[bhall]

Scoring: MP

2♠(6+♠, 10-14 HCP)-3♦-4♣-6♣

Lead: ♥3

---

South could have rebid 3♠ to show a minimum with no fit. His 4♣ showed game forcing values over the F1 natural 3♦, while a 3♠ rebid could be passed. Desperate for tricks, declarer put in the ♥Q, which held. How would you continue?

A second question: North took some time before bidding 3♦, a sign that he was considering other actions and (in his partner's experience) plotting further developments in the auction. Should this UI bar opener from gambling on a favorable fit? Or could he be criticised for choosing a conservative and nonforcing 3♠ rebid, secure in the belief that partner would continue bidding?

If you were on an Appeals committee, would you vote to
(1) Roll back 6♣ making to 5♣+1, if that was the case, or
(2) Penalize South for using UI to choose a nonforcing rebid, if he had done so?

[gwnn]

I'd try to ruff a few pointed cards (eventually making ♠'s good) after discarding my diamond on ♥A and at some point try to finesse the ♣Q or whatever, with some subtle timing considerations.

I think the appeal makes no sense. So what if pd thought? Maybe he has an even worse hand and was contemplating passing, thus making 4♣ even more dangerous.

[bhall]

Let me guide the first rounds of play: ♥A, which brings the ♥J on your left while you pitch your ♦. ♥ small, ruffing low, and the ♥K drops from LHO. ♠A and K, all following low.

The real point about the UI in this case is that you must not choose, among logical alternatives, the one suggested by the hesitation. But which one is that? 3♠ or 4♣? What might a committee conclude, after a claim of "damage?"

I suspect that an unfavorable result following either choice could be successfully challenged in this day and age. Which is a shame.

[gwnn]

There are two fundamentally different scenarios pard could be thinking.

1) "Ugh what an ugly misfit! Should I pass? I have a nice hand here with nice diamonds, but I sure don't have many spades, maybe I should just pass"

2) "UGH what a monster! Should I Ogust? Should I bid RKC? Should I introduce my sidesuit? Who knows. Did we agree to RONF anyway?"

Case 1) would argue for 3♠ and case 2) for 4♣. Well not necessarily but in the first approximation sure. So there's no LA or everything is LA and nothing is suggested by anything.

[Codo]

I had finessed too, discarding the diamond, cross ruffing some tricks and take the trumps from there.

For the UI case: Pd thought and then made a forcing bid. That he thought made it clear that he has no down the middle 3 Diamond bid. He strechted or he had a monster.
So when you have a borderline hand between good and bad and decide to downgrade or upgrade, both can be bad for you and nothing is suggested by the UI that 3 Diamond was bid after a hesitation.

But as you I believe that the ruling will often be different. You play an unusual system and think before you bid. Both is so weird that a punishment must be done.

OTOH maybe you have a competent AC which will judge after the facts and give you 6 Club = ( or 6 Club-1) because the bidding was simply a gamble and not suggested by any UIs.

[bhall]

I am not certain of the best line. I believe that one does not need a favorable position in ♠s or ♦s if the ♣K is onside and no longer than 3. In that case, a ♣ to the Q sets up a straight cross-ruff for 12 tricks.

The opposing hands were

(LHO) ♠xx ♥KJx ♦AJ9xx ♣K9x
(RHO) ♠Qxxxx ♥10xxxx DI]xx ♣x

[joshs]

bhall, on Dec 2 2007, 06:51 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

2♠(6+♠, 10-14 HCP)-3♦-4♣-6♣

Lead: ♥3

---

South could have rebid 3♠ to show a minimum with no fit. His 4♣ showed game forcing values over the F1 natural 3♦, while a 3♠ rebid could be passed. Desperate for tricks, declarer put in the ♥Q, which held. How would you continue?

A second question: North took some time before bidding 3♦, a sign that he was considering other actions and (in his partner's experience) plotting further developments in the auction. Should this UI bar opener from gambling on a favorable fit? Or could he be criticised for choosing a conservative and nonforcing 3♠ rebid, secure in the belief that partner would continue bidding?

If you were on an Appeals committee, would you vote to
(1) Roll back 6♣ making to 5♣+1, if that was the case, or
(2) Penalize South for using UI to choose a nonforcing rebid, if he had done so?

I think the hesitation does not suggest anything. Partner might have been considering passing 2S, bidding 2N (a relay I presume), jumping to 3N or jumping to 4S. If partner had x Axx AKQJxx xxx 4C goes past your best game. Really, I think the hesitation here is a non-issue....

[bhall]

joshs said:

I think the hesitation does not suggest anything. Partner might have been considering passing 2S, bidding 2N (a relay I presume),  jumping to 3N or jumping to 4S. If partner had x Axx AKQJxx xxx 4C goes past your best game. Really, I think the hesitation here is a non-issue....

That was my feeling, but partner thought otherwise - specifically, that bidding 3♠ would be taking advantage of UI, since it would not be forcing on the invitational-range responding hands. He rated my hesitation as most often showing the bigger hands, so that 3♠ became a "safe" option.

Just a note: This partner tries very hard to avoid benefitting from UI. I am hoping that discussions like this one will help him set the boundaries better.

[jdonn]

joshs, on Dec 4 2007, 12:21 PM, said:

I think the hesitation does not suggest anything. Partner might have been considering passing 2S, bidding 2N (a relay I presume), jumping to 3N or jumping to 4S. If partner had x Axx AKQJxx xxx 4C goes past your best game. Really, I think the hesitation here is a non-issue....

I agree. I always appreciate a player trying to avoid taking advantage, but the logic pointing this hesitation in any particular direction seems like a real reach at best.