[CarlRitner]

Phil, on 2012-October-22, 14:22, said:

I asked South why she bid 4N slowly, and she said I was debating between 4N (natural? really?) and 5♦.

Why is "natural? really?" in parentheses? Did you ask if it was natural? I am asking you because you never detailed the exchange and the "really?" sounds like your unspoken tongue-in-cheek thoughts as opposed to what was a verbal exchange.

I can't imagine this 4N bid being natural, but I also cannot fathom the north pass, UI or not. I simply don't have enough information and the two bids taken together suggest N-S both got confused earlier.

[the hog]

I think this is a poor ruling. They could get to 6D. 7D is an excellent contract. They could get to 6NT. Why do you assume that 6S is the final contract? From what you say about their ability, this pair would likely end in 6NT. You realise 7 is cold on a squeeze, of course.

[lamford]

karlson, on 2012-October-22, 17:10, said:

Sorry, but I really don't get this ruling. I've read the thread and I don't see any convincing arguments that a slow 4N suggests passing. Seems like north took a view. It's a pretty crazy view, but with no other evidence, I just don't see the basis for adjustment.

Why would you ask south why she bid 4n slowly? Shouldn't you ask north why he passed?

Agree, and I think both 6NT and 6S will make in practice on the normal ♥ lead. Seems like North just took an odd view, and the ruling looks a poor one.

[bluejak]

One of the approaches that used to exist, especially in the ACBL, was "If it hesitates, shoot it." While poorer old-fashioned TDs usually will not adjust if they think there is no LA to the chosen action [what would they adjust to?] there was a great tendency to adjust without any consideration of what the UI suggested. What they did was think 'good result after UI from partner by choosing an LA = adjust'.

Well, rulings are better these days, but not perfect. This one is a case in point. Two people have worried as to what the UI shows, the rest have tended to ignore that and get on to what they see as the meat of the problem.

There is a complicated sequence followed by partner thinking some time, then bidding 4NT. What is he thinking about?

• Do we play 3041 or 4130?
  
• Could we go down at the 5-level?
  
• Would it be better to bid a control than to use Blackwood?
  
• I got ruled against in the North Pole Regional after I signed off slowly and partner went on so now I always think what I shall do after the responses to avoid the problem
  
• Should I be using Exclusion? Come to think of it, do I even play Exclusion with this partner?
  
• What would Bob Hamman do with this hand? Would he give up or try for slam?
  
• What will a 5NT rebid by me mean?

How about 'Will partner take this as natural?' Be serious!

A slow 4NT does not suggest passing. So why does everyone think it does? Solely because it got passed! What is the most likely reason for it being passed? Because they play it a signoff. Why do they do that? Probably because of a bad result in Outer Mongolia last year.

I don't believe the UI suggests passing in any way so there is no reason to adjust.

dwar0123, on 2012-October-22, 15:37, said:

Is there any reason to suspect they are lying? South might reasonable fear that north think she has 4 spades due to the cue bid and want to play in nt for a wide variety of reasons, a bad spade split suggested by preempt coupled with partner potentially having only 4 spades, defense getting a heart or diamond ruff in early and the mere fact that nt scores more when south has no ruffing value(can't ruff a heart, if partner has 3, lho has 2 and higher trump then dummy) and spades wrong sides her king of hearts, potentially costing an additional trick right off(clearly north has heart length with no heart rise by east)

I really have trouble with the idea of forcing people into good slams that happen to go down due to circumstances neither of them could be aware of(ie, no possible relevant UI about the bad trump split and quick club loser that can only be reasonable gained due to the person on lead having both the kq♣ and the natural trump trick).

North pass on the other hand seems totally normal(assuming nt is natural), never got directly supported, has an additional heart stopper and has the strong hand with the running spade suit promised by bidding it twice.

Unless you think they are actively lying, this strikes me as grossly unfair.

And further, even if you think they are lying and that call was intended to be rkc, why would north pass with that hand? Slow 4nt or not.

Really looking forward to seeing how I am understanding this wrong cause it looks grossly unfair to me right now(not a director)

If you play a game, sport, mindsport, or anything else, you have to play to the rules. Saying it is grossly unfair to play to the rules seems fairly pointless to me.

You don't force people into slams: you adjust in cases where there is UI and you feel the partner has misjudged the Laws. If you don't the game loses its greatest appeal: the skill in interpreting the legal communication between partners: it is much easier to get it right if you use the illegal communication.

