[haver]

Scoring: IMP

---

Bidding:

East: 1H (alerted min. 5 heart 9-13 hcp) - South: pass - West: 1NT (alerted - forcing) - North: pass - East: 2C (alerted min. 2 club) - South: pass - West: 2D - North: pass - East: pass - South: 2S (this is the questionable bid!!!) - West: 3D - North: 4S - all pass

Need opinion about South 2 spade bid.

Thanks

[the hog]

Look I would not find 2S here, but IF I were to question anyone's actions it would be Nth, not Sth. It looks to me like they didn't know what they were doing.

[Chamaco]

N should have acted on the 1NT forcing bid.
I would have doubled.

[nikos59]

I find it appalling that one is alleging possible cheating
(see the title of the topic where cheating is offered as
a possibility) so light-heartedly.
Now, let's see what South knows from the bidding.
South knows that East holds 5 hearts and 2+ (probably 3 or 4)
clubs and 9-13 points.
South also knows that West holds a weak hand with looong diamonds.
Say 6 diamonds, but 7 are possible.

Assuming that South can count up to 13 and up to 40,
South knows that North has close to 20 points, and South
also knows that North has at least 2 spades. So, where
is the problem? For me, the 2S *reopening* bid is obvious.
The points are there, the spade fit is probably there, the
spade normal break is also there.

Perhaps these considerations may convince the original
poster that it was premature to allege cheating.

Nikos

[mr1303]

I have a rule. It's called don't sell out to 2D with 9 cards in the majors.

It works pretty well for me.

[pclayton]

I'm guessing North hesitated over 2♦ with the prime 19 count. If so, I'd bar the 2♠.

If North found a pass in tempo over 2♦, then the 2♠ call is fine, although I wouldn't say its as clear cut as others. With these lite openers, West usually is allowed up to about a 12-13 count for the 1N / 2♦ sequence.

[Free]

2♠ is a NORMAL bid imo, it's just balancing...

Who will let opps play 2♦ anyway? Minors are to play at the 3-level, Majors at the 2-level. Why would south need some strength? EW has shown some strength (about half the deck or so), so NS also have some strength. If south himself doesn't have it, then his partner will.

The only stupid bid here is 4♠. He has an easy +200, perhaps even 500 or more, so why risk a game with a possible 4-3 fit?

Seems like some people are really getting paranoid if they see a bid with no honors in them. If he would have 4, it's still acceptable but dangerous. With a 5 card he 'knows' (90% or so) he'll have a fit.

[helium]

cheeting??? lol

[pclayton]

I think there's enough disagreement about the correct action that 2♠ isn't clear cut. Bar it after a hitch, period.

[mikestar]

If North hestitated, then pass is certainly a logical alternative to 2S (though I rather like the bid) so an adjusted score is in order. South choosing from among logical alternatives one which could have been suggested by partner's hesitation is a violoation of law which calls for redress when it results in damage to the non-offenders.

It is also a violation of ethics if South deliberately chose to take advantage of the hesitation (rather than being subconsciously influenced as most players would be, or ignorant of the law).

It is cheating if an only if North deliberately hesitated for South to take advantage of it.

If there was no hesitation, this is a perfectly legal though somewhat bizarre auction. Bad bidding is legal even when it works.

[dogsbreath]

Assuing there was no clear hesitation from North (and who is to judge that with players having bad connections in many countries) then what is EW problem?
It cant be right to defend 2D with South's hand esp as N is marked with 3+ spades.
Why do players think it's 'their' hand just because they have a clear run in the the first round of the auction ..
Having said that, N's pass of 1nt is biazarre
RgdsDog

[HeartA]

dogsbreath, on Oct 25 2004, 12:23 PM, said:

Assuing there was no clear hesitation from North (and who is to judge that with players having bad connections in many countries) then what is EW problem?
It cant be right to defend 2D with South's hand esp as N is marked with 3+ spades.
Why do players think it's 'their' hand just because they have a clear run in the the first round of the auction ..
Having said that, N's pass of 1nt is biazarre
RgdsDog

Totally agree.

[jtfanclub]

Really? So if I ask my opponent what 2♦ means (if 1NT is inv+ then 2♦ is new minor forcing) and then I pass, I've barred my partner from the bidding? Worse still, have I set it up so that if partner passes people will claim that 2♠ was an LA so we get a bad board no matter what?

I have two things to say, and I'll settle with that:

1. If you're going to adjust online due to hesitation bidding, you'd better be damn sure that's what it was. Half the bids here have some level of 'hesitation', most of which are due to system or real life issues, not bridge ones.

2. There must be some bid you can make, which would be legal after a hesitation. In this case pass, double, and 2♠ could all be grounds for a director call depending upon what partner has. If all possible bids are illegal, then you've penalized for thinking, which is not illegal. To simply make the rule "if there was some other LA and partner hesitated you should be penalized" is clearly wrong.

In this case, I'd rule that the delay made X more likely to be the best bid. Partner didn't X. Therefore, no adjustment. And that's face to face. On line, I'd probably laugh at the complainer.

[jikl]

Always be careful with accusations.

One of the Swedish players in the Olympiad balanced with ♠T873 at the 2 level. This was described as an agressive bid by the commentators, not cheating.

Sean

[1eyedjack]

Personally I would not have balanced with that hand. But that partly assumes that partner will act over 1N when he should.

In the pass-out seat I would worry that the opponents have sufficient for game but lack the system or judgement to bid it (in the absence of opposition assistance by balancing).

Opponents should not be credited with perfect judgement nor perfect system. Some systems (and judgement calls) end in a low level partscore because each partner is v max for his bidding to date. If either partner makes a stronger push you end in a good game. But if neither does, then you miss it. This is not to say that the system is necessarily inferior ... ie if the odds are heavily against both partners having the perfect max then the bidding may be perfectly reasonable and a good game missed. In circumstances that are likely to fit this model I am loath as defender to help them there. The classic example is 1-suit opened and passed round to 4th seat, where the opponents are not playing strong 2 openers.

There is the added problem that partner may bid game opposite the balancing action with rather less than the 19 count.

All of which is somewhat irrelevant. Whatever my personal preferece, to balance is by no means a strange action and not worthy of an accusation of anything untoward. It is very difficult to produce any single hand that provides sufficient justification for that suggestion. You need a bigger population.

[nikos59]

Sean, the Swedish example interests me.
Who was the player who balanced with 10873,
what match?

TIA
Nikos