[RMB1]

Scoring: MP

W . N . E . S
1♦ P . 3♦ 3♥
P . 4♥ ..P P
5♦ P . P . P

1♦ showed 3+
..P "slight hesitation" acknowledged by East
5♦ bid as sacrifice, "without noticing the hesitation"

5♦-1, NS +50

---

South reserved his rights at the end of the auction and the TD was called at the end of play. West said that to raise, East needed 5 diamonds because 1♦ could be three, and so it was obvious to sacrifice.

The TD ruled that Pass was a logical alternative to 5♦ and 5♦ was suggested by the hesitation. He adjusted to 4♥=.

When consulted, I was swayed by West's failure to compete to 4♦ in finding Pass a logical alternative. I think we were swayed by the hand records in finding that 4♥ makes (by playing on spades rather than clubs).

The AC restored the table result. 5♦ was reasonable, at favourable vulnerability with little defence. Although 4♥ can be made, it probably won't.

I think the AC decision amounts to: if 4♥ is not making very often then a weighted adjustment would not benefit NS, so there is no damage, and the status of 5♦ is not significant.

[Pict]

It's difficult to judge, of course, from a brief summary of events.

However, I would on that basis have gone with the AC, and I'm a little surprised by the original decision. I thought it was recommended that brief time for thinking was to be expected when the auction takes an unexpected or problematic turn at a high level. I can't see that East has communicated anything not inherent in the situation.

[Cascade]

What did 3♦ show?

[RMB1]

Cascade, on Apr 17 2010, 09:41 AM, said:

What did 3♦ show?

Not disclosed.
I assume it is a limit raise: 10-12 with diamond support, probably denies 4 card M.

[campboy]

If it is, I wouldn't think there is much question that pass is an LA -- why should 4♥ be making? Otoh if 3♦ is pre-emptive then it looks right to bid on.

I don't see the argument about West not having bid 4♦; if he doesn't want to defend 4♥ surely he should be passing 3♥.

It's less clear to me how likely South is to make 4♥; the AC ruling looks reasonable, though of course we would need to know the MPs for +50, -100 and +620 to tell whether the adjustment would benefit NS.

[RMB1]

campboy, on Apr 17 2010, 11:28 AM, said:

... though of course we would need to know the MPs for +50, -100 and +620 to tell whether the adjustment would benefit NS.

With the table result: +620 86/86, +50 55/86, -100 40/86.