[mfa1010]

Polling players is almost worthless on this one. They will not give us a bridge evaluation of the hand but instead tell us how they personally interpret 5♠. And what matters is not the pollee's system but NS's system. And what that system is, is for the TD to judge.

I concede that there are players out there who would treat 5♠ as a sign off. But we are told that this is second division in Israel, and if that is roughly as strong as second division in Denmark, then they are quite decent players.

Interpreting 5♠ as a sign-off is in my opinion way-way off normal expert thinking, and I would expect quite decent players to think like that very, very rarely. So I would be easy to convince that raising with 4 key cards is part of their methods in practice. Or in other words. I would be very reluctant to foist upon them some system interpretation that I consider an outright out-of-level mistake.

I would (also) be shocked if someone called the TD in this situation at my table. It is his right of course, and I would not critisize it since bullying opponents from calling the TD is so bad, but it just wouldn't have occurred to me to call him. After this thread I have come to remember a similar episode from 6-7 years ago in the Danish League. Some opp jump-raised his partner (1mi-1ma-3ma) and then showed 0/3. It didn't occur to me at all to call the TD when he later raised partner's slow 5ma with 3 key cards.

[campboy]

bluejak, on 2010-November-11, 12:12, said:

When players were polled some of them passed 5♠ so pass is an LA.

Does not follow. Were the players polled peers of the player involved, playing the same methods?

Quote

Thus such players find it credible that 5♠ is a signoff.

Some people posting in this thread believe 5♠ can be passed with four key cards.

Thus such people find it credible that 5♠ is a signoff.

Does not follow. There is a massive difference between "signoff" and "can be passed". I did say that inviting partner to bid on was a plausible meaning, and I did say that in that case I expected pass to be an LA.

Quote

When players make a slow signoff after Blackwood there is a lot of experience, frankly a vast amount, that the most likely reason is that they are not off two key cards and have not decided whether to bid slam, thus suggesting that going on to slam with a suitable hand may be successful.

The fact that I have four key cards is a rather more compelling reason to think we are not off two key cards.

[bluejak]

WGF_Flame, on 2010-November-11, 15:18, said:

I didn't claim that pass isn't LA, i claimed that the hesitation didn't give any additional information to the 5S bid without the hesitation.
the hesitation information was "I had to check wather we had slam, it wasn't a clear to me without thinking about it that we can only make 5. bidding 5S in tempo when we have 4 of the 5 key card gives exactly the same message. if you think not, show me a hand that can ask for keycard and then will not consider slam. the only extra information the hesitation gives is that the player was not thinking fast, might be tired, and didn't think of the bid before the 4NT, but this isn't relevent information.

I know you did not: I just disagreed with your approach and explained why.

[nige1]

mfa1010, on 2010-November-11, 18:20, said:

I would (also) be shocked if someone called the TD in this situation at my table. It is his right of course, and I would not critisize it since bullying opponents from calling the TD is so bad, but it just wouldn't have occurred to me to call him.

I, too, rarely call the director unless somebody draws attention to an infraction. My partners complain and I concede that they are right: We should all call the director more often. Unfortunately, laws based on so-called "Equity" guarantee a long-term profit for law-breakers. That profit would be reduced, however if players were more vigilant in detecting putative infractions and more conscientious about reporting them, because some would attract at least partial redress. Cases of apparent use of UI are particularly common and only a small proportion are reported to the director.

[Zelandakh]

bluejak, on 2010-November-11, 12:12, said:

It is always my view that sensible discussion on these threads is not helped by assuming the OP has got it wrong. If 5♠ was forcing by agreement opposite 4 keys then I am quite certain the players would have said so at the time [very loudly ] and the OP would have put it in. So we can safely assume that it is not forcing opposite 4 keys for the actual pair involved.

David, perhaps you missed this from the other thread on this hand:-

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.

I am not assuming the OP got things wrong. I am assuming based on his comments and the additional information we have that he is an interested party and chose to miss out certain facts such as the above.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Polling players is almost worthless on this one.

I don't agree provided the players are roughly in the same category of player as those who bid the hand.

Quote

Does not follow. Were the players polled peers of the player involved, playing the same methods?

Did they provide any evidence of their methods? Could they demonstrate 5♠ was forcing, for example? Thery did not seem to do so at the time according to what we have seen.

In the other thread apprently(how tedious to have two!)

Quote

North said, that with or without hesitation , 5♠ asked him to bid on with 4 keycards rather than 1.

Well they all say that don't they? Let's see it in the system file because one interpretation of a slow 5S is that the player is not clear whether to go on(I agree that 5♠ can be interpreted other ways also.

[hotShot]

Every beginner should have learned, that once you found that you are strong enough for slam, you use some flavor of Blackwood to avoid bidding slam, if 2 key cards are missing.

If South 4NT bid was not a misbid, it promised a hand strong enough for slam given partners well defined 2NT opening.
Looking at 4 of 5 key cards, it is obvious to North that the lack of 2 key cards can't be the reason for South hesitation prior to the 5♠ bid.

If South 4NT bid was a misbid, a TD should not allow North to pass over a hesitated 5♠, bid holding 4 key cards.
If South 4NT bid was not a misbid, holding 4 key cards, the only logical alternative to 6♠ is 7♠.

[iviehoff]

hotShot, on 2010-November-12, 03:41, said:

If South 4NT bid was a misbid, a TD should not allow North to pass over a hesitated 5♠, bid holding 4 key cards.

Because that would be fielding a misbid, communicated by the hesitation.

I find this the convincing argument that 6S is actually the ethical bid.

[nige1]

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."

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

Cyberyeti, on 2010-November-11, 03:25, said:

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.

mfa1010, on 2010-November-11, 18:20, said:

Polling players is almost worthless on this one. They will not give us a bridge evaluation of the hand but instead tell us how they personally interpret 5♠. And what matters is not the pollee's system but NS's system. And what that system is, is for the TD to judge. I concede that there are players out there who would treat 5♠ as a sign off. But we are told that this is second division in Israel, and if that is roughly as strong as second division in Denmark, then they are quite decent players.

There are seemingly contradictory judgement arguments...

• Can you construct a hand with one key-card that opens two-notrump and super-accepts a transfer?
• Can you construct a hand for a RKC bidder that wants to sign-off opposite four key cards?

The two threads agree except in key omissions. For example...

• In the later thread, Mich-b says that South claimed that 5♠ asked him to bid on with four keycards rather than one.
• In the earlier thread, Arikp11 says that the TD conducted a poll to establish logical alternatives and two players passed.

IMO it is the responsibility of the director (not the player who calls the director) to weigh up the arguments. Judging by the comments of internationals in Magazine Bidding Competitions, cyberyeti and mfa100 may be right about the unreliability of polls. Assuming that the director followed correct protocol, however, his conclusion seems inevitable.

[ggwhiz]

I have a lot of sympathy for just about everyone here.

It is not Easts job to waste brian power analyzing the possible infraction of the 6♠ bid, It's the Directors. Besides, the volume of discussion shows that its not clearcut.

I would allow the slam on the basis that partner did not ask for the ♠Queen, therefore they have it. I can't imagine any soft-marginal slam try that won't make most of the time.

Polling five people that may give a shoot from the lip answer is not the same as a committee that would spend time on a long serious analysis and MAY have allowed the slam depending on the N/S argument.

Meanwhile nobody did anything wrong except people that throw around words like petty and rancour.