[BillHiggin]

The situation: (inspired by a BW disussion)
One player makes a 4N RKCB ask.
The response shows 1 or 4 key cards.
Asker after a significant (acknowledged) BIT bids 5 of the agreed suit.
The responder holding 4 key cards raises to 6. "DIRECTOR"

It is my belief that it is not uncommon for players (perhaps only less than expert players) to believe that they are always supposed to bid on when holding the higher number of key cards.
It would seem to me that the director ought to make an effort to determine whether the (alleged) offending pair does have that agreement and if so, to rule that the table result stands, but otherwise to role back the contract to 5 (perhaps a polling of peers is appropriate after making the determination).
I also believe that I am no expert on such matters!

What sayeth the real world directors? (Does it depend on location?)

[pran]

BillHiggin, on 2013-August-30, 12:51, said:

The situation: (inspired by a BW disussion)
One player makes a 4N RKCB ask.
The response shows 1 or 4 key cards.
Asker after a significant (acknowledged) BIT bids 5 of the agreed suit.
The responder holding 4 key cards raises to 6. "DIRECTOR"

It is my belief that it is not uncommon for players (perhaps only less than expert players) to believe that they are always supposed to bid on when holding the higher number of key cards.
It would seem to me that the director ought to make an effort to determine whether the (alleged) offending pair does have that agreement and if so, to rule that the table result stands, but otherwise to role back the contract to 5 (perhaps a polling of peers is appropriate after making the determination).
I also believe that I am no expert on such matters!

What sayeth the real world directors? (Does it depend on location?)

I would (more or less automatically) accept the raise to 6 by a responder holding the higher number of key cards. It is true that most players should be able to know from the previous auction whether responder holds the higher or lower number of key cards, but there is nothing wrong with an (implicit) understanding that responder shall correct to 6 if he holds the higher number.

However, I would not accept a raise to 6 on the ground that responder holds "extra values" not shown in the auction, after a BIT by asker.

[billw55]

Pretty obvious to me that after a keycard ask, answer, and signoff at the five level, pass is a logical alternative. If the slam made, adjust to 5+1.

Quote

there is nothing wrong with an (implicit) understanding that responder shall correct to 6 if he holds the higher number.

In that case asker should have no problem bidding 5 in tempo.

[campboy]

I think it is obviously right to have the agreement to bid on whenever you have 4. For 0/3 there are some auctions where 5M should be a signoff even opposite 3.

[BillHiggin]

billw55, on 2013-August-30, 15:18, said:

Pretty obvious to me that after a keycard ask, answer, and signoff at the five level, pass is a logical alternative. If the slam made, adjust to 5+1.

If you have the agreement to bid on with 4, then pass is NOT a logical alternative.

[pran]

campboy, on 2013-August-30, 15:27, said:

I think it is obviously right to have the agreement to bid on whenever you have 4. For 0/3 there are some auctions where 5M should be a signoff even opposite 3.

The important question for TD to investigate is "what could be suggested by the BIT after a 0/3 response?" (or for that sake after a 1/4 response)

I suspect that any BIT by asker after a 0/3 or a 1/4 response probably reveals that the asker made his 4NT bid without really thinking.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2013-August-30, 16:10, said:

The important question for TD to investigate is "what could be suggested by the BIT after a 0/3 response?" (or for that sake after a 1/4 response)

I suspect that any BIT by asker after a 0/3 or a 1/4 response probably reveals that the asker made his 4NT bid without really thinking.

If so, then the UI from the BIT may well suggest passing, so if passing is successful, the TD should adjust the score — and bidding on, successful or not, should not result in a score adjustment.

[campboy]

pran, on 2013-August-30, 16:10, said:

The important question for TD to investigate is "what could be suggested by the BIT after a 0/3 response?" (or for that sake after a 1/4 response)

I suspect that any BIT by asker after a 0/3 or a 1/4 response probably reveals that the asker made his 4NT bid without really thinking.

Asker bidding 5M slowly after a 0/3 response suggests that he has at least one keycard, since with none he would sign off in tempo. Unless you already know that from the earler auction, the UI demonstrably suggests bidding on because it tells you you can't be missing two keycards. Isn't this obvious?

[gnasher]

BillHiggin, on 2013-August-30, 12:51, said:

It is my belief that it is not uncommon for players (perhaps only less than expert players) to believe that they are always supposed to bid on when holding the higher number of key cards.

I think this is a normal belief amongst all players, expert or otherwise.

