passed hand in duplicate?

[blackshoe]

There's always the option of an insufficient bid to continue the auction...

Or of a bid of 8 of something, or another double or redouble.

[RSClyde]

Let me explain why I find this so strange:

 

Let's start with computers:

If we designed a computerized bridge program, then we could prevent insufficient bids entirely. You can't make an insufficient bid on BBO or bridge baron. Now how any specific system happens to be designed is irrelevant. But I believe we'd all agree that there is no reason to design a bridge program to accept (or give opponents an option to accept) illegitimate calls. Just like it would make no sense to allow for revokes or leads out of turn. Thus when playing on such a system, 7ntXX ends the auction at the point that the bid is made. Why? Because no other contract is possible. It is meaningless to say "you still have to pass," because you have no other choice. When playing a game statements like rolling a one sided di, or flipping a two headed coin, are meaningless. You are logically doing nothing. Such is the case here. Most existing programs probably don't have it built into their design to make a special exception here and not prompt you, but again, how a specific program happens to be designed is irrelevant.

 

In real life:

You do have insufficient bids, revokes and leads out of turn. No one really wants this to be "part of the game," this is just a logistical hurdle of playing by manipulating cards physically rather than electronically. So now when 3nt is reached, it is still possible to play in 1H. Because when offered the chance to bid over 3nt, something that you must have a legal option to do, an irregularity occurs. By contrast, there is no reason to give someone a chance to bid over 7ntXX because they have only one legitimate call. The only purpose it can serve is to allow an insufficient bid. I'm not saying that's the only possible outcome, but it's the only alternative to simply saying that 7ntXX ends the auction. Since, irregularities aren't really a part of the game that anyone wants, it seems weird to give someone the chance to commit one, when they didn't technically have a decision to make anyway.

[RMB1]

When playing on BBO and the auction reaches 7NTXX the interface only gives you one call to "choose" from, but you still have to click "Pass" to move on with the game. Just as you have to click your 13th card to play trick 13 and finish the play.

 

There is an autoplay singletons option which presumably make trick 13 automatic. There could be an auto-Pass over 7NT for players for whom Double/Redouble is inadmissible: this would make the auction over 7NTXX automatic.

 

But face-to-face and online there is a point to making players pass over 7NT: Law 25A and UNDOs.

[billw55]

Gosh I thought the 7NTxx thing was just a bit of humor. Why so serious?

[Vampyr]

Gosh I thought the 7NTxx thing was just a bit of humor. Why so serious?

 

This thread, with the exception of the posts directly relevant to the OP, is probably the most boring one in BBO history.

[broze]

This thread, with the exception of the posts directly relevant to the OP, is probably the most boring one in BBO history.

 

You clearly haven't seen the climate change thread.

[Vampyr]

You clearly haven't seen the climate change thread.

 

Actually I did look at it once years ago. I stand corrected.

[GreenMan]

This thread, with the exception of the posts directly relevant to the OP, is probably the most boring one in BBO history.

 

You're not helping. :P

 

(Yes, I know I'm not either. :rolleyes: )

[mikestar13]

While you were there, did they have any arguments over what is or isn't a psyche?

 

Yes, the club defined it as a deviation of more than a queen in strength or one card in length from the convention card (or SA in no card was filled out--the usual case) as a psychic -- but preempts could not be a card short of the expected length. Weak two on five cards a bridge felony in the club's eyes :o Like I said, I needed the money.

[Zelandakh]

but preempts could not be a card short of the expected length.

So the Robson-Segal suggested 1st seat 3♣ opening of ♠7532 ♥J63 ♦4 ♣QJT94 would be right out then? Surely the expected length refers to our agreements rather than to the agreements that the TD thinks we should choose...

[blackshoe]

No, no. It refers to the agreements your opponents think you should choose. :P

[Zelandakh]

No, no. It refers to the agreements your opponents think you should choose. :P

I think my opponents should bid 7NT with any hand of less than 20hcp and pass otherwise; and redouble from 7NT bidder's partner shows 0-10. I will play their system if they play mine. :P

[1eyedjack]

Usually the bidding box has run out of pass cards by the time that you reach 7NTXX. I am just pleased to have an opportunity to stop.

