What's Wrong with these auctions?

[helene_t]

A player who shall remain nameless passed in a national event, then raised his partner's 12-14 1NT opening to 6NT! He had 9 solid diamonds and out. His partner's hand? 3 aces.

That was lucky. A famous Dutch player once started with a pass with a solid 10-card suit. Also his partner had 3 aces and out. Unfortunately the board was passed out .....

 

So if you want to play solid openings make sure your p doesn't :)

[ArtK78]

A player who shall remain nameless passed in a national event, then raised his partner's 12-14 1NT opening to 6NT! He had 9 solid diamonds and out. His partner's hand? 3 aces.

That was lucky. A famous Dutch player once started with a pass with a solid 10-card suit. Also his partner had 3 aces and out. Unfortunately the board was passed out .....

 

So if you want to play solid openings make sure your p doesn't :)

There was a similar story attributed to Les Bart. Allegedly, he held AK ninth of diamonds and chose to pass in first seat. The hand was passed out. I do not recall if game or slam was bid and made at the other table. When the team compared results, one of his teammates exclaimed "You passed with AK ninth of diamonds?" To which Bart replied "But it was AK EMPTY NINTH!"

[babalu1997]

How about this one:

 

1nt-2spades-pass-pass-2NT

 

2nt pretty awful to play, but this one wants to do it with 15 points

 

i dont save them.

 

 

I also remeber a recent one, i had balanced hand with one jack.

 

1diamond by opp- 1 heart by partner- 1 spades by opp- pass by me

 

2club by opp- dble by partner- 2diamond by opp-pass by me

 

pass by opp- dble by partner- all pass

 

Whats all this bidding p?

 

I had POINTS

THE POINTS WERE ALL OF 14 HCP INCLUSIVE OF A DOUBLETON QJ OF SAPDES WHICH THE OPPS ATE FOR SUPPER

[Jlall]

How about an auction like this where you have spades.

 

You bid 5S, partner cuebids 6C

You bid 6H, partner bids 6S

You bid 7S

 

Assuming getting to 7N was not a factor and then this auction should not exist. Partner signed off and you bid 7 anyways, so you should have just bid it over 6C.

 

I see stuff like this all the time, and imo it should be banned. It just opens the doors for cheating, and using the tempo of your partner's 6S bid to determine whether or not to bid 7.

 

Sure some will say "if they bid 6S out of tempo, you can call the director and get it rolled back." But you don't really know what their normal tempo for bidding 6S is, or their normal facial expressions, or normal body language. Only their partner knows that. Even if they are not intentionally trying to cheat, they have gained some info to guess whether to bid 7 or not.

 

Also, you could just be planning to pass a very quick 6S bid, but bid 7 over an in tempo 6S bid. That way you get to 7 unless partner has the very worst hand. The opponents cannot call the director and say "she bid a quick 6S, so partner must bid 7" because you can just say "obviously by bidding 6H I was not forcing to 7 ever, so it doesn't matter if she signed off quickly, what matters is she signed off."

 

This would be true only if it were true that you were never bidding 7 over 6S because it's logically inconsistent. For that reason, I think you should be barred form bidding 7S over 6S of ANY tempo.

 

It is logically inconsistent, and only serves to take advantage of tempo issues.

[aguahombre]

In the late 50's Hal Kandler was 3rd seat red vs white.

 

P (P) 2S (P)

p (X) P (3H)

p (4H) 4S! (X)

p (P) P

 

There is more, about the tantrum his pard had before learning about Hal's solid ten-bagger.

[the hog]

A player who shall remain nameless passed in a national event, then raised his partner's 12-14 1NT opening to 6NT! He had 9 solid diamonds and out. His partner's hand? 3 aces.

That was lucky. A famous Dutch player once started with a pass with a solid 10-card suit. Also his partner had 3 aces and out. Unfortunately the board was passed out .....

 

So if you want to play solid openings make sure your p doesn't :)

Apocryphal story and maybe an urban myth in Holland, Helene. In fact John Collings held this hand in England in a rubber bridge game. That is well documented.

[bb79]

this is from today's cayne's match:

 

imps, fav vul, ♠KJ9xxx,x,Axx,xxx

 

2♠-p-3♠-3NT-

4♠!-X-ppp

 

4♠ down6.

[inquiry]

this is from today's cayne's match:

 

imps, fav vul, ♠KJ9xxx,x,Axx,xxx

 

2♠-p-3♠-3NT-

4♠!-X-ppp

 

4♠ down6.

