Join Bridge Winners
They Are A Changing

It seems to me that it was not so long ago that when you made a bid in response to partner's conventional bid which was clearly absurd, you had to come up with a rational explanation for what you had done.  if you could not, then a penalty of some description was imposed upon you.  Apparently not today.  In these enlightened times you can, it seems, spout any old tosh and the directors will cry, "No foul", and life will go on with but a lingering feeling of annoyance and resentment on the sufferer's part.

I say this in response to two such incidents from one of our major tournaments, The Spring Fours, which is concluding as I write.  Please tell me if it is I, who am spouting tosh and the directors (who are running this large tournament beautifully) are only acting within set parameters, or if they ruled incorrectly.

 

First, you hold,  Vul,

North
A9xx
Kxx
10xx
Axx
W
N
E
S
1
2
X
P
2
P
3
4
P
4
P
P
P

A9XX, KXX, 10XX,AXX and hear 1C on your left, partner bids 2H, you alert and describe this as at least 5-5 in the mahors, similar to a Michaels cue - bid.  The next hand doubles for take out, and you pass.  Next hand bids 2S, alerted as a spade card, probably three cards in length and RHO bids 3C.  You now bid 4C and partner bids 4H.  Is that it for you?  It was for him and rather snazzy too when partner shows up with 10XX, AQJ10XX, XX, XX.

The director's ruling was that as they had no history???? of fielding this sort of bid (they have been playing together for some years and are of expert standard) that there was nothing amiss and the result stands.

 

North
Qx
J10xxxx
Qxx
xx
W
N
E
S
1
1
2
3
P
4
P
P
4NT
X
5
P
P
X
P
5
P
P
P

Second example, you hold at adverse vul QX, J10XXXX, QXX, XX.  It goes 1D by LHO, 1H by partner, 2C by RHO.  You bid a mysterious 3D, alerted by partner as a splinter raise.  It continues P, 4H by partner, P, P, 4NT by leftie, X,  partner, 5C by RHO, P, P, X.  Your go.  This player, took it out to 5H which was passed out and went two off.  We make 5C easily and appealed on the grounds that the remover was in receipt of UI and acted upon it.  His partner had twice said that he wanted to defend.  The QD may easily now be a trick and that at adverse vulnerability he had bid a contract that he would surely not make.  He also knew that his  partner might be depending on diamond ruffs to beat the contract, after all this is what his partner has told him.

The directors accepted his claim that he was just, "Muddying the waters", snd the result stood.  Do you agree?  We appealed neither as it had no effect on the results but I now wish that I had.  It would be interesting to know what, if anything, might have happened.

45 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top