[schulken]

---

ACBL. Club game. Match points. All players A level and both are established partnerships. I was called to the table following S's significant (and readily acknowledged) hesitation prior to doubling 5♣. I allowed the auction to continue and the hand was played at 5♦ X for off 1. EW complained that they were damaged and requested an adjusted score. The only call worthy of comment at this stage is the 3♠ call by S. N said that it was undiscussed but that he took it as showing ♠ rather than as a Western cue bid looking for a NT contract or some other type of cue bid. The club manager and I discussed the hand and came to different conclusions. I believed that pass was not an LA to S's double and that N should be allowed to pull it, but I deferred to the club manager. He advised NS of the decision to award an adjusted score of 5♣ X making. N appealed and a committee was assembled.

One other matter was discovered during the discussion of the auction with the committee. The original opening bid of 1♦ had been alerted but EW did not make inquiry as to its nature. N offered to the committee that their agreement was that the bid promised a minimum of 14 HCP. He acknowledged that he had "significantly upgraded" his hand based on his ♦ holding. After deliberation, the committee ruled 2-1 with the club manager.

It strikes me that, from the beginning, N knows that S is going to expect him to have a much better hand and that he may well be headed into uncharted waters. The auction tells N that both ♠ and ♦ are breaking badly and that S has marked himself with all the ♣. N felt, and I agreed, that he would have pulled an in-tempo double by S so he should be allowed to pull it after a hesitation.

Since great minds frequently disagree, and here they have (mine certainly not included), I wanted to again solicit the thoughts of this august forum. All the best to you.

[billw55]

I'm no law expert, but I don't know of one that bars north from looking at his hand after his partner's hesitation. With near vanishing defense, and considering west's strong bidding, it's a pretty clear pull IMO.

With an appeal process, surely there was plenty of time for a poll. Did anyone bother?

[blackshoe]

The fact that EW were damaged is a necessary, but not a sufficient, reason for adjusting.

South has no UI, so he can do what he likes. That North would have pulled an in-tempo double is not relevant. He has UI, so the question is whether he has LAs to 5♦, and whether 5♦ could demonstrably have been suggested by South's BIT.

What information does the BIT convey? Probably that South is not sure double is the correct call. Maybe he should have passed, or maybe he should have bid 5♦ himself. So I think the BIT demonstrably could suggest pulling. Is there an LA to 5♦? I don't think so. North has no defense to 5♣, and South's initial 2♦ bid shows a relatively bad hand, so he might have one trick if they're lucky.

I would not adjust the score here. I don't think the fact that North upgraded his hand in the first place has anything to do with the ruling.

[schulken]

billw55, on 2014-May-12, 09:44, said:

I'm no law expert, but I don't know of one that bars north from looking at his hand after his partner's hesitation. With near vanishing defense, and considering west's strong bidding, it's a pretty clear pull IMO.

With an appeal process, surely there was plenty of time for a poll. Did anyone bother?

We had 11 tables in play and I asked one A player who had played the hand. He bid on to 6♣ X, off 1. I don't know his auction. After that, the club manager suggested I stop polling since the players who were our likely committee were the next ones to have asked.

[blackshoe]

schulken, on 2014-May-12, 12:04, said:

We had 11 tables in play and I asked one A player who had played the hand. He bid on to 6♣ X, off 1. I don't know his auction. After that, the club manager suggested I stop polling since the players who were our likely committee were the next ones to have asked.

Hm. What question(s) did you ask that player?

[schulken]

blackshoe, on 2014-May-12, 12:22, said:

Hm. What question(s) did you ask that player?

Sorry. He's a talkative sort, but he said without question, he pulls the double as he has no defensive values.

[blackshoe]

How did he know there was a double to pull? You must have said something.

[nige1]

IMO South's hesitation is UI expressing doubt over his double. In the absence of a poll, the director must use his his judgement to decide whether pass is an LA to the suggested 5♦. FWIW, IMO, pass is an LA, so the director should adjust to 5♣X=.

[ggwhiz]

When east bid 5♣ they merely preferred them to hearts. Passing is clearly a logical alternative for north.