[arikp111]

The following occurred in a second division league match of the Israeli Bridge Federation (scoring method is IMPs, screens are not in use):

Bidding:

E/ALL

N E S W
P P P
2NT P 3H P
4S P 4NT P
5D P 5S* P
6S P P P

2NT - 20-22 balanced
3H - standard transfer
4S - super accept, no other special meaning
4NT - RKCB (S)
5D - 1/4 out of 5
5S* - considerable BIT, it took south about a minute to bid it

When the bidding concluded east called the TDand relayed the facts.
Both parties agreed to the facts as stated above.

The TD instructed the players to continue playing the board and score it normally for the time being while he considers his ruling.

Result: NS +1430

North hand:
KJTXX
AX
AQX
AQX

The TD eventually changed the score to: NS +680, EW -680
The TD stated that he had consulted with five players out of which two said they would pass 5S.
In his own words: "As 40% constitute PASS as a logical alternative to bidding 6S I've got no choice but to change the score accordingly."

For various reasons the team NS pair is part of decided not to appeal:
- Last match of the day, long trip home.
- Had they won the appeal they would still lose the match (for some reason how bad is the loss was of no concern to them.)

Anyway, the day after one of the team members posted this hand on an Israeli bridge forum asking whether this ruling was reasonable.

At this stage all I would like to say is that a heated discussion ensued and in fact is still going on at the forum.

I'm interested in hearing the opinions of this forum's members as to:
- what do you think of the ruling process
- do you find the poll result to match your thinking?
- do you think that east was acting in a spiteful manner by calling the TD and should not have called him to begin with?

You may find the following facts of relevance:
NS pair could be considered as advanced+ players.
This was the 12th board of a 16 boards match.
On the 10th board NS missed reaching a lay-down game as south decided to take the low road and invite rather than bid game by himself holding 12HCP and a fit opposite a 1st in hand vulnerable 1S opener.

[mgoetze]

arikp111, on 2010-November-10, 05:39, said:

The TD stated that he had consulted with five players out of which two said they would pass 5S.
In his own words: "As 40% constitute PASS as a logical alternative to bidding 6S I've got no choice but to change the score accordingly."

[...]

I'm interested in hearing the opinions of this forum's members as to:
- what do you think of the ruling process

Yes, that's fine.

Quote

- do you find the poll result to match your thinking?

No, but that's why one has polls.

Quote

- do you think that east was acting in a spiteful manner by calling the TD and should not have called him to begin with?

WTF?

[paulg]

Although I'm surprised at the poll result, the Director appears to have followed the correct procedure and ruled according to the laws. It is inconceivable that South cannot tell whether North has one or four key cards AND has a hand that is interested in slam.

Rather than be concerned about the Director's ruling, I would suggest that South thinks (hesitates) prior to bidding RKCB in the future and not put his partner in this position.

[phil_20686]

I'm not sure that pass is a logical alternative. Once P bids keycard does that not commit you to slam when partner has the requisite number of keycards? Since I have hte requisite number of keycards I should bid slam regardless of partners sign off, which only indicates worry that he can construct hands where I only have one keycard. - Its inconceivable that he bid keycard planning ot bid slam only when I have all 5 keycards. Alternatively, it might mean he has forgotten which keycard we are playing, which is more common than I would like to admit

Phil

[TimG]

I think it perfectly reasonable for East to call the director when he did.

I think the director did fine.

I think the poll results are odd. I consider, and thought it common to consider, any form of Blackwood just a check to make sure the partnership is not off two aces (or keycards); when Blackwood reveals only one missing card, the partnership is committed to slam. Here, opener knows the partnership is off only one keycard, so it should be routine to bid slam (and passing would not be a LA).

[bluejak]

I can see no reason for East not to call the TD. Hesitation Blackwood: why not call the TD? Furthermore, the ruling, whether right or wrong, justifies East's decision.



We seem to have two threads on the same hand!

[jeremy69]

The director did exactly as required. No criticism at all warranted.
I can see no reason why East should not have called the director and find an allegation that it is spiteful extraordinary.
There are some sequences where a sign off can be accepted if the player has the higher not lower number of Aces but I don't think there can be any hands where South would open 2NT, super accept and have one key card therefore for whatever reason North has doubts and I don't think South can over rule after the slow 5S bid so put me down as one of the 40%.

