[dkham]

This is a dilemma I faced last night. It was aggregate scoring, during a club night in Scotland.

You are West with the auction below:

---

1NT was 12-14.
2♦ was a transfer, and 2♥ accepted the transfer.
Partner had a big pause before passing over 1NT, and a fairly big pause before passing over 2♥.

The bidding is now back round to you. You'd like to bid, but can you?

[blackshoe]

I don't think so. More precisely, I think bidding would violate Law 73C, and probably also Law 16B.

[Cyberyeti]

You can bid, but it will be ruled back if it works.

[aguahombre]

1--You need to have a talk with partner, for the next time when you have a hand which actually should balance in this situation.
2--I voted for the first one, because with proper tempo, this is the kind of hand where weak NT pairs will nail you big time.
3--We know from partner's table action that "2" above won't happen if we bid; and if we bid we should be ashamed.

[ggwhiz]

I would bid 2♠ in a flash in a smoother auction and pass in a flash here.

If you did bid I don't think it's that terrible but I'm ruling against you.

[Codo]

I would always bid 2 ♠ in the pass out seat and I would surely had allowed it as a TD- this bid looks too obvious to be forbidden.
But as some people here had ruled different, I had to change this ruling...

[lamford]

 Codo, on 2013-June-25, 14:14, said:

I would always bid 2 ♠ in the pass out seat and I would surely had allowed it as a TD- this bid looks too obvious to be forbidden.
But as some people here had ruled different, I had to change this ruling...

I would also bid 2S if not constrained, but I would judge that some of my peers would seriously consider pass and some would select it, and 2S is demonstrably suggested, so I would pass. Partner was thinking of bidding something. He might have both minors, in which case 2S would work badly, but that is the only "downside" to bidding. We "know" from the UI he has values, and the opponents do not have 23-24 HCP.

[aguahombre]

 lamford, on 2013-June-26, 07:13, said:

He might have both minors, in which case 2S would work badly, but that is the only "downside" to bidding. We "know" from the UI he has values, and the opponents do not have 23-24 HCP.

A quick look at KXX and QXX in the minors would suggest that if we balance with 2S and partner scrambles for the minors, it will not work out badly at all. Whatever partner was tanking about twice suggests we bid. Our hand and the knowledge of competitive theory vs. weak notrumpers suggests bidding would be a bad thing. I can't imagine a clearer example for an adverse ruling if our balancing is successful.

[dkham]

Thanks for the replies.
At the table, I did bid 2♠, reasoning that "it's what I would always do". But I see now that's not good enough, and I should have passed. I'm glad to see that there was at least some support for my bid though!

Here's the full auction and deal:

---

Unsurprisingly to most people here, I found good support with partner, and 2♠ made. On every other table North-South were playing and making part scores in Hearts or Diamonds.

[Zelandakh]

Question: does it not make a difference what the level of the players involved is? Is there not some level at which pass stops being a LA on this hand?

[MickyB]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-June-28, 04:35, said:

Question: does it not make a difference what the level of the players involved is? Is there not some level at which pass stops being a LA on this hand?

No.

http://www.bridgebas...__1#entry584551

[Zelandakh]

Not only was that hand less clearcut (having Ax in their suit and a weaker suit) but the best player thought balancing was clear. Surely this supports a "Yes" answer?

[gwnn]

Grue and Versace both passed And the hand had two aces, come on, are you really suggesting that this is a clearer balance?

[MickyB]

QT853 is not a weaker suit than K7652.

[billw55]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-June-25, 08:14, said:

You can bid, but it will be ruled back if it works.

 ggwhiz, on 2013-June-25, 12:59, said:

I would bid 2♠ in a flash in a smoother auction and pass in a flash here.

If you did bid I don't think it's that terrible but I'm ruling against you.

 lamford, on 2013-June-26, 07:13, said:

I would also bid 2S if not constrained, but I would judge that some of my peers would seriously consider pass and some would select it, and 2S is demonstrably suggested, so I would pass.

This is interesting, and brings me to questions I often have about such a situation. Ethically and/or lawfully, am I supposed to sort of self-rule by passing? Or am I supposed to make what I think is the normal bid on the hand, and let the ruling take its course? For example, if (trying to be ethical) I choose pass, and this actually works out better than balancing, have not the opponents been damaged, in a way? Should the director then adjust?

???

[gwnn]

 billw55, on 2013-June-28, 08:10, said:

This is interesting, and brings me to questions I often have about such a situation. Ethically and/or lawfully, am I supposed to sort of self-rule by passing? Or am I supposed to make what I think is the normal bid on the hand, and let the ruling take its course? For example, if (trying to be ethical) I choose pass, and this actually works out better than balancing, have not the opponents been damaged, in a way? Should the director then adjust?

???

You should either

• carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, or
  
• make a conscious effort to figure out what the logical alternatives (LA's) are and then exclude any LA that has been (may have been demonstrably) suggested by the UI

The either/or and the parentheses above are there because there are two laws that apply to this situation and because the construction "may have been demonstrably" is kind of absurd (one is making the requirement stronger, the other one just incredibly vague). Some people say the first one is written for practical play and the second one is written for directors, but I would think the laws are written for everyone. And a LA is any action that either a significant portion of your peers would choose, or they would seriously consider, or maybe any action that although nobody would consider, some people (usually, you) would choose.

Hopefully that's clear.

[cherdano]

 gwnn, on 2013-June-28, 05:08, said:

Grue and Versace both passed And the hand had two aces, come on, are you really suggesting that this is a clearer balance?

The hand of this thread is matchpoints, at w/w. The old thread was IMPs.
Here the opponents have a weak NT opposite a passed hand. The other thread had a strong NT opening.

I do think it's much clearer to balance here than in the old thread.

[MickyB]

 cherdano, on 2013-June-28, 08:23, said:

The hand of this thread is matchpoints, at w/w.

 dkham, on 2013-June-25, 07:31, said:

This is a dilemma I faced last night. It was aggregate scoring

[cherdano]

Ah, I can't read I guess!
At aggregate, I have no doubt that a balance should be disallowed.

[billw55]

 gwnn, on 2013-June-28, 08:17, said:

You should either

• carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, or
• make a conscious effort to figure out what the logical alternatives (LA's) are and then exclude any LA that has been (may have been demonstrably) suggested by the UI

The either/or and the parentheses above are there because there are two laws that apply to this situation and because the construction "may have been demonstrably" is kind of absurd (one is making the requirement stronger, the other one just incredibly vague). Some people say the first one is written for practical play and the second one is written for directors, but I would think the laws are written for everyone. And a LA is any action that either a significant portion of your peers would choose, or they would seriously consider, or maybe any action that although nobody would consider, some people (usually, you) would choose.

Hopefully that's clear.

Not entirely

You seem to be saying that in this situation, I should pass. Which is fine, and leads to the last two questions of my post.

Also I think you switched the two words I marked in your post. At least I hope so, else I am really confused.