[VixTD]

At the EBU National Pairs final at the weekend:

---

The 2♦ and 3♥ calls were correctly alerted. West's pass over 4♠ was agreed to have been slow.

Result: 5♦X(W)-1, NS+100 (46/48 MPs)
I was called by NS at the end of the hand to question East's bid of 5♦. He said that he had always intended to bid 5♦ over 4♠.

What do you think logical alternatives are for East? What do you think the hesitation suggests?

[helene_t]

I think Rik's rule applies here (sorry, Rik, if I am abusing it):

When it is unclear if a show pass suggests bidding on or doubling, we allow bidding on (as long as it isn't crazy) and we allow pass but we don't allow dbl since dbl would cater to both potential meanings of the BIT.

So result stands.

[NickRW]

Well, I don't know about alternatives and all that legalese, but East had two opportunities to support diamonds (with 5 card support no less) and did not, then decides to support over the slow pass. It smells. At the very least, saying that you were always going to bid over 4S doesn't make sense.

[campboy]

At this vulnerability with a known 10-card fit I want to bid 5♦ any time 4♠ is making. I think the BIT decreases the chance that 4♠ is making (partner may have some defensive values and be considering a double). So I think the BIT suggests passing (or doubling) over 5♦, and I definitely would not adjust.

[campboy]

NickRW, on 2015-April-20, 07:40, said:

Well, I don't know about alternatives and all that legalese, but East had two opportunities to support diamonds (with 5 card support no less) and did not, then decides to support over the slow pass. It smells. At the very least, saying that you were always going to bid over 4S doesn't make sense.

There's merit in raising diamonds the first time, certainly, but why would you support diamonds the second time? They might be about to miss game, so long as you don't push them into it.

The reason I wouldn't bid 4♦ (I think they can make game) is exactly the reason I do want to bid 5♦, so I see no inconsistency.

[helene_t]

E has extremely poor defense against 4♠ for his 2nt overcall, and W's 3♦ bid doesn't make it better. So I don't think 5♦ is likely to be a phantom, regardless if the BIT. But yes, I agree with campboy that the BIT makes 5♦ less attractive.

[NickRW]

campboy, on 2015-April-20, 07:52, said:

There's merit in raising diamonds the first time, certainly, but why would you support diamonds the second time? They might be about to miss game, so long as you don't push them into it.

The reason I wouldn't bid 4♦ (I think they can make game) is exactly the reason I do want to bid 5♦, so I see no inconsistency.

Well, I agree that having not supported the first time, it makes no sense to do so at the second opportunity. But I still don't see the logic of taking what you believe to be a sac at the 5 level when you could quite possibly have bought it for 4 (and made it!). Saying that you were always going to bid 5 over 4 still sounds like a justification for bidding over the BIT to me

[sanst]

"I was always going to bid" is, in my experience, a strong indication that the player knows that his bid stinks. Without a poll, which should include asking about the passes of E when he could have raised the diamonds, I would rule against EW and, at this level, awarded them a PP for the use of UI.

[helene_t]

It makes a lot of sense to pass 3♠ but sac against 4♠. If our limit is 8 tricks then 4♦X-2 is too much against 3♠+1, while 5♦X-3 is ok.

Besides, bidding 4♦ on the round before might have told South that his partner is likely to have short diamonds and thereby helped South bid a making game. As it happens it is South that has short diamonds so it doesn't matter but E doesn't know that.

I am not saying that passing is no LA. I think it is, since 5♦ may well be a phantom or go for 800. I just don't see how the BIT makes it more attractive.

[blackshoe]

"may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information."

There are two important words in the quote above from Law 16: "could" — which does not mean "is" — and "demonstrably" — which means "show how it could have been suggested". So.. list the LAs and show how, in your opinion, one or more of them could have been suggested over another.

[VixTD]

I gave some players the East hand and asked them what they would do. Most voted for 5♦ or pass, there weren't many considering double. It took me much longer to work out what was suggested by the hesitation. I took the view of the majority of answers here that it suggests passing or doubling over 5♦, but I allowed myself to be persuaded by colleagues and adjusted the score to 4♠(N)=.

This wasn't a big score change, it just gave NS an extra two matchpoints.