Another insufficient bid

[661_Pete]

And I was the guilty party, this time around! But it came out OK for us, and don't knock it! It was the only high spot in an otherwise lousy afternoon's session... :(

 

I was North on this hand - pairs MPs:

[hv=pc=n&s=s53hak87653dacj93&w=st87h4dqj9862ck75&n=sakqjhqjd543cat86&e=s9642ht92dkt7cq42&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1hp2cp3hp4np5sp6hppp]399|300[/hv]

But this doesn't tell the whole story. On the first round I bid 1♣ :unsure:(!) . My excuse was, I was half-asleep, I thought West was dealer, and I genuinely hadn't noticed my partner's 1♥. We play Acol with three weak 2's, and I was under the impression I was opening 1♣ hoping to elicit a response of some sort from partner.

 

I woke up alright when I heard West (who is a qualified TD himself, though he wasn't TD'ing this session) explaining to his partner that she had the option to accept the 1♣. She declined, so he then turned to me and explained that I must correct my bid, but if I bid anything other than 2♣ he would summon the acting TD, with dire penalties...

 

Of course I amended my bid to 2♣ - even if it wasn't quite the correct bid. I knew what the Law says and I wasn't about to 'silence' my partner - not with a possible slam on!

 

Once my partner jump-rebid his ♥ I was keener than ever on the slam, of course - but you can see what happened next. My partner - possibly a bit confused by my earlier insufficient bid, gave the wrong response to 4NT. We play 0314 so he should have bid 5♣ - whereupon I would almost certainly have gone to 7♥ or 7NT. I could see at once that his response was wrong: it couldn't possibly show 2 keycards + Q trumps, seeing as I had the Q♥! My guess was, he meant to bid 5♥ showing 2 keycards minus Q - but I was boxed into bidding 6♥ and settled for that. In our club we don't normally Alert after a natural bid at three level or above.

 

As you can also see, 7♥ and 7NT are virtually cold. On a ♦ lead, it's laydown provided ♥ are not 4-0, and they weren't. But 6♥ +1 seemed a reasonable outcome.

 

As it turned out, no-one bid the Grand. Two tables reached 6NT +1, so we had to settle for 71%.

 

The opponents didn't ask for any adjustment - just as well. They might have had a case - after all my insufficient bid had given partner UI that I had an opening hand....

 

Moral: I must try and keep more awake, next session!

[The_Badger]

Your partner's reply of 5♠ can show the Q or extra length in the trump suit. Not sure whether it is applicable with a seven timer after a 3♥ rebid though?

[pescetom]

I can't see any grounds for adjustment. You would have made a forcing response in any case (I imagine 1S) and received the same 3H rebid.

[pescetom]

Your partner's reply of 5♠ can show the Q or extra length in the trump suit. Not sure whether it is applicable with a seven timer after a 3♥ rebid though?

I would say not: partner has no certainty that we jointly possess ten trumps.

[gordontd]

I woke up alright when I heard West (who is a qualified TD himself, though he wasn't TD'ing this session) explaining to his partner that she had the option to accept the 1♣. She declined, so he then turned to me and explained that I must correct my bid, but if I bid anything other than 2♣ he would summon the acting TD, with dire penalties...

He should have been summoning the TD regardless, rather than making his own ruling, especially as he was asking a player to make a decision without knowing the consequences of it.

[The_Badger]

I would say not: partner has no certainty that we jointly possess ten trumps.

 

You're right in that respect. No guarantees at all. 5♠ was probably the wrong card pulled out of the box; or alternatively, a mish-mash of Blackwood and RKCB where responder had three keycards, and then proceeded to answer by way of a normal Blackwood response instead of RKCB.

[pescetom]

5♠ was probably the wrong card pulled out of the box; or alternatively, a mish-mash of Blackwood and RKCB where responder had three keycards, and then proceeded to answer by way of a normal Blackwood response instead of RKCB.

 

There are otherwise reliable players who will quite consistently get RKCB or Gerber replies wrong because they get muddled with normal Blackwood in one way or another. Sometimes it is sufficient to get them to stop memorising actual replies (for example "5C means...") and to memorise the rules instead (for example, "In RKCB the first reply shows 0 or 3,...") and then derive the correct reply by applying the rules to their hand. They will need this more abstract approach to play Kickback or other variants anyway.

[661_Pete]

He should have been summoning the TD regardless, rather than making his own ruling, especially as he was asking a player to make a decision without knowing the consequences of it.

True. In a more formal setting, certainly. But in our club we tend to avoid summoning the TD unless it's absolutely necessary. Especially since he or she is usually also playing in the session: one is reluctant to drag them away from their table.

 

In this instance there was no disagreement between players, everything was amicably sorted in full compliance with the Law, and we all knew what our decisions entailed. Hence, no TD call needed.

[neilkaz]

True. In a more formal setting, certainly. But in our club we tend to avoid summoning the TD unless it's absolutely necessary. Especially since he or she is usually also playing in the session: one is reluctant to drag them away from their table.

 

In this instance there was no disagreement between players, everything was amicably sorted in full compliance with the Law, and we all knew what our decisions entailed. Hence, no TD call needed.