[mikestar13]

So the Robson-Segal suggested 1st seat 3♣ opening of ♠7532 ♥J63 ♦4 ♣QJT94 would be right out then? Surely the expected length refers to our agreements rather than to the agreements that the TD thinks we should choose...

 

Exactly--no one in the club had ever dared try it, but I expect the club's card committee was have banned the offending party for at least a year. Expected length was per the CC (if filled out) for other bids; for preempts, it 6 cards for a weak 2 and seven cards for 3... illegal to agree to open a shorter suit. A partnership could agree to a longer minimum suit length if properly disclosed (God knows why they would want to.) Truth is, these folks really wanted everyone to play 1950's Goren, but they very grudgingly accepted some innovations/heresies from up to about 1970. Quote from one of the players (excellent at declarer play, good defender, unimaginative bidder) -- "I never opened a weak two in my life!"

[Vampyr]

I don't see anything wrong with a club choosing to have whatever rules they want -- provided, of course, that they are not affiliated to an NBO or other organisation.

[Zelandakh]

A private club perhaps but if they are going to take table money from visitors then the visitors have a right to expect a game that conforms with the rules.

[Vampyr]

A private club perhaps but if they are going to take table money from visitors then the visitors have a right to expect a game that conforms with the rules.

 

Sure, but that game doesn't have to be bridge.

[mycroft]

Ah, they just Endicott Fudged it - "Okay, you can open a 5-card weak 2, but you can't play any conventions after any weak two, nor conventional defences to conventional defences." That way it was in line with the Law.

 

Or, now, they just call these bids Special Partnership Understandings and ban them with fewer than the "agreed" number of cards. Without regulation from the ZO saying that this power isn't devolved to the clubs (as it explicitly is in the ACBL), the only recourse one has is if they don't make it clear in advance, then try to drop insane punishments on you (as if you were "expected to know").

[Fluffy]

That's probably because you snipped out most of the quote that I was responding to voiding it of context. So let me walk you through it slowly:

Art claimed that the only possible legal outcome following a 7ntXX bid was 3 consecutive passes. I pointed out that this is not the case because an insufficient bid could be made and accepted, and yes, it would still need to be agreed by 3 passes, what happened after the insufficient bid was not the point.

 

Let me explain it to you, even if the rules wanted to take care of this nuance, they would quickly find out that there is a lot more trouble incoming from players not noticing that the last bid is a redouble instead of a normal pass than from insuficent bids.

[the hog]

I don't see anything wrong with a club choosing to have whatever rules they want -- provided, of course, that they are not affiliated to an NBO or other organisation.

 

And provided they do not call the game that they purport to play "Bridge". Tiddleywinks perhaps?

[Vampyr]

And provided they do not call the game that they purport to play "Bridge". Tiddleywinks perhaps?

 

"Bridge" is not necessarily defined by the Laws. The Laws were not followed (or even particularly well-known) when I played at the kitchen table as a child with my grandparents. We had a house rule that you the right to demand a redeal if you were dealt a Yarborough. A passed-out hand resulted in a goulash. I don't even remember how we dealt with insufficient bids or calls out of turn. Actually I don't think we ever had any of those, but we did have the odd revoke (which we called "renege"). I don't remember how we dealt with those either. My sister and I instituted a schedule of fines you had to pay if you asked who dealt or what the contract was.

 

But we followed the mechanics of the game, and the game was bridge, albeit an idiosyncratic version. I realise that it is a bit different if you are offering an organised game for paying punters, but obviously the house rules were what the players wanted, since otherwise they would not have been in place, nor would players have attended.

 

So I still maintain that as long as the club was not affiliated to an organisation that promoted Duplicate Bridge as defined by the Lawbook, no harm no foul.

[campboy]

As you say, it is different if you are offering an organised game for playing customers. If a club does, and advertises "duplicate bridge" without qualification, then customers are entitled to expect a game played according to the lawbook. Similarly, if they advertise it as tiddlywinks, the punters might expect that the official rules of tiddlywinks are being followed :) Perhaps "I can't believe it's not bridge" would be safer.

[PhilKing]

I have given this thread one star.