you have no business in france

[Fluffy]

Festival Cote Basque, Biarritz, Mixte pairs.

 

1NT-2♣

2♠-4NT

3♦

 

 

My LHO pointed out to RHO that it should be 5♦ and proceed to alert. My RHO put 5♦ over 3♦.

 

I called director and explained what actually happened, after rejecting the 3♦ bid director told RHO that he had to bid the final contract because partner is barred.

 

Well, he obviously picked 5♠ with no aces, dummy produced a 4333 AAAAQ hand.

 

After making the obvious 12 tricks the lady on my left started to say something in french, first in general, later directed at me. I hardly understand any french word, but my partner translated after they left the table:

 

 

Stinks, Spannish should never leave Spain, let alone come to France, you have no business in France

 

Oh BTW, I politelly said (wouldn't be so polite if I knew what she was saying) that sadly I don't understand french, but she said something like that since I am spannish I should speak french LOL.

 

 

PD: 5♠ +1 was roughly 50%, with half the field going down in 6NT.

[Al_U_Card]

What! A Frenchman (woman) complaining?

 

C'est pas possible,alors! Voyons, espèce de con, c'est les Français qui jouent le SEF qui sont les meilleurs.

 

Via con dios, amigo. :rolleyes:

[kenberg]

You should have explained to her that really you were an American. Everyone loves us, as you no doubt have heard.

 

I'm not sure that I understand the ruling. If an insufficient bid is corrected at a minimum level in the same strain I thought that no further penalty applied. I suppose one could say that she was suggesting a specific bid to her partner but it seems to me she was suggesting he bid whatever was the right bid at the five level.

 

It's also a little difficult to see why there was not some sort of action taken against her for her comments. I think that of I told someone at a tournament that s/he should go back to Spain, or France, or New York, I would not be let off lightly. They might agree with me on the New York issue though.

 

At a table once a woman became frustrated with her obnoxious male opponent and told him to stuff it up his ass. A committee was convened at his request. They ruled that he should stuff it up his ass. Being a committee, they phrased it more better.

 

I looked up the area on the internet. Looks lovely. Relax, walk on the beach. Or drown the bitch.

[Gerben42]

I'm not sure that I understand the ruling. If an insufficient bid is corrected at a minimum level in the same strain I thought that no further penalty applied. I suppose one could say that she was suggesting a specific bid to her partner but it seems to me she was suggesting he bid whatever was the right bid at the five level.

 

Nothing more dangerous than a little knowledge...

 

if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the

same denomination and in the Director’s opinion both the

insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not

artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification.

 

Director has to find out if 3♦ was meant as response to 2NT.

Also it needs to be established if 4NT was Ace Asking or not.

 

If so, responder cannot bid again except after a more precise bid, but there don't seem to be any.

 

 

BTW your partner should have called the director directly after such a horrible remark.

[Aberlour10]

Tja Bridge in Biarritz it sounds always very very noble, what a foux pas!!

[jeffford76]

1NT-2♣

2♠-4NT

3♦

 

 

My LHO pointed out to RHO that it should be 5♦ and proceed to alert. My RHO put 5♦ over 3♦.

 

I called director and explained what actually happened, after rejecting the 3♦ bid director told RHO that he had to bid the final contract because partner is barred.

This ruling is wrong.

 

Law 27C:

"If the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the Director has

ruled on rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted as A

allows the substitution stands. The Director applies the relevant

foregoing section to the substitution."

 

Basically this means they are stuck with 5D, and either the director rules that 3D first did not convey any extra information and so the auction continues normally, or that it did, and so 5D is the final contract. Depending on agreements either of these could be right, but what the director did definitely isn't.

[kenberg]

Hmm. This is simultaneous with the reply above.

 

After I posted I got to thinking that there might be different rules for artificial bids, and so there is. It makes sense. Thanks for the correction. In this instance I think it would be fine if the rules allowed rho to correct his bid to his obviously intended 5D and then just go on, but the rules do not allow it and so opponents are supposed to accept the result gracefully. It's a little reminiscent of the "Oh *****" argument of a few years back where it was argued that obviously the called card was a slip of the tongue. Tough. We all miscall, misdraw bidding cards and misplay our hands. Or at least I do. I neither take cyanide nor yell at the opponents when it happens.

 

Anyway, thanks for the correction.

[Gerben42]

After I posted I got to thinking that there might be different rules for artificial bids, and so there is. It makes sense. Thanks for the correction. In this instance I think it would be fine if the rules allowed rho to correct his bid to his obviously intended 5D and then just go on, but the rules do not allow it and so opponents are supposed to accept the result gracefully.

 

Yes, this is allowed by law 25A. If the player intended to bid 5♦ but instead bid 3♦ pulling the wrong card from the bidbox, this may apply, but director must be sure of his case that the player never intended it. For example it could be that opener doesn't have much in ♦ and the correct number of Aces for 5♦, then we might believe it.

 

In the actual case you would still have to deal with RHO's UI saying that his partner should bid 5♦. RHO didn't know if partner was responding to 2NT natural or to 4NT.

 

25A. Unintended call

 

Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call

for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so,

without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is

subject to the appropriate Law.

 

+++++++++++

 

Also, in the new laws you can also in some cases correct an insufficient bid even if it or its correction are artificial:

 

1♠ p 4NT 5♥

5♣ (0 or 3)

 

may be corrected to

 

1♠ p 4NT 5♥

Double (0 or 3)

 

because of Law 27B1b.

 

if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call

that in the Director’s opinion has the same meaning as, or a more

precise meaning than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully

contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the

auction proceeds without further rectification.

 

In the actual case, this will not apply since 3♦ is never a response to Ace Asking.