 

It is this way in quite a few informal clubs also on this side of the pond as well. However, I did have to suffer the following at a regional in the Gold Rush pairs event a year ago. PD opened 1♠ and RHO overcalled 1♦ and I raised my hand, "Director please." This was followed by RHO saying, "Neil, do you really want to win this way, I made a mistake." As she tried to change to her intended 2♦ bid prior to the arrival of the director. Then her husband, LHO said, "C'mon Neil, you win all the time (not as true as I'd like) anyhow, just let her correct her bid." To which I replied, "this is why we have directors, you're playing in a regionally rated event!"

 

My point is that players can learn bad habits when the director isn't called per the rules.

[IGoHomeNow]

It is this way in quite a few informal clubs also on this side of the pond as well. However, I did have to suffer the following at a regional in the Gold Rush pairs event a year ago. PD opened 1♠ and RHO overcalled 1♦ and I raised my hand, "Director please." This was followed by RHO saying, "Neil, do you really want to win this way, I made a mistake." As she tried to change to her intended 2♦ bid prior to the arrival of the director. Then her husband, LHO said, "C'mon Neil, you win all the time (not as true as I'd like) anyhow, just let her correct her bid." To which I replied, "this is why we have directors, you're playing in a regionally rated event!"

 

My point is that players can learn bad habits when the director isn't called per the rules.

 

I am proud of you. Their attitude borders on intimidation. The object of any game is to win within the rules and taking advantage of this mistake is no different than doubling someone in 7NT when you are on lead with an Ace. (Though in that case it won't affect the score much)

[pescetom]

The object of any game is to win within the rules and taking advantage of this mistake is no different than doubling someone in 7NT when you are on lead with an Ace. (Though in that case it won't affect the score much)

 

Just don't think too long if you have an Ace but it is your partner on lead, otherwise you risk finding the result adjusted to 7NT making B-)

[joris999]

Why loosing time on this like this?????

[guinnypoo]

I am proud of you. Their attitude borders on intimidation. The object of any game is to win within the rules and taking advantage of this mistake is no different than doubling someone in 7NT when you are on lead with an Ace. (Though in that case it won't affect the score much)

 

Doubling 7N with an ace is akin to breaking the rules?

[johnu]

I am proud of you. Their attitude borders on intimidation. The object of any game is to win within the rules and taking advantage of this mistake is no different than doubling someone in 7NT when you are on lead with an Ace. (Though in that case it won't affect the score much)

 

On the scale of fish rankings, the Gold Rush pairs is at the Guppy level. Several levels below your typical unlimited club game as all the top and most of the above average club players are ineligible to play in the Gold Rush games. I'm sure no intimidation was intended and neilkaz was not intimidated in the least.

[rmnka447]

It is this way in quite a few informal clubs also on this side of the pond as well. However, I did have to suffer the following at a regional in the Gold Rush pairs event a year ago. PD opened 1♠ and RHO overcalled 1♦ and I raised my hand, "Director please." This was followed by RHO saying, "Neil, do you really want to win this way, I made a mistake." As she tried to change to her intended 2♦ bid prior to the arrival of the director. Then her husband, LHO said, "C'mon Neil, you win all the time (not as true as I'd like) anyhow, just let her correct her bid." To which I replied, "this is why we have directors, you're playing in a regionally rated event!"

 

My point is that players can learn bad habits when the director isn't called per the rules.

 

You did right. You are in a tournament even if in a "guppy" event (as johnu noted). Letting the tournament director handle the situation is fair to everyone at the table and in the event. Where things can get terribly tacky is if you try to handle the situation amongst yourselves and a second irregularity occurs. It does happen.

 

Calling the director is merely ensuring the proper follow up occurs. In this case, because of the mistake, your partner has the option to accept the insufficient bid. Most partners won't do so and the person making the insufficient bid can correct it to make it sufficient by bidding 2 ♦ getting things back to "normal". But then again, like one opponent I played in a similar situation, the director can caution them about the penalities for changing their bid to some other sufficient bid. Try having that happen and then calling the director -- really messy.

[pescetom]

You did right. You are in a tournament even if in a "guppy" event (as johnu noted). Letting the tournament director handle the situation is fair to everyone at the table and in the event. Where things can get terribly tacky is if you try to handle the situation amongst yourselves and a second irregularity occurs. It does happen.

 

Calling the director is merely ensuring the proper follow up occurs. In this case, because of the mistake, your partner has the option to accept the insufficient bid. Most partners won't do so and the person making the insufficient bid can correct it to make it sufficient by bidding 2 ♦ getting things back to "normal". But then again, like one opponent I played in a similar situation, the director can caution them about the penalities for changing their bid to some other sufficient bid. Try having that happen and then calling the director -- really messy.

 

I had to google "guppy", one learns something new every day :)

 

It can be equally messy if they correct to a sufficient bid in the same denomination, but then at the end of play you think your side may have been damaged and call the director to decide. Moral of the story, either accept the insufficient bid (to avoid ripples in the fish pool) or call the director immediately.