Chris3875

According to their system card they play standard Blackwood not RCKB. The delay was so long that I ended up (tongue in cheek) typing a few full stops - then typing Oh, was just checking, I thought I was disconnected!

[hv=pc=n&s=sq865hkt4djckt875&w=saj2haq32dk83caq4&n=sk943hj975d965cj2&e=st7h86daqt742c963&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=ppp2cp2dp2np3dp4hp4nppp]399|300[/hv] Game played on BBO 2C alerted as 20-22 2D alerted after prompting as Holding or Waiting 3D alerted after prompting as best suit although system card shows Transfers after NT West bid 4H obviously thinking partner had transferred as per system LONG, LONG, LONG, LONG delay - East finally bidding 4NT - system card shows Blackwood All Pass My opinion, West realised there was a problem after the hesitation. Any adjustment ?

East passes, South passes, West bids 2C (alerted as 23+ or 4 loser hand). North leans forward with pen angled towards bidding pad, then sits back. East bids 2D (waiting). Director called. South does not accept bid out of rotation and North subsequently bids 3D. Director on the day accepted Pass by East as a comparable call which sounded fair to me given the circumstances. It has caused some discussion and I would be interested to hear your thoughts please.

Thanks all for your comments. To be clear I rarely play against this pair and was not involved on the day, but I have been receiving a LOT of emails querying their bidding. There is a lot of suspicion (from the tone of the emails) that they seem to fall into contracts that seem "lucky" quite regularly. I'll say no more.

This pair supposedly play Lebensohl, have (in their words) an "aggressive and combative" style of bidding. I don't play Lebensohl myself but would have thought 2NT would have transferred to clubs whilst 3C would be more invitational although having passed the first round I guess partner can assume few points. This style of bidding is causing a few issues with other players which is why I asked the question - there was no director call at the time.

Very experienced. It was just purely an academic question. It seems to fit the definition of a psych bid to me.

[hv=pc=n&s=skjt873hk962d54c8&w=sa4hq74da76cajt53&n=sq5hat53dkj92cq92&e=s962hj8dqt83ck764&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1npp2spp3cppp]399|300[/hv] I have a simple question - would the bid by East be considered a psychic bid?

It was on BBO and I don't think either opponent actually rejected the claim - it either just timed out or Declarer cancelled the claim and played on (playing the Queen of trumps of course). The Director was called but it seems there was a stand in person who was also playing at the time and he did not come to the table. Thanks for reply David.

Because we are playing most of our bridge online at the moment, it is easier for the director to see exactly how the board has been played up to the point of the claim. In this instance, Declarer had previously ruffed a club in dummy with a high trump indicating that he MAY have been aware that there was a smaller outstanding trump. Should that be taken into account and how does that relate to f2f bridge where director does not have the luxury of reviewing the play of the hand? My own opinion is that he did not give a line of play and did not mention any outstanding trumps so he loses a trick but Law 70C(2) niggles.

Declarer was playing in a spade contract and had 3 cards left in hand - Q and T of spades and the Q of clubs which was good. He claimed the remaining 3 tricks giving no line of play and no indication of any outstanding trumps. One of the opponents was void in clubs and held the 7 of spades. Director was called but did not arrive at the table and when the claim was rejected Declarer simply played the Q of spades, followed by the T and then the Q of clubs. How far does Director go in ascertaining whether it was likely that claimer, "at the time of his claim, was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand"

Yes, agreed, it is becoming more common to open 1NT with a 5-card major - however it wasn't on the system card (there is a tick box to indicate that you may open with a 5-card major). Also agreed that even if it had been pre-alerted or even on the system card East may still have ended up in 2S. What do you think about North not answering her partner's double?

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj875hat5dq85ck4&w=st63hj643dt73cj93&n=shq872daj64cq8762&e=sak942hk9dk92cat5&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1npp2sdppp]399|300[/hv] I wasn't at bridge today when this hand was played. E/W complained that N/S did not pre-alert that they could open 1NT with a 5-card major, nor was it on their system card. 2SX was played by East making 6 tricks for -500. Their argument to the director was that if South had opened 1S East would not have bid 2S. They also queried why North would not answer partner's double at the 2-level, especially as they had a void in spades. N/S apparently told the director that they will not open 1S unless they have a re-bid, so instead opted to open a weak 1NT. My initial thoughts were that an infraction occurred when South opened 1NT and I believe that E/W were damaged - if I had been the director on the day I would have been tempted to adjust the score to 2NT by N/S making 9 tricks if I felt generous, or 8 tricks. Comments please.

So - to hrothgar, I asked the question because I wanted to know whether a general consensus of directors here thought it was a psych bid because, personally, I didn't think it was. Funny, I always thought this site was here to answer ANY question that interested bridge players might have about simple director rulings. And to Steve asking "who cares" - well, a couple of the players at the table DID care, and I wanted to be able to give them an answer based on a poll conducted amongst a better standard of players/directors. Sorry if that offended your sensibilities !

No, the only complaint was about the bid - 2H "with a void" I was told - later discovered it was a Yarborough she meant.

Not sure how the bidding progressed after the 2H bid, but N/S got to a 4S contract, making 12 tricks. West's double showed 4 hearts and when asked about the 2H bid West said she thought it was about "8-ish" points. Is this a psych bid - gross misrepresentation of length and strength ?[[hv=pc=n&s=saq853hadqt97caj8&w=s76hkqj6dkj8ct952&n=skj4h742da542ckq7&e=st92ht9853d63c643&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1dp1sd1n2h]399|300[/hv]