[Cyberyeti]

As the "offending" side didn't contest the ruling, we don't know what answers they would have given but in my book, 5♠ says pass with 1, bid 6 with 4, I may or may not bid 7 if you do. With an extra trump also it moves beyond automatic.

Expect partner to have Axxxxx, KQx, xx, xx at worst where there's just room for you to hold QJxx, Jx, KQJ, AKQJ.

[campboy]

Did the TD ask why North bid 6♠, and if so what answer did he get? If the answer is "by agreement, I must bid on when I have 4 keycards", it may affect the ruling. Also, were the players polled of a similar standard to North?

It is unacceptable to criticise East for calling the TD. The manner in which he called the TD is a different matter, but we weren't told anything about that.

[paulg]

Cyberyeti, on 2010-November-10, 08:25, said:

As the "offending" side didn't contest the ruling, we don't know what answers they would have given but in my book, 5♠ says pass with 1, bid 6 with 4, I may or may not bid 7 if you do. With an extra trump also it moves beyond automatic.

Expect partner to have Axxxxx, KQx, xx, xx at worst where there's just room for you to hold QJxx, Jx, KQJ, AKQJ.

This is not a super-accept in my book. I believe the super-accept removes the 1 or 4 keycard dilemma.

[pran]

While I generally favour the rule of raising to 6 with the higher number of keycards and pass with the lower I have a problem here:

1: Is it possible for South to be in doubt that North has 4 rather than 1 keycard after this auction?
2: What values does North possess in addition to what he has already shown in order to justify the raise to 6?

Once a poll is not unanimous for raising to 6 I agree with TD, and I frown on the subsequent events that apparently have occurred.

[Cyberyeti]

paulg, on 2010-November-10, 08:50, said:

This is not a super-accept in my book. I believe the super-accept removes the 1 or 4 keycard dilemma.

Doesn't matter about your book (or mine), matters about theirs, it would however be a super accept in mine, we bid 4(side suit) with Hxx trumps and HHxxx in the side suit, leaving 3N and 4♠ as the min/max 4 card support bids. We only fail to break with 4 card support with a minimum 4333. If you don't like the hand I gave, try QJxxx, AJ, KQJ, KQJ, not very pretty but with 5 spades I think most people will super accept.

[mfa1010]

(Didn't see the double post).

The answer to the thread's title question is a clear no. I think it was a terrible ruling.
There is no such thing in normal bidding as a sign off opposite 4 key cards. Pass is not a LA.

All the talk about what constitutes a super acceptance or what responder might be able to calculate about opener's key cards is irrelevant, because responder really didn't have to go into all that speculation. Responder can trust opener not to stay out of slam with 4 out of 5 key cards, so speculative calculations are not necessary. This is just very ordinary bidding really.

[nige1]

jeremy69, on 2010-November-10, 08:23, said:

The director did exactly as required. No criticism at all warranted. I can see no reason why East should not have called the director and find an allegation that it is spiteful extraordinary. There are some sequences where a sign off can be accepted if the player has the higher not lower number of Aces but I don't think there can be any hands where South would open 2NT, super accept and have one key card therefore for whatever reason North has doubts and I don't think South can over rule after the slow 5S bid so put me down as one of the 40%.

I agree with PaulG, Jeremy69, and Co. A paradigm off Hesitation Blackwood. Even had there been no damage, in such cases, I think the other side have a duty to call the director,

bluejak, on 2010-November-10, 07:20, said:

We seem to have two threads on the same hand!

Perhaps a moderator could be persuaded to merge them?

[bluejak]

nige1, on 2010-November-10, 13:16, said:

Perhaps a moderator could be persuaded to merge them?

I wondered about that, but the posts tend to follow a sequence of development. If I merge them then it might confuse the sequences. Anyway, rightly or wrongly, that is why I did not.

[arikp111]

I was east on this hand.

I posted these questions here as on the the Israeli thread there were IMHO some peculiar comments and I wanted a second opinion (and hopefully more... )

Some thought the TD did wrong by even going through the process of consulting with five players.
They believe the case is so clear cut that the score (NS +1430) should have been upheld on the spot.

Others even went further and claimed that I should not have called the TD and that calling him was ill-judged, petty and quarrelsome.

As for the result of the ruling - in similarity to the opinions expressed here - most of the repliers said that had they been on the poll they would allow the 6S call.

FWIW I think that the 6S call should be disallowed and changing the score to 5S+1 is the correct thing to do.
Here is my reasoning -

I believe both N and S should know that 5D shows unconditionally 4 KC hence 5S is a clear sign-off.
I agree that generally when asking for KC and getting a 4 KC reply should mean slam is to be bid but this case is an exception.
I can think of several hands S (the 5S bidder) can have, in the context of the bidding thus far, where he has no KC and will only bid slam when PD shows all the KC.
It might be bad practice to use RKCB in this instance but still...

Some of the repliers (on the Israeli forum) said that they would bid the slam on grounds that "what possibly more can N have"
I've two issues with this statement.
1. I believe RKCB is simply a question, it doesn't hold any invitational overtones to it,
hence N is not entitled to apply judgment unless his answer to RKCB has been ambiguous, which is not the case here.
2. For sake of argument, let's assume that N (the 2NT opener) is allowed to bid slam based on the quality of his hand.
I think that in the context of super-accepting N has a minimum and therefore PASS is a LA.
The hand can be made better in several aspects - more KC, more controls, having a good side suit.
Furthermore, few boards earlier S made a serious underbid which led to NS missing a cold game.
Might not the BIT help N just enough to bid the slam on the premise that S did it again?

Finally, let me digress on the issue of whether a 2NT super accept hand can hold just one KC.
To begin with I ran a simulation of 100000 2NT opening hands, I didn't quantify into the parameters a fit in S or anything else that might imply super-accept.
I asked how many KC do these hands hold, I nominated the SK arbitrarily as the 5th KC.
The results were:
0 KC 0%
1 KC 0.46%
2 KC 14.47%
3 KC 51.33%
4 KC 31.34%
5 KC 2.4%
As can be seen 4 KC is about 68 times more likely than 1 KC, I think that if we factor in super accepting then the ratio would be way bigger.

Now, I would like to claim that by definition super accepting should no be done with 1 KC.
Even with the example hands presented on this thread e.g. QJxxx, AJ, KQJ, KQJ or QJxx, Jx, KQJ, AKQJ one should notsuper accept.
why is that?
Say I bid just 3S -
if PD passes for sure he doesn't hold an Ace so game is off the top - GOOD.
if PD bids 3NT I can cue-bid to show a good hand for S.
if PD invites sometime further in the bidding I'm going to cooperate adamantly.
To summarize, I can see no wrong coming out of bidding just 3S with these hands.

[Zelandakh]

arikp111, on 2010-November-11, 00:44, said:

I was east on this hand.

Clearly not an interested party then.

Quote

1. I believe RKCB is simply a question, it doesn't hold any invitational overtones to it,
hence N is not entitled to apply judgment unless his answer to RKCB has been ambiguous, which is not the case here.

This I agree with. RKCB answers the question: "Do we have 2 keycards missing?". It can also answer the question:"Do we have 1 keycard plus the trump queen missing?" which is also sometimes a relevant question. If you believe RKCB is simply answering these questions then you cannot pass here. If the E-W agreement is, as stated, that 5S demands a bid of slam with 4 key cards then you cannot pass here. The issue I have is that if E-W have this agreement then what was Responder thinking about? Personally I would have no problem with either opponent calling the TD about this but I would be pretty upset if the TD ruled that 6S should not be bid.

[Bbradley62]

jeremy69, on 2010-November-10, 08:23, said:

I don't think South can over rule after the slow 5S bid so put me down as one of the 40%.

Presumably, the hesitation is not included in the situation presented to those being polled. The 40% said they'd pass an in-tempo 5♠ bid.

[pran]

Bbradley62, on 2010-November-11, 02:24, said:

Presumably, the hesitation is not included in the situation presented to those being polled. The 40% said they'd pass an in-tempo 5♠ bid.

And that is precisely what is relevant.

[Cyberyeti]

I'd challenge the OP to look at the hand that bid 6, and find a hand where his partner will use Blackwood and sign off without asking about the Q♠, where 6 is not at worst on a finesse.