Litigious, are we?
I was shocked to hear the opponents call the director on consecutive boards last night. To the litigious opponents, apparently my choosing a call other than the one they would choose constitutes a reason to complain to the director.
22. You hold ♠J987 ♥AK9632 ♦4 ♣AJ. What is your call after partner opens 1♦, you respond 1♥, and partner rebids 2♦?
2♠ is an obvious choice. 2♠ does not show length in spades – partner has denied four spades when he chose to rebid 2♦ rather than 1♠ – and is presumptively showing some spade values as the start of some sort of game exploration, most frequently looking for 3NT.
2♠ has some potential drawbacks. If partner bids notrump, you are likely to receive a club lead and might well have wrong-sided the notrump contract. Also, partner might bid notrump when he has two card heart support and 4♥ is a superior contract. You can, of course, rebid 3♥ over 2NT, but that gives the defense a pretty good roadmap as to your distribution.
2NT is a possible call, but that call might well miss a better 4♥ contract as partner will not cater to your owning such heart length.
At the table, I chose to bid 3♣. Akin to 2♠, 3♣ is presumptively showing some values in the suit bid as the start of some sort of game exploration, most frequently looking for 3NT. My planned rebids were:
- Over 3♦, to bid 3NT
- Over 3♥, to bid 4♥
- Over 3♠ (which is the call partner would be expected to make with a couple of small cards in spades but no stopper), to bid 3NT
- Over 3NT, to pass.
Only an unlikely 4♣ raise – unlikely because partner might have bid 2♣ rather than 2♦ with four clubs – , will cause me to regret the choice of 3♣, and even then a 4♥ bid by me might land us in our best contract. However, the 3♣ call does have some potential benefits over 2♠. For one, if partner bids 3NT, he is likely to receive a spade lead and the contract is right-sided.
I am not saying that 3♣ is the obvious, or even necessarily the best, call, but surely it is a reasonable call.
Ah, but not to the opponents. When a spade, rather than a club, was led, and dummy showed with a doubleton club, the opponents thought it necessary to call the director and complain about the absence of an alert of 3♣. Fortunately, the director ably concluded that 3♣ was just a forcing bid and unless there was reason to think that partner and I have some special understanding, nothing actionable had occurred.
| Dealer: 22- E
Vul: EW |
North
♠ KT32 ♥ 74 ♦ J96 ♣ QT93 |
|
| West
♠ J987 ♥ AK9632 ♦ 4 ♣ AJ |
 |
East
♠ AQ ♥ 8 ♦ AK8753 ♣ 8542 |
| South
♠ 654 ♥ QJT5 ♦ QT2 ♣ K76 |
The spade lead gave partner some helpful tempo and he took ten tricks for a nice score, when a club lead would have held him to nine tricks.
The opponents continued to complain, as we tried to motivate them to begin the next board (to make up for time lost in the directoral call and ensuing discussion).
23. This time, you hold ♠Q5 ♥KT ♦JT52 ♣KT865. You pass, partner opens 1♠ in third chair, you respond 1NT (semi-forcing by PH), and partner bids 2♦. What is your call?
2NT is an obvious choice and so is 2♠. One is the high road and one is the low road.
But isn’t this a really nice hand at spades? I suspect that partner’s most likely distribution, given his bidding and my suit lengths, is 5=3=4=1. This hand has many potential positives in a spade contract:
- The doubleton spade is a high honor, helping to solidify the suit.
- A possible ruffing value in hearts.
- Help in partner’s second suit.
In addition, the possibility of hearts being a weak spot for notrump is a consideration. For example, would not partner bid this way with KJT9x, xxx, AKQx, x? Then notrump is off several heart tricks, and each black ace. Meanwhile, if you can negotiate a heart ruff, spades might lose as few as one trick in each suit other than diamonds.
Thinking of the above, I chose to rebid 3♠. When my dummy showed with only two spades, the opponents decided again to call the director!
The conclusion of the director was the same as on the previous hand.
Because partner had six spades on this hand, nothing much mattered as all roads lead to 4♠.
| Dealer: 23-S
Vul: All |
North
♠ 632 ♥ AJ942 ♦ K7 ♣ 973 |
|
| West
♠ Q5 ♥ KT ♦ JT52 ♣ KT865 |
|
East
♠ KJT874 ♥ Q8 ♦ AQ64 ♣ A |
| South
♠ A9 ♥ 7653 ♦ 983 ♣ QJ42 |
Truly, I would not have objected to the opponents asking me, upon viewing dummy, if we had any special agreements on these two auctions. But calling the director seems to me to evidence the litigious side of so many nowadays. (Oh, in case any reader thinks my position is prejudiced, I was educated as a lawyer … and I am one who believes strongly in acting within the rules of the contest.)
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Unless there was a BIT involved your bids are fine. I like 3C on hand #1 as a spade lead is less likely to be damaging.
Players need to learn that the ‘book’ bids are guidelines, and not meant to be followed blindly. It is not always an easy concept to grasp. Undiscussed variances from these guidelines are made at the players risk. Judgment is still a legal tactic at bridge (thankfully).
HBJ : It seems to me that these litigious opponents would be at it all the time sould their opponents had chosen to make legitimate (a) lead inhibiting bids ( b) temporising bids, (c) improvising bids (d) relay or holding bids and (e) inventive bids.
Moreover part of the game involves the use of deceptive bids , and if these director calling “losers” can’t cope with the real exquisite beauty of the game, they should stick to playing kitchen bridge against wooden tops.
To my way of thinking it is a form of cheating, when players try to resurrect a good score ( with help from the TD ) from a bad one, which was purely down to their inability to grasp what might be going on in the bidding. In any case they can both ask questions at the relevant time after the auction is over, if the oppo’s bidding doesn’t quite make sense.
My seldom playing wife often misbids. She remembers the explanation of our strong club opener and that’s all.
She responded 2 clubs to a 1 diamond opener and I declared 3NT down 1 when dummy hit with 5-5 in the majors. They asked before leading if pard had a major and I said no, but my bidding might have two 4 card majors. Director call even though they had a top when 4 of either major makes.
Next board I made a sloppy claim and another director call. I said I can be forced to play sloppy but as I did say I was playing the ace of diamonds and RHO had none, so I can legitimately hook for the jack. The director asked them to stop calling him.
Maybe there should be frivolous director call sanctions a sectionals and regionals, Not just for appeals at NABCs. It might be better if miscreants had to explain why their penalty from the director is wrong rather than make innocent parties lose their dinner/drinking time.
I’ll add one story — about 3 years ago at a Nationals, partner opened 1H, I made a 3H LR and she went on to 4H. When dummy hit my RHO called the director to demand why he had not been alerted that dummy would have 4 trumps. The director looked at our card, and basically laughed at him when he saw that we open 4-card heart suits. Meanwhile this guy continued to be abusive to us, and was still swearing at me when I went over to compare scores after the (Swiss) match.
This is in large part why I don’t play competitive bridge any more. Every time I play a session, I run into this garbage, and I simply don’t enjoy it. I do like the idea of assessing penalties for a frivolous Director call.
All of these director calls discussed here seem ridiculous except for the first one, though it sounds like the opponents may have had the wrong attitude about it even there.
As you explain it, your 3C bid is psychic, intended as lead inhibiting. The opponents aren’t entitled to redress, but I think if they want it recorded, so be it. If your 3C bid on this auction is lead inhibiting often enough that partner knows about it, perhaps partner should be alerting it as “club values or lead inhibiting.”
Of course, it really is “just bridge,” so maybe there’s no need to alert. Also, maybe if your partner starts alerting it as that, you’ll start bidding it as reverse lead inhibiting more often.
Incredible? No, I’m not really surprised, because there are some pretty clueless opponents out there. 3C is surely totally normal there – it’s forcing bid, what else? Certainly other bids are possible but your choice was perfectly reasonable.
3S is a bit of a stretch to me, but again you’re perfectly within your rights to bid that if that’s how you see the hand.