[mich-b]

---

2NT = 20-22
3H = Txf
4NT = RKCB
5D = 1 or 4

This happened in a teams match (second division).
The 5♠ bid was made after agreed hesitation.
EW called the director and said the hesitation created UI which may have influenced North's decision to raise to slam.
North said, that with or without hesitation , 5♠ asked him to bid on with 4 keycards rather than 1.
EW argued , that South should have figured out that the 2NT opener has 4 keycards and not 1 , and in that context his 5♠ bid, can be seen as a signoff.

How would you rule:
1. As the TD?
2. If you are a member of the AC?

[mgoetze]

mich-b, on 2010-November-10, 05:41, said:

EW argued , that South should have figured out that the 2NT opener has 4 keycards and not 1 , and in that context his 5♠ bid, can be seen as a signoff.

While it is technically possible for a 20-22 NT opener to have 0 keycards, I don't believe anyone would superaccept with that hand. Unless South is a beginner, I am agreeing with EW about this point.

However, I can't come up with a hand where South would bid RKCB and not want to be in slam opposite 4 keycards, so I would probably allow North's bid anyway. A poll of North's peers as to whether Pass is a LA might help.

[lamford]

mgoetze, on 2010-November-10, 06:25, said:

While it is technically possible for a 20-22 NT opener to have 0 keycards, I don't believe anyone would superaccept with that hand. Unless South is a beginner, I am agreeing with EW about this point.

However, I can't come up with a hand where South would bid RKCB and not want to be in slam opposite 4 keycards, so I would probably allow North's bid anyway. A poll of North's peers as to whether Pass is a LA might help.

The problem with a hesitation Blackwood sequence is that it can be used by the unscrupulous as a mild slam try; if partner was "always bidding slam" this is the hand you want him to raise on. Something like ♠ Qxxxx ♥ xx ♦ KJx ♣ KJx would be ideal for this HB sequence, as partner will need great cards to overall you which is exactly what you want. Maybe I am being cynical in my old age; here partner justly goes down, but when it makes, we have to adjust.

[pran]

Duplicate thread?

[mfa1010]

I would allow it. There is no such thing in normal bidding as a sign-off opposite 4 key cards after asking for them. I'm not going to force some very weird bidding upon them because of a hesitation. Pass is not a LA.

[peachy]

Result stands. If four keycards is not enough for slam, then partner has made a mistake in asking. As TD or AC member, I do not have the right to force anyone to make a call which is based on the assumption that his partner has made a mistake. Passing 5S would be absurd.

[Echognome]

Agree that I do not think pass is a LA after partner asks for keycard.

[arikp111]

mich-b, on 2010-November-10, 05:41, said:

North said, that with or without hesitation , 5♠ asked him to bid on with 4 keycards rather than 1.
EW argued , that South should have figured out that the 2NT opener has 4 keycards and not 1 , and in that context his 5♠ bid, can be seen as a signoff.

As being East on this hand I'm afraid the actual facts are not as stated above.

1. don't recall North saying that, rather when asked by the TD why did he bid slam he told him he had such a good hand that he felt obliged to bid it.
he made an argument of evaluation rather than mathematics (# of KC)

2. we never had the chance to officially argue anything.
At the table the TD asked for review with explanations. That's it.
It's is true however that I used this argument while discussing the hand after the match was concluded together with members of the other team who were considering whether to appeal.
And of course I suggested it on IsraBridge forum and here as well.

Arik

[blackshoe]

I don't see why what South "should have figured out" is relevant.

For many people, if partner "signs off" at the five level when they've shown 1 or 4 key cards, and they have 4, bidding six is automatic. Not saying that was the case here, but I'd want to investigate a bit further.

Whether there's no LA to a particular action is all about hand evaluation, so if North presented an argument based on his evaluation of the hand, I see no reason to toss it out willy-nilly.

[mfa1010]

blackshoe, on 2010-November-12, 00:35, said:

Whether there's no LA to a particular action is all about hand evaluation, so if North presented an argument based on his evaluation of the hand, I see no reason to toss it out willy-nilly.

It is also about system.

5♠ can theoretical mean one of these three only:

1) Sign-off. No need for a poll, since pass is obv a LA.
2) Forcing opposite 4KC. No need for a poll, since pass is obv not a LA.
3) Invitational. A poll could be helpful to investigate if not accepting is a LA.

TD should first try to establish NS's methods. Only if he finds that they are "(3)" or "possibly (3)", he could meaningfully launch a poll about hand evaluation.

The right question would then be: "What would you bid after 5♠, assuming that 5♠ is agreed as invitational?"

I very much doubt that TD got that right.

---

A different poll is possible. TD might feel on shaky ground as to what is expert standard. It is unlikely that NS can provide documentation about if they play (1), (2) or (3), but if expert standard is very clear, maybe that can serve partly as some form of background, if it corresponds to what NS claim.

The right question to investigate if such standard exists is: "How would you interpret 5♠ partnering an unknown player [of the relevant level]?"

---

The question that I fear that TD was asking and which would be almost worthless is: "What would you do after 5♠?" Then we wouldn't know from the answer if was based on system (being a "(1)" or a "(2)") or if it was based on hand evaluation (being a "(3)").