Join Bridge Winners
Your Call

Another “bidding problem” as a poll. The question here is a theoretical one about obligations. Since someone may think the actual hand matters, I will provide it.

C'Est Est
973
AQ7
A104
AKQ9
W
N
E
S
P
1
P
1
1NT
X
3
3NT
P
4NT
P
6
P
?

Your opponents are WildGuy1 sitting North and CrazyCanuck on your left.  They are technically 'B' players, but have as good a chance of winning as anyone else in the field.

WildGuy1 reluctantly passes - probably after considering opening some number of spades - and then immediately regrets his initial action and backs in with 1NT.  Lefty will actually have his 3 bid.  They play transfer blame with super-accept - since they are good partners.  Lefty knows they are probably down too much in three spades against a game. (Yep -800).  But he has his action and he can hardly help it if Yanks don't know how to bid.  Yanks don't know much about hockey either, that isn't his fault. 

Double was undiscussed, but I did not care how he took it.  Partner took a little while to bid 3NT.  That won't be a problem because your partner is the TD and he would rule against me in a second if I did not have my 4NT call.  When he now bids 6, it occurs to me that partner has the stiff A.  Partner is a betting man.  He will bet on football, basketball, maybe even hockey.  But I doubt he bets on stiff K as a stop as there is no guarantee that WildGuy1 has the A.  I am willing to bet that if partner had Kx and they got to 3 with 8 trump, partner would have bid 6NT.  Also with Ax.

Here is the twist.  You are just sitting in for this one hand awaiting for the arrival of the house player to round out the movement.  There is no chance that player would ever do anything but pass 6

If either of my bridge friend opponents where a regular partner, I believe that I am honor-bound to totally hose them and bid 7.  Handing regular partners goose eggs is a moral imperative. 

The question here is really about whether this situation is unfair (they get a one-time substantially better opponent than the field will get) or just a rub-of-the-green situation.  After all, my partner and I could also go wrong trying to be smart.  I never really thought about this before.  I would certainly not misplay a hand just because the guy I was subbing for might.  There was a time when I had to sub in GNT-C because of a medical emergency. A withdrawal would screw up the movement.  Sol Weinstein instructed:  "no squeezes or endplays.  Don't do anything they wouldn't do."  I asked him if that included playing fast and claiming.

I provided the traditional diner menu of voting options.  People go to the diner to look at all sorts of choices and then order eggs.  But they feel happier with options, or perhaps seeing souvlaki and moussaka on the menu makes me believe the chef can handle "scrambled".  The real choices are pass - because the other guy is 100% to do so - or 7, what I think is right.  BTW, voting does not agree with the items in parenthesis.  It is just sort of a BW tradition to editorialize choices, so I included some commentary.  (Pass/Bid is just too simple for some).  My other option was the Chinese multiple choice menu, but one is allowed just one card out of the bidding box.

Mostly, this is a fill-in-the blank poll.  Can you construct a persuasive agreement for one view or the other?

Pass Six Clubs - (Be a rube)
Pass 3NT - (Really be a rube)
Bid 6NT - (The semi-rube hedge)
Bid 7C - (Lefty is from Canada, heck with him)
Bid 7NT - (Out-crazy the crazies)
Other - (Except any other call is pretty stupid)

Sorry, to answer polls. Registered users can vote in polls, and can also browse other users' public votes! and participate in the discussion.

Getting results...
loading...
7 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top