Anyway, if the player has this belief, pass is not a logical alternative; if he doesn't, pass may be a logical alternative.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-August-30, 16:31, said:

If so, then the UI from the BIT may well suggest passing, so if passing is successful, the TD should adjust the score — and bidding on, successful or not, should not result in a score adjustment.

If my memory serves me right (it must have been at least 20 years ago) I once did indeed adjust 5M= to 6M-1 for just such reason.

[ahydra]

The White Book has a specific exception for this, does it not?

Quote

8.16.4
‘Hesitation Blackwood’
The responder to a Blackwood bid is normally expected to accept their partner’s decision, and when that decision is after a pause for thought, responder is not permitted to continue except when partner ‘cannot’ have a hand on which slam will fail.
(See EBU Appeals 2000, hand 2.)
While this is the normal case there are particular positions where it might be acceptable for a player to continue, which include:
Responder holds an unshown but useful void.
After a response showing 0/3, 0/4 or 1/4, responder has the higher value.

(emphasis added)

I note it says "might" be acceptable, but I think we have to know the hands and previous auction to say whether that applies here - e.g. if it is absolutely certain that responder holds 4 key cards and not 1, e.g. he opened an Acol 2C, then we should adjust. Most of the time I would not expect to have to adjust.

ahydra

[blackshoe]

The OP asked whether the ruling depends on location. He is, I suspect, in the ACBL (please folks, specify the jurisdiction, particularly if you think it might matter). So the EBU's regulation doesn't matter, and the ACBL, AFAIK, doesn't have one.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-02, 15:35, said:

The OP asked whether the ruling depends on location. He is, I suspect, in the ACBL (please folks, specify the jurisdiction, particularly if you think it might matter). So the EBU's regulation doesn't matter, and the ACBL, AFAIK, doesn't have one.

In which case the Director must judge the applicability of Law 16B.

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2013-August-30, 17:35, said:

I think this is a normal belief amongst all players, expert or otherwise.

Anyway, if the player has this belief, pass is not a logical alternative; if he doesn't, pass may be a logical alternative.

Agreed, we have this arrangement AND document it on our convention card.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2013-September-02, 15:39, said:

In which case the Director must judge the applicability of Law 16B.

Of course.

[BillHiggin]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-02, 15:35, said:

The OP asked whether the ruling depends on location. He is, I suspect, in the ACBL (please folks, specify the jurisdiction, particularly if you think it might matter). So the EBU's regulation doesn't matter, and the ACBL, AFAIK, doesn't have one.

The situation came from a post on Bridge Winners and did not specify a jurisdiction. I was unsure how much difference jurisdiction would actually make so I made the weasel statement. Apparently the post on BW was made by someone who had been polled by a director. This seemed strange to me since by my theory, such polling would serve little purpose once the agreement was determined and would be misleading if the agreement was not determined (i.e. the answers to the poll would tend to reflect the agreements of the polled individual). To further muddy the waters, the OP from BW stated that the director came to him because "he wasn't getting the answers he expected" (WTF seems appropriate here).

[ggwhiz]

Nobody asks for kc missing all 5 in any jurisdiction I'm aware of and pass is not an LA.

[Cyberyeti]

ggwhiz, on 2013-September-02, 17:10, said:

Nobody asks for kc missing all 5 in any jurisdiction I'm aware of and pass is not an LA.

Well not often, although if partner had already shown me a balanced 25+ and I was dealt QJ10xxxxx, KQJ, x, x I might make an exception (although I don't have anything to think about after the response).

[Codo]

But if partner had shown 25+ and you hold your 9 hcps, you will know whether he has 4 or one keycards...

To the TDs who would rule against the slam bidding. Do you mind to construct a hand and an auction which can possibly lead to a blackwood auction where the hesitation before 5M makes slam unliky after partner had asked for KCs and I showed 4?

Would be impossible to me, so I want to learn...

[Cyberyeti]

Codo, on 2013-September-03, 01:54, said:

But if partner had shown 25+ and you hold your 9 hcps, you will know whether he has 4 or one keycards...

To the TDs who would rule against the slam bidding. Do you mind to construct a hand and an auction which can possibly lead to a blackwood auction where the hesitation before 5M makes slam unliky after partner had asked for KCs and I showed 4?

Would be impossible to me, so I want to learn...

Most likely to occur in one of those auctions where it's possible that partners think they've agreed different suits, so partner has shown the wrong K as an ace. Also in an "is it kickback" situation.