[jillybean]

Matchpoints

---

[mw64ahw]

A simple reply

---

[jillybean]

Is it unanimous? There's more to come

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2026-April-16, 11:59, said:

Is it unanimous? There's more to come

X is also not silly, and in style for us, bid 9 cards rather than 6

[pescetom]

I too vote X, even if slight out of style for me... partner pretty much has to have a fit.

[jillybean]

---

It appears that PASS is not a logical alternative.

[mikeh]

Can’t answer this without more information. Btw, I think I’d have doubled 2D. It’s very close. Give me the heart 10 and i think 2Hbis better but with this hand I prefer double then hearts


That would have led to a much more palatable auction

As it is, before I ruled (which I infer is the real issue) I’d want know what a double of 3D by opener would mean to this pair

If double would be penalty, then I don’t know what the BIT implies. He might have been thinking of doubling, in which case I think it suggests pass here. But he might also have been thinking of bidding, in which case I think it suggests bidding 3H. So in those circumstances the BIT does not demonstrably suggest either passing or bidding. It doesn’t bar doubling if our double is takeout oriented. He’ll likely pass if he was thinking of doubling for penalty, and that rates to be had for us. And he’ll bid otherwise, which rates to be good. So if we don’t know what his double would have been, the BIT is ambiguous

Now, if double would have been a ‘do something intelligent ‘ bid then I think we’re barred. We wouldn’t be doubling ourselves had he passed smoothly but we might have bid 3H. Since, in this case, pass is logical opposite a minimum…picture KQxxx x Qxx Axxx….we can’t bid once he implies a non minimum

[jillybean]

Thanks. I doubt that NS have any detailed agreements in the auction. South's response to an indignant "you can't bid again after that pause!" was,
partner knows I will bid again after my 2H call. I could not determine what the BIT may suggest. I will post the full hand later

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2026-April-17, 07:28, said:

Thanks. I doubt that NS have any detailed agreements in the auction. South's response to an indignant "you can't bid again after that pause!" was,
partner knows I will bid again after my 2H call. I could not determine what the BIT may suggest. I will post the full hand later

I agree with Mikeh that you need to know what X (and other bids) over 3D would have been in this partnership. I would also demand written evidence that 2H promises a rebid here.
But ultimately the decision on what the BIT suggests is up to their peers, not us.

[mikeh]

[quote name='pescetom' timestamp='1776457678' post='1089902']
I agree with Mikeh that you need to know what X (and other bids) over 3D would have been in this partnership. I would also demand written evidence that 2H promises a rebid here.
But ultimately the decision on what the BIT suggests is up to their peers, not us.
[
In a club game I very much doubt written evidence is both in existence and available.

But I strongly disagree with the suggestion that the meaning of the BIT up to their peers. How on earth can their peers, or anyone, answer the question without knowing whether double would have been penalty or strength showing? And how could the peers answer without knowing whether a pass was forcing on responder?

No…the role of the peers is to allow the director to decide whether suggested actions for south were logical alternatives absent the BIT. Iow, when one polls peers, one does so by presenting the hand and the auction without even mentioning the BIT. Far from being asked what the BIT suggests, they’re asked to offer opinions as to logical choices in the absence of the BA.

At the table, if told that they had no agreement on double, I’d ask whether the pass was forcing and I’d grill them because I doubt I’d believe them. It’s one thing to say that it promises a rebid if the opps stop bidding, but it’s quite a different matter once they bid again.

[jillybean]

---

North is a nervous, improving player, South very experienced.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2026-April-17, 18:00, said:

---

North is a nervous, improving player, South very experienced.

Those hearts are very different from this in the OP. With those hearts, I’d bid 2Hover 2D and then it’s a clear 3H next time. We have a suit that will play opposite a stiff, which is a far cry from the suit you initially posted. If this last one is correct, then I think 3H is abundantly clear and pass would not occur to me absent the BIT.

Note how hcp don’t begin to tell the story here.

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2026-April-17, 22:24, said:

Those hearts are very different from this in the OP. With those hearts, I’d bid 2Hover 2D and then it’s a clear 3H next time. We have a suit that will play opposite a stiff, which is a far cry from the suit you initially posted. If this last one is correct, then I think 3H is abundantly clear and pass would not occur to me absent the BIT.

Note how hcp don’t begin to tell the story here.

Yes, sorry. I posted original from memory/phone, full hand when I got back to computer. Last hand is correct.

[mw64ahw]

I don't think the change makes a big difference to me. I'd still bid 3♥ expecting to make unless there is a bad trump split.
Double can have a habit of making inexperienced partners freeze, which may work out well here.

[jillybean]

mw64ahw, on 2026-April-18, 05:27, said:

I don't think the change makes a big difference to me. I'd still bid 3♥ expecting to make unless there is a bad trump split.
Double can have a habit of making inexperienced partners freeze, which may work out well here.

Is this ethical?

[Cyberyeti]

It makes a big difference at MPs, 140 vs 110 or 130 a lot of the time.

[blackshoe]

Hm. If I'm not allowed to "do something intelligent" I guess I have to do something stupid.