Logical alternatives

[monty]

At a recent club night the following went to an appeal.

Both sides are Vul.
East opens 1S, South passes, West bids 2D, North bids 3C.
East pass, South pass, West bids 4S, North pass (after good hesitation)
East pass South now bids 5C.

What are South's logical alternatives? Do you allow South's 5C bid?
South is an aggressive Intermediate player.

South's hand is:
S:A9, H: 10xxx, D:xxx, C:Jxxx

[Nick Whitten]

I doubt if 75% of the field would bid 5C in that auction.
Norths 3C bid in that situation can be quite wide-ranging. From South’s position 5C could well be going -800 OR they could be beating 4S.
Both of those are less likely with the hesitation. You shouldn’t be making any allowance for South’s style being more aggressive than the field generally.

But remember West’s jump bid means North is entitled to 10” free thinking time. Did West use the stop card properly? If not I would be reluctant to give EW a favourable adjustment even if I adjusted the NS result.

[bluejak]

75% was a standard form an earlier Law book. The standard now is in the Laws:

Originally Posted by Law16B1B

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

As for the use of the stop card, we are told that North's pass was

after good hesitation.

If there was a significant hesitation after the ten seconds or whatever, then you adjust for both sides whether the Stop card was used or not. To do otherwise is to rule illegally, not following the Laws. Of course, you may penalise the player if he did not put the Stop card out properly, but you do not refuse to adjust: you cannot find that in the Law book.

However, if there is doubt whether there was a hesitation then you will tend to rule in favour of the alleged hesitator if the Stop card was not used properly. But none of this appears in the opening post so why should we worry whether it happened?

I do not even believe the player who bid 5C is that aggressive: I would definitely have raised clubs the previous round!

I am sure pass is an LA [logical alternative] since I believe even amongst aggressive players, a reasonable number would consider pass, of whom some would choose it. I believe the hesitation existed, since we are told it did, and I believe it suggests action over inaction. So I would disallow the 5C bid, and rule it as 4S taking some number of tricks, weighting the score to the number of tricks if appropriate.