Join Bridge Winners
Was I insane, or were the directors?
(Page of 2)

We all get rulings that rankle with us,not just for years but decades. A recent article (whose title I've adapted) touched on the theme that was at the heart of one of mine.

Playing in the English counties championship my LHO opened 1D partner passed and RHO bid 1NT. I bid 2D, at least 5/5 in the majors weak or strong(I was max in the context of 'weak'). LHO now bid 2H(not alerted) partner enquired and was told 'natural and strong'. Partner passed RHO bid 3D and this was passed out.

Of course LHO had psyched and we had missed 4H, my concern was over RHO's explanation - I was quite certain that this sequence had never been discussed and that RHO should have simply said 'no agreement' rather than saying it was the same as if I hadn't bid at all. Although i thought partners bidding(or lack of it) was poor, it didn't IMO constitute a 'failure to play bridge'

Anyway,before I got to the end of my first sentence explaining why I was calling the TD my LHO called 'director' and told her I wanted to record a psyche! They then cheerfully 'admitted' psyching and wandered off leaving me to explain to the confused TD what my real problem was.

The TD returned after the next match having 'consulted' with the other directors to tell me 'Since they didn't have this sequence on their convention card(is there a pair in the world that does?) then 2H is by definition natural so there's no problem'

I haven't given the full hand details as I'm no longer bothered as to whether I would(should) have been successful with an appeal. What I am interested in is how this kind of thing should be treated in cases of potential MI. In a 'normal' case the onus is on the 'offenders' to 'prove' their explanation is their agreement. Does the exact same standard apply when the claim is that bids (however unlikely) aren't conventional?

To put it a less convoluted way  - when is a bid(by default) not natural ?

47 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top