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]

So in the OP it says South asked about the 3S bid and was told "strong, possibly 16 points" - the system card indicates 16+ points and 5+ of the suit to make this call, which is forcing. To me that is not what the 3S bidder held and South passed on the basis of that explanation. Looking at the West hand I did think it held a lot of merit for the call - from memory only 6 losers, but also held heart support for partner. I think players, new players in particular, are entitled to an accurate explanation of a bid if they ask. Anyway, thanks everyone for your comments which were most interesting.

Thanks to Blackshoe for asking about the RULING on this situation. I don't really want to hear supercilious comments about what South should have bid, or what North should have done. Both are reasonably new players and I thought South showed a few brains asking whether the West 3S bid was strong (which it should have been over the pre-empt opening). He was told it WAS strong, about 16 points so if he added that to the possible 8 points in the East hand and 11 I think in his own hand, it doesn't leave a lot for his partner - someone is obviously telling porkies - and based on the information he was given, he passed. Misinformation, in my opinion. I thought this was a Simple Rulings forum, not an advanced play group.

The system card and explanation indicated a good suit with 16+ points.

[hv=pc=n&s=s543ha3d984cakt76&w=skqjt986hk9d765cj&n=saht8dakqt3c95432&e=s72hqj76542dj2cq8&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=2hp3s4dp]399|300[/hv] At this point South, who is considering a raise to 5D, asks about the 3S bid and is told it is a strong hand, possible 16+ points. South passes and West passes. North plays the hand in 4D and makes 12 tricks.

Thank you Gordon and sanst for your replies. I should say that I made the score adjustment before looking at what the rest of the field had done and North originally passed the 3S bid by South - my opinion on this hand was that West was the one that should have doubled instead of hesitating and then passing. I think without the 4H bid the auction would have finished at 3S - however, I have put the query here to gather your opinions too. The two senior players I spoke to I considered to be a poll - they both said they would not have bid again after the pass by West. I am not the greatest player in the world so it is issues like this that bring me undone as a director, so am more than happy to listen to what you have to say.

[hv=pc=n&s=saqjt973hq5djt5c5&w=s82hkj32dk8ckqj87&n=sk65h974dq96ct632&e=s4hat86da7432ca94&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1d3spp4hpp4spp5hppp]399|300[/hv] The first pass by West followed a long hesitation - East called me to the table, explained that there had been a hesitation from her partner, and asked what her options were. I told her that if she had a bid that she would have made had her partner seamlessly passed, then she could make it. She chose to bid 4H - much to my surprise. E/W played to contract in 5H and made 11 tricks. At the end of the hand I told the table that I would be adjusting the score back to 3S making 8 tricks, which ended up giving E/W a bottom board as most N/S's in the room were in 4S making 8 tricks. North initially passed her partner's 3S bid and I felt that the auction would have finished there. I discussed the board and bidding with 2 other senior players after the completion of play and they felt that, given the hesitation, they would not have bid had they been East. Would be happy to hear your opinions. All players were a reasonable standard.

During the bidding North wrote 3, paused, then wrote 4 over the 3 and added H. The bidding progressed around to West who wrote 4D, insufficient. However, when I went to the table and sat in West's seat, North's bid actually looked like 3H to me (and to West obviously). I allowed the 4D bid to stand and North simply bid 4H next but what is the Law that would cover this situation if it ever occurred again. I was just happy no-one asked me which Law I was ruling under - The Law of Common Sense ?

They play transfers after 1NT, but he said he didn't think they played after 2NT - so when he saw the 2H he "forgot" he had opened TWO NT and thought it was a transfer. Yes, agreed, West probably should have just bid 4S, but she didn't, she bid 4NT. I thought in a normal auction where the players did not play transfers - 2NT - 3H - 4H - 4NT would certainly be someone looking for slam, even though I knew in this case it wasn't. It just seemed to me that there was a lot of unauthorised information happening with the obvious distress from West over her partner's non acceptance of the transfer. By the way, both transfers after 2NT AND Blackwood are clearly on their system card despite East saying he didn't think they played transfers after 2NT. As to why body language + 4NT = Spades, I think he just finally woke up that that was what his partner wanted from the start. What about adjusting the score back to 4H going off 1 ?

Darn ... I did the hand editor thingo but I see it didn't show up ...[hv=pc=n&s=sj5h8762dkq87ct96&w=sqt964h954d654c83&n=s83hqj3da932cqj75&e=sak72haktdjtcak42&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=ppp2n]399|300[/hv]

Well, my feelings were that the 5S bid was made after unauthorised information from partner. She woke him up that she was transferring. I don't think the 4NT bid WAS blackwood, even though it is on their card (straight blackwood, not keycard). The fact that he said he didn't know they transferred after a 2NT opening was pretty telling, I thought.