[CSGibson]

I do not think there is anything about a slow 4N that argues for passing. A slow 4N, in my opinion, is much more likely to be debating between passing 4S and asking for keycards. N should be ecstatic, then, and jump to answer keys since he has mucho extra values for the sequence he has shown.

The real question in my mind is did South do anything in her body language to suggest that 4N was natural, like shaking her head at 4S or something...if that was the case, then I can barely see supporting your ruling, Phil. Otherwise, I think it is wrong, and N-S get to keep their score.

I also think Mike is right that pushing them to a good slam that goes down by bad luck is wrong in general - there would be no call back from director if spades were 3-2. This looks like rub of the green.

[nigel_k]

CSGibson, on 2012-October-22, 18:39, said:

I do not think there is anything about a slow 4N that argues for passing. A slow 4N, in my opinion, is much more likely to be debating between passing 4S and asking for keycards. N should be ecstatic, then, and jump to answer keys since he has mucho extra values for the sequence he has shown.

The real question in my mind is did South do anything in her body language to suggest that 4N was natural, like shaking her head at 4S or something...if that was the case, then I can barely see supporting your ruling, Phil. Otherwise, I think it is wrong, and N-S get to keep their score.

I also think Mike is right that pushing them to a good slam that goes down by bad luck is wrong in general - there would be no call back from director if spades were 3-2. This looks like rub of the green.

I agree with the first two paragraphs and would not adjust for that reason. Pass by North is not suggested by the UI, as far as we know.

But I disagree with the last part. The director adjusts by considering possible results on the actual hand, and giving the benefit of the doubt to the non-offending side. Whether 6♠ is a good contract in the sense that it would make on many other layouts is irrelevant.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2012-October-22, 18:14, said:

Agree, and I think both 6NT and 6S will make in practice on the normal ♥ lead. Seems like North just took an odd view, and the ruling looks a poor one.

6♠ might make on a heart lead from W, but unfortunately E is on lead, and with a potential trump trick, the K♣ is hitting the table at around the speed of light.

[Phil]

During the match I called one of our directors that works regionals and NABC's. I think he's an associate national TD, but I could be wrong.

I gave him the 5233 17 count and had him bid it along with me. The conversation went like this:

"2♥ on your right. Your call". 2N (blecch, really?). I'll make you dbl. "OK".

"Pass then 3♥ by partner". Sounds like partner wants to know if I have a heart stopper, but I have these nice spades, so 3♠ it is.

"Partner bids 4♦". I'm endplayed into 4♠.

"4N by partner". Well for you and me, this would be natural, but playing in a pickup partnership it really sounds like RKC for spades. So, 5♣.

"Hmm, I think partner tries 5♥". Jeez that sounds like a hand that wants to signoff in 5N, but it also could be a Q ask. 6♠ I guess.

"and there you land".

Only then did I tell him about the hitch with 4N. He definitely thought a slow 4N suggested its natural.

[Phil]

bluejak, on 2012-October-22, 18:38, said:

There is a complicated sequence followed by partner thinking some time, then bidding 4NT. What is (s)he thinking about?

• Do we play 3041 or 4130?
  
• Could we go down at the 5-level?
  
• Would it be better to bid a control than to use Blackwood?
  
• I got ruled against in the North Pole Regional after I signed off slowly and partner went on so now I always think what I shall do after the responses to avoid the problem
  
• Should I be using Exclusion? Come to think of it, do I even play Exclusion with this partner?
  
• What would Bob Hamman do with this hand? Would (s)he give up or try for slam?
  
• What will a 5NT rebid by me mean?

How about 'Will partner take this as natural?' Be serious!

It's still early for me, and this is the time I generally make technical errors in hand analysis, but I seriously cannot tell if you are kidding or not.

Answers to your relevant questions:

- They play 1430 (everyone does around here).
- The ladies in this partnership are good friends, but usually play with other people. They were going to play in Ventura in a few weeks, but one is having problems with her recent knee surgery. They both said this is the 5th time they've ever played.

Quote

A slow 4NT does not suggest passing. So why does everyone think it does? Solely because it got passed! What is the most likely reason for it being passed? Because they play it a signoff.

Except there is no evidence that they play it as a signoff. But what better way to convey its a signoff than to bid it slowly! Seriously, imagine we held ♠Kx, ♥x ♦AQTxxx ♣AKxx. We have a monster opposite a double + a new suit hand. I would bet you this hand THUMPS down 4N, which is undeniably RKC. Contrast this with the actual hand.

