[sfi]

shevek, on 2018-March-31, 15:33, said:

Decent standard matchpoint club game. West & South are good players.
You are called by West after South bids 5♠. South happily acknowledges the break in tempo.
You observe the play from a discreet distance. East leads ♦J but West wrongly cashes ♥A, missing the second ruff, thus converting +500 near top into +300 below average.
You half expect a call back but West shows no interest, perhaps mulling over his cardplay.
Say West does call you back and suggests that North's hesitation made 5♠ more appealing.
How would you rule?
Would you need to know whether N/S had a proclivity to bid 5 over 5? If they don't, then North is favourite to hold a penalising hand, in which case 5♠ would not appear to be demonstrably suggested, though pass is clearly a logical alternative.

As director, you have an obligation to consider an adjustment whether or not West calls you back. Similarly, watching the play risks seeing another infraction (such as a revoke) that you will have to address even if the players do not pick it up.

To me, the choice is simply between pass and 5S. On the face of it I don't see why the hesitation suggests that bidding is going to be more successful than otherwise. North could easily have been considering a double with soft values, and both contracts could be going down.

I would ask whether this is a forcing pass situation for N-S, but I would be shocked if anyone said yes to that question. If it were, then 5S would be clear.

So no adjustment given the information presented.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2018-April-01, 15:26, said:

How many, and which ones?

Pretty sure it’s still the case in England. I think that this is a very poor regulation, as it helps partner and is not particularly relevant to the opponents.

sfi, on 2018-April-02, 18:49, said:

I would ask whether this is a forcing pass situation for N-S, but I would be shocked if anyone said yes to that question. If it were, then 5S would be clear.

It would be bizarre, but some people will make a blanket rule, ie they have bid game. Or maybe it is a forcing pass situation because they need 20 points to open.

[sfi]

sfi, on 2018-April-02, 18:49, said:

To me, the choice is simply between pass and 5S. On the face of it I don't see why the hesitation suggests that bidding is going to be more successful than otherwise. North could easily have been considering a double with soft values, and both contracts could be going down.

The first person I asked demonstrated why the hesitation suggested 5S (and her choice without the UI was a pass, partly due to fear of pushing the opponents into a slam). Her argument was as follows:

• If North was considering doubling, it is unlikely E-W can be pushed to a making slam.
  
• If North was considering bidding, then 5S is likely to be right here and could encourage a successful sacrifice if E-W do take the push.

So, the moral is "polling good". I'm comfortable with the line of thinking presented above, so I'm now likely to adjust to 5H=.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2018-April-02, 20:14, said:

It would be bizarre, but some people will make a blanket rule, ie they have bid game. Or maybe it is a forcing pass situation because they need 20 points to open.

It's normal for pass to be forcing when you've bid game on strength. But who would really have such an agreement over a preemptive game bid?

Don't say poor players -- they generally don't have explicit agreements about forcing passes to begin with.