The spade bidders must not be normal partners. 3♠ bidder must be thinking this is a signoff, 2♠ bidder must have thought 3♠ was game invite.

 

If 3♠ is a signoff (many, including me, play this way), then opener must pass. This shows why... :P

[helene_t]

Apocryphal story and maybe an urban myth in Holland, Helene. In fact John Collings held this hand in England in a rubber bridge game. That is well documented.

More likely I just had my facts wrong. I have the story from a Dutch biography so I thought it would have been a Dutch player but it's possible that it was about John Collings.

[ArtK78]

How about an auction like this where you have spades.

 

You bid 5S, partner cuebids 6C

You bid 6H, partner bids 6S

You bid 7S

 

Assuming getting to 7N was not a factor and then this auction should not exist. Partner signed off and you bid 7 anyways, so you should have just bid it over 6C.

 

I see stuff like this all the time, and imo it should be banned. It just opens the doors for cheating, and using the tempo of your partner's 6S bid to determine whether or not to bid 7.

 

Sure some will say "if they bid 6S out of tempo, you can call the director and get it rolled back." But you don't really know what their normal tempo for bidding 6S is, or their normal facial expressions, or normal body language. Only their partner knows that. Even if they are not intentionally trying to cheat, they have gained some info to guess whether to bid 7 or not.

 

Also, you could just be planning to pass a very quick 6S bid, but bid 7 over an in tempo 6S bid. That way you get to 7 unless partner has the very worst hand. The opponents cannot call the director and say "she bid a quick 6S, so partner must bid 7" because you can just say "obviously by bidding 6H I was not forcing to 7 ever, so it doesn't matter if she signed off quickly, what matters is she signed off."

 

This would be true only if it were true that you were never bidding 7 over 6S because it's logically inconsistent. For that reason, I think you should be barred form bidding 7S over 6S of ANY tempo.

 

It is logically inconsistent, and only serves to take advantage of tempo issues.

I had one like this in the final round of a North American Swiss Teams. My opponents had a slow auction which went through RKCB. After the first key card response (which denied the trump queen), the asker made another ask. The responder made a response that denied any other card that was being asked for. The asker took about 30 to 40 seconds to consider this (most of the bids in this auction took 30 to 40 seconds, so this was not remarkable) and signed off in the small slam. His partner carried on to 7, which was a claim.

 

I took this to a committee. Everyone agreed to the facts, and to the fact that the second ask guaranteed all of the key cards by agreement. My argument was that responder could have bid the grand over the second ask if all he needed to know was that the partnership had all of the key cards. He learned nothing from the second ask other than his partner was considering bidding the grand after the response to the second ask.

 

The committee ruled against me based on the fact that the tempo was consistent throughout the auction - every bid took 30 to 40 seconds. I agreed with the fact that the bids were in a consistent tempo; however, that doesn't change the fact that the only reason that the signoff in 6 took 30 to 40 seconds was that the bidder was considering another call, and there was no bridge reason for the final call except that the signoff in 6 took so long.

 

In the write up of the appeals book, some of the commentators agreed with my argument.

[Jlall]

sounds like you got a terrible ruling art

[jdonn]

It was probably the legally correct ruling since if they can't demonstrate there was UI they can't adjust. But you got screwed nonetheless.

[ArtK78]

If anyone is interested in reading the write-up of the committee ruling in the case that I referred to, it is Case Ten from the 1996 Philadelphia Spring NABC. For some reason, the suit symbols don't come out properly in the presentation of the hand.

 

I thought that this occurred in the NA Swiss. Apparently, it was just a Regional Swiss Teams.

 

Also, it is stated in the writeup of the case that my side did not call for the director until after the score comparison. That is not exactly true. We called the director at the conclusion of the auction but before commencement of play. This was the last board of the last match of the event. The director told us to continue and to call him back if there was a problem. We concluded the match and compared scores, and discussed with our teammates whether we should call the director back. We did, and the appeal followed.

 

I also gave the wrong info about the 6 level response to the second RKCB ask. Apparently, the 6♣ response showed the ♣K. Nevertheless, the asker signed off in 6♠ without making a further ask with 6 of a red suit, and his partner carried on to 7♠.

 

Sorry about the discrepencies. It was over 13 years ago.

 

The 1996 NABC Appeals casebook can be found at http://www.bridgehands.com/Laws/ACBL/Dupli...Spring_1996.pdf