How do I know 4N was intended as natural? Because the lady told me. I really should have made a harder inquiry to North about why she passed 4N, but I think I know the answer.

I truly sympathize with a player anticipating all of the potential pitfalls of the followups after 4N. However, when I tank, I can list all kinds of reasons why I'm bidding slowly. Some of them might even be bridge-related.

Quote

I don't believe the UI suggests passing in any way so there is no reason to adjust.

If you don't the game loses its greatest appeal: the skill in interpreting the legal communication between partners: it is much easier to get it right if you use the illegal communication.

Of course. A slow 4N is 'illegal communication'.

North precisely got it right because of the break in tempo.

QED

[phil_20686]

I really think you got this one wrong Phil.

It looks to me like south intended 4N as keycard for spades. It makes no sense with xxx S and only Kx hearts to try to play in 4N. This is an auction where standard orthodoxy is to play it as natural, but admittedly there is always lots of confusion about 4N among club players. North obviously thought it was natural. This looks like a clear cut case of a bidding misunderstanding, which just happened to benefit N/S.

I do not understand how you can interpret the hitch as giving UI that it was intended as natural, when south clearly didn't intend it as natural. I mean, it would be completely bizarre to bid a natural 4N on the south hand.

Further, whatever the meaning of 4N, a slow 4N just means that partner had a lot to think about, which is obviously true on tihs auction. It could be suggesting that south is close to passing, or that south is close to bidding 5d, or that south is close to bidding 6N, or that south is unsure about whether her hand is worth a keycard bid, or whether her hand will play better in NT than spades if it was intended as natural, or south just needed to take a bit of time to figure out what exactly their agreements were about 4N.

Here is another question which I think makes it clear how bizarre your ruling is: If North had bid 6D over the slow 4N, reasoning that south had shown a good hand with diamonds, and that the promised heart stop/length makes it likely that all the black suit losers are going away, would you not rule it back to 4N in a heartbeat?

If the UI suggests anything, it is that N/S have a slam in diamonds, if N/S had bid a slam in diamonds after the slow 4N, there would be a good case for an adjustment back to 4N = or 5d+1. But we cannot simultaneously rule that if north bids on over the natural 4N they should be ruled back, and if they dont bid on they should be ruled to the non making slam, purely because they guessed to do the right thing. A good player sitting north could easily have felt constrained from their normal bid of 6D by the UI, and decided to pass, and now you are screwing them over anyway.

[phil_20686]

Phil, on 2012-October-23, 08:57, said:

North precisely got it right because of the break in tempo.

I don't really understand this. They didn't `get it right'. north has a fairly normal 6D bid opposite a natural 4N on this sequence. Clearly north passed because (1) She isn't very good, (2) she was confused about what 4N actually meant and with Ax hearts and cashing tricks thought that this was likely a good spot. or (3) She felt constrained by the UI from making her normal 5/6d bid.

Also, it seems to me that if a good player had said they play this 4N as natural, you would just have accepted it, as its normal to play this 4N as natural if you are a good player. It seems harsh to apply higher standards of evidence to a worse pair just because "club pairs normally play keycard all the time". I mean, this sequence is not in my system file explicitly, but I would assume it was natural vs a good player. How else could I bid a strongish 1354 or 1363 shape? Demanding explicit evidence of an agreement about a fairly obscure auction is really harsh. I bet at least half of pairs playing the US nationals would not have an auction this obscure in their system files. Mine runs to fifty pages and it has absolutely no mention of competitive sequences where 4N is natural except for (4c/d) 4N.

[stevenagy]

bluejak, on 2012-October-22, 18:38, said:

I got ruled against in the North Pole Regional after ...
... a bad result in Outer Mongolia last year.

This partnership plays in far more exotic locales than I.

I played a game once with a regular partner where we decided that 4NT was defined to be natural (and a sign-off) if it was the first chance we'd had to show the strain, and there'd been competition. It might technically have applied here, though usually we'd have opened and they'd be competing over us. FWIW, the agreement netted us exactly one top and one bottom board before we discarded it.

[Phil]

phil_20686, on 2012-October-23, 19:09, said:

I really think you got this one wrong Phil.

