth considering a weighted score based on the odds of the various leads -- perhaps 50% for 3NT making and 50% for 3NT+1.

Even if we adjust for EW (and I am not sure we do). Should the double of 5C by North be consider [wild or] gambling - it certainly looks like an attempt at a double shot. If we are adjusting to 3NT making then the damage is self-inflicted.

Robin

Happy new year, hic!

[bluejak]

pran, on Dec 31 2009, 11:28 PM, said:

Certainly not. But as I don't know what regulations actually were in force I referred to the regulations we have in Norway and indicated how I would approach this situation under these.

Of course you know what regulations were in force. That is why posters are strongly encouraged to put where they are. Are you seriously trying to convince us that you thought "London UK" was in Norway?

pran, on Dec 31 2009, 11:28 PM, said:

Precisely. I have no count of how many times I hear an allegation that an opponent has hesitated only to discover that this "hesitation" was within the required stop period and/or that STOP had not been used properly.

As you know, the policy on these forums is to assume the OP has given you the relevant information, not to assume he has not. So you are not trying to answer the question asked at all.

pran, on Dec 31 2009, 11:28 PM, said:

I am sorry for that. My experience with you is that you "misunderstand" me far more than other people do so I probably cannot help you.

I think you will find that I am merely more prepared to say it. You have a very common habit of assuming the OP does not mean what he says, of going off at a tangent unnecessarily, of ignoring the Laws. I take the trouble to point this out, not because of any hope that I can correct you, but to try to make sure you do not mislead other people.

[mamos]

Sarah and I have sat here on New Years Eve, now New Years Day (sad gits) (well my excuse is I've given up booze) and happily tried David's problems. I didnt think it that simple either.

We have concluded that we think slow 3NT suggests doubt and Pass is a logical alternative I'd be happy to listen to alternative viewpoints. If so some weight between 9 and 10 tricks looks right for EW

Im surprised 12 tricks are not made in 5♣

Like RMB we don't think much of the final double. It really looks like the action of a player convinced the TD will help out rather than the call of a player with the tricks to beat 5♣. So I also don't think NS will get much help.

Mike

[pwg]

Where is the advantage to E/W? It seems to me (in my innocence) that the damage to N/S was from the double, not from the bid of 4C which actually places E/W in a worse contract.

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure it's a good idea to double partner.

[jallerton]

RMB1, on Dec 31 2009, 11:01 PM, said:

Even if we adjust for EW (and I am not sure we do). Should the double of 5C by North be consider [wild or] gambling - it certainly looks like an attempt at a double shot. If we are adjusting to 3NT making then the damage is self-inflicted.

Robin

I don't think that North's double should be classified as wild or gambling. He has two aces outside spades plus the king of trumps and might reasonably expect the contract to go off more often than not.

However, I wonder if it would be plausible to reason as follows:

1. From the table auction it seems that this particular North doubles more often than many players.

2. Had West passed rather than bid 4♣, it is not unreasonable to double 3NT on the North hand.

3. Therefore, had West passed rather than bid 4♣, there is every chance that this particular North would have doubled 3NT on the North hand.

4. 3NTx would probably have made an overtrick, scoring -950 for N/S.

5. The actual table score was presumably also -950 for N/S, as it is hard not to make an overtrick in 5♣x.

6. Therefore no damage from the infraction, even if pulling 3NT is deemed to be one.

[nige1]

jallerton, on Jan 1 2010, 12:05 PM, said:

I don't think that North's double should be classified as wild or gambling.  He has two aces outside spades plus the king of trumps and might reasonably expect the contract to go off more often than not.

However, I wonder if it would be plausible to reason as follows:

1.  From the table auction it seems that this particular North doubles more often than many players.

2.  Had West passed rather than bid 4♣, it is not unreasonable to double 3NT on the North hand.

3.  Therefore, had West passed rather than bid 4♣, there is every chance that this particular North would have doubled 3NT on the North hand.

4.   3NTx would probably have made an overtrick, scoring -950 for N/S.

5.   The actual table score was presumably also -950 for N/S, as it is hard not to make an overtrick in 5♣x.

6.  Therefore no damage from the infraction, even if pulling 3NT is deemed to be one.

I think East's hesitation expressed doubt, facilitating West's removal to 4♣. Jallerton's view is interesting and amusing Assuming that a victim gets the benefit of the doubt, I would still feel worried if a director argued that way. I fear however, that jallerton's excellent argument has further undermined the case that West's action was legally responsible for the North-South damage.

[blackshoe]

When did the laws replace "non-offending side" with "victim"?

[nige1]

blackshoe, on Jan 1 2010, 08:31 PM, said:

When did the laws replace "non-offending side" with "victim"?

My meaning is clear. Maybe putative victim would be better. And the laws should certainly qualify "offending side" and "non-offending side".

[FrancesHinden]

I see a number of people using this chain of reasoning:

1. The slow 3NT bid suggests doubt about the 3NT bid
2. Pass is a logical alternative to the chosen action of 4C
3. Therefore we should roll the contract back to 3NT

I think this logic is fundamentally flawed.
I agree with points 1 and 2

I do not see why partner being "doubtful" about 3NT demonstrably suggests pulling it. None of those who have said the result should be adjusted to 3NT have explained what hand type "doubt" suggests (or indeed what hand type "no doubt" suggests) and thus why bidding 4C is demonstrably suggested and why there should be an adjustment.

In summary: just because you know partner isn't certain he's making the right call does not necessarily either restrict your actions or tell you what the winning action will be.

[bluejak]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 2 2010, 05:11 PM, said:

In summary: just because you know partner isn't certain he's making the right call does not necessarily either restrict your actions or tell you what the winning action will be.

You have a pretty distributional hand and partner bullies his way to 3NT without your showing your distribution. Is it right to pass or to play in a minor? Quite frankly it is a guess.

Now you know that partner is doubtful about bidding 3NT: this alters the odds on the guess, and moves it towards pulling rather than passing, thus suggesting a bid over a pass.