Revolting, Revoltinger, Revoltingest

[humilities]

Warning: the following content is graphic in nature.

 

In an auction full of revolting calls, my partner and I cannot agree on which was the most awful. Help us settle a disgusting disagreement :)

 

Club matchpoint game, both sides vul

[hv=pc=n&s=s543ha2djt82ck954&n=sajt2hd654cajt832&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1hd3dp3hp4hdppp]266|200[/hv]

 

South asked and was told that 3D was natural and weak, though East meant it as Bergen (what we all, Bergen was on their card). Obviously, 4H was untouchable, and 5C is a very good sac. Which call do you think was the biggest culprit?

 

Side question: given the UI raised by the question of 3D, I think East clearly must pass 3H (she held Qxx Kxxx Kxx Qxx). You could also claim that South's X was influenced by the incorrect explanation, though it was not. Given this is a mediocre club game, do you guys try to get these type of things overruled? At a regional/national I would have...

[mr1303]

OK, first things first

 

1) A lot of bile has come from my digestive system, but in order from least worst to most worst:

 

a) North (clearly) cannot bid 4C, as this would show a minimum of two aces more than he has. So on his second turn to call he has no choice other than pass

b) Whilst North's hand is clearly not great for defence, partner hasn't suggested he bid here. South's double is pure penalty, and he does at least have two aces. So pass is the call I would make

c) Whilst North's initial double isn't exactly perfect, I can understand not wanting to lose the spade suit. So double, if not ideal, isn't terrible. I would bid 2C, but can understand a double

d) South's double seems to have very little going for it. You have nothing surprising, trumps are likely to split well, and if the opponents bidding is to be trusted, it suggests partner has a minimum double, and therefore likely to be very short in hearts. You're doubling at most for 1 off, and if you wanted to double for take-out, you should've done it the round before (not that I suggest that South should double the round before - it is a take-out double of 2H, not 3H).

 

So I blame South.

 

Incidentally, the director should rule this back to 3H + however many.

[HighLow21]

At the very least this hand should be corrected to 3♥ + however many (undoubled). The incorrect explanation both shut N/S out and led to South's (correct, on the information available) double. He has 2 aces and every reason to believe he has dummy's side suit protected. How on earth are they going to make 10 tricks?

 

If I were director I'd at least be tempted to award N/S an average-plus.

 

I find East's raise to 4♥ after the preceding events is also despicable, from a bridge ethics point of view.

[jeffford76]

If I were director I'd at least be tempted to award N/S an average-plus.

 

This isn't a valid ruling, although it's a likely one at some clubs.

 

Both sides should get the score for 3♥. As to whether I would call in a club game - it depends on the club. Surely you know whether your club director is capable of making a UI ruling. No point calling if they aren't.

[ggwhiz]

Revolting: The last double

 

Revoltinger: The first double

 

Revoltingest: 4♥

 

Son of Revolting: Easts pass over 3♦. With 4 spades I think you should just bid them and double should show 2-way competing values, ie. a pulse.

[Jinksy]

4H is just outright cheating. One doesn't make an invitational raise, have it declined in the only way possible, then upgrade it to a GF. E should be thrown out of the club.

[gszes]

if you and p realize your sides actions were ummm err sort of not the best you are already making progress.

 

I wont get into your rho opponent actions from an ethical perspective since it is possible for them to be using

 

a variation of Bergen (designed to be either limit or slam interest and solving trump length issues).

 

I hated the x original t/o x and the 4h x pretty much equally but felt the original tox was more at fault since

 

(hopefully) the 4hx would never have happened w/o the original x.

 

Players have a tendency to forget a tox can have downsides like what to do when p bids the "short" suit or

 

gasp wants to convert the tox to penalty. The original x of 1h just has too many downsides. This hand is worth

 

2 and with luck 3 tricks on defense yet on offense it is worth around 19 if a trump fit can be found. That is a huge

 

disparity and calls for an offensive action since your willingness to defend is highly limited (for ex substitute KQ for

 

those 2 aces and your desire to defend should be close to zero and that's with MORE hcp),

 

2c

 

is a stand out call that leaves a lot of flexibility to compete and while it may miss an occasional spade game that price

 

is small compared to being able to compete in virtually all other auctions. The most important part about a 2c bid is

 

that it begins to let p know where you live and when they see their cards they can downgrade your defensive prospects

 

if they are weak and have long clubs (sort of like this hand).

 

 

 

[whereagles]

why the final dbl? you're not getting rich from it..

 

anyway, first dbl is edgy but acceptable.. if pard has, say, something like

 

KQxxx

xxx

xxx

Kx

 

and it goes 1H 2C 4H, neither player has a clear way to bid 4S.