It looks to me like south intended 4N as keycard for spades. It makes no sense with xxx S and only Kx hearts to try to play in 4N. This is an auction where standard orthodoxy is to play it as natural, but admittedly there is always lots of confusion about 4N among club players. North obviously thought it was natural. This looks like a clear cut case of a bidding misunderstanding, which just happened to benefit N/S.

I do not understand how you can interpret the hitch as giving UI that it was intended as natural, when south clearly didn't intend it as natural. I mean, it would be completely bizarre to bid a natural 4N on the south hand.

Further, whatever the meaning of 4N, a slow 4N just means that partner had a lot to think about, which is obviously true on tihs auction. It could be suggesting that south is close to passing, or that south is close to bidding 5d, or that south is close to bidding 6N, or that south is unsure about whether her hand is worth a keycard bid, or whether her hand will play better in NT than spades if it was intended as natural, or south just needed to take a bit of time to figure out what exactly their agreements were about 4N.

Here is another question which I think makes it clear how bizarre your ruling is: If North had bid 6D over the slow 4N, reasoning that south had shown a good hand with diamonds, and that the promised heart stop/length makes it likely that all the black suit losers are going away, would you not rule it back to 4N in a heartbeat?

If the UI suggests anything, it is that N/S have a slam in diamonds, if N/S had bid a slam in diamonds after the slow 4N, there would be a good case for an adjustment back to 4N = or 5d+1. But we cannot simultaneously rule that if north bids on over the natural 4N they should be ruled back, and if they dont bid on they should be ruled to the non making slam, purely because they guessed to do the right thing. A good player sitting north could easily have felt constrained from their normal bid of 6D by the UI, and decided to pass, and now you are screwing them over anyway.

Phil, remember she told me she intended 4N as natural. Thats the crux of a lot of my argument in favor of a negative adjustment.

I never really thought about what happens if North bid 6♦, but you make a fair point without being sarcastic like others. 6♦ sort of smells like a safety play in the bidding, catering to either RKC in hearts or natural, which its reasonable to accept. If North has a true acceptance of slam, and you aren't passing, 6♦ seems like a practical choice.

[Codo]

So the problem still is: Why exactly is a slow 4 NT natural but a quick is not?

Many people like Phil20686 (or me) think that natural is the normal meaning. So a quick 4 NT had been the same as a slow one. Why should a quick 4 NT here be KC for spades? This sounds plain wrong, but maybe your lols do not need natural NT bids or KC for diamonds and besides this they do not know that 5 ♥ or 5 ♠ can search for slam in spades...

[Trinidad]

You can add me to the list of people who think Phil got this wrong. FWIW I also think that the phone call to the other TD went wrong. Just give the facts of the case (he is a TD, in't he?) and discuss a ruling, don't serve him bidding riddles.

What strikes me particularly is that:
- North says that 4NT is natural (she passed)
- South says 4NT is natural (remember that NS are "salt of the earth and good people")
- the TD Phil called says that 4NT is natural for him and Phil

and that despite all this evidence that 4NT is natural, Phil rules that 4NT must be keycard. And that is not all. He even knows that it has to be keycard for spades (why?!?).

I get the impression that if God would descend and tell Phil for a fact that NS play 4NT as natural, Phil would still rule that it must mean keycard for spades if bid in tempo.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

Phil, is it possible South said 4NT was natural because her partner passed it and she thought this was the "correct" answer? In my (admittedly very limited) experience club players do this sort of thing quite a lot. I think you should have asked North why she was so certain that 4NT was not asking too, and perhaps also why she did not bid 6♦.

[gnasher]

I can't imagine bidding this 4NT quickly, regardless of what I wanted it to mean.

[Phil]

Trinidad, on 2012-October-24, 04:31, said:

Just give the facts of the case (he is a TD, in't he?) and discuss a ruling, don't serve him bidding riddles.

Rik, if I were polling players, I think I would present the hand just like this.

This does not seem like an unreasonable approach to another director.

[Phil]

Trinidad, on 2012-October-24, 04:31, said:

I get the impression that if God would descend and tell Phil for a fact that NS play 4NT as natural, Phil would still rule that it must mean keycard for spades if bid in tempo.

God does not visit the forums, at least not as far as I know. He might be rather pissed at what goes on here

If South bid an in-tempo 4N, North could make any call she wanted.

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2012-October-24, 08:25, said:

I can't imagine bidding this 4NT quickly

In contrast to all your other bids?