Bridge Etiquette: Giving Partner Unauthorized Information By Asking The Wrong Questions

Last night I was in 3rd seat favorable vulnerability. Our auction goes P-P-1H-P-1S. At this point RHO says:

"Are you playing that system you were playing with that girl where you bid your weak suits first and then bid your strong suit later?"
"No, pretty much normal bridge today."

Guess what RHO's heart suit looked like. I raised to 2♠ and that ended the auction. What's funny is that I actually hand a canape hand that I decided to open in my GOOD 4 card heart suit instead of my 5 card club suit. While it is true that opening 1♥ on this hand type regularly would require a pre-alert (not an alert on the actual bid), this was a tactical deviation, not uncommon in 3rd seat, and our convention card does say we may open 4 card majors in 3rd and 4th seat, although that is meant for hands more like: ♠xxx, ♥AKJx, ♦Ax, ♣xxxx. Opening 4 card majors has always been in black on a convention card so it never requires an alert, just a pre-alert if it frequently has a longer side suit.

I have always been one to get annoyed with people easily, but some bridge things have started bothering me more lately, largely thanks to Sean. :( One of the most common times this happens is when people ask if a 2♦ opening showed diamonds but there are others, like asking whether a 1♥ opening showed hearts. It frequently gives away unauthorized information to your partner - that you have the suit they bid! Inexperienced players often don't realize this so I can usually answer their questions nicely and not think anything of it, but when a good player, or at least a player who should know better, does this, it is irritating.

On a related note, Friday, Meg opened 1NT and we had the auction: 1NT-(2♠)-3NT-P-P-P. 3NT was alerted and LHO asked before passing over 3NT:
"Are you playing Lebensohl?"
"Yes."
"Okay." Pass.

After the final pass, LHO asked: "Will you explain to my partner what Lebensohl is?"
Meg says "You can't ask for your partner."
"Well, then explain it to me."

If she had just started with "please explain" from the very beginning, there would have been no issue but once it became clear that she did not need a further explanation but only wanted it for her partner's benefit (so her partner wouldn't lead into Meg's AQ, maybe), it became unethical. I think Meg went ahead and reluctantly said that it showed game values without a spade stopper.

Appearances at bridge tournaments

Over the last 4 days at the Charleston regional, I received more compliments and complaints than ever at a bridge tournament. It feels really good for people to mention liking this blog when they see me at tournaments, and I rather liked the compliments about my attire as well.

Thursday and Sunday at the Charleston regional, I dressed up (dress pants, dress shoes and blazer) supposedly because I was trying particularly hard to be a good role model for the kids with whom I was playing. The real goal was teaching good bridge and how to be a good trustworthy partner. This includes not gloating, taking time to play hands, trusting partner and playing in such a way that partner can trust you, not bidding rashly, and not psyching, but I saw more psyches Friday and Saturday than I've seen in serious bridge in a long time (but none by Ricoh) and it was bothering me immensely by the end of Saturday. I can't say that this tournament was a big success personally, although today the A/X Swiss with Sean, Ricoh, and William did basically go well. By any standards, 73 VP on a 70 average in the flight A game with them is very good, including a fun win over the Granovetters.

Had we won anything Thursday or Friday, I would likely be winning the unit 114 1000-2500 mini-McKenney but it looks like I'll be a point or two short. Too bad I spent most of Friday and Saturday (New Years Eve and New Years Day) being irritated and grouchy. I'm inclined to blame it on being dressed "normally" those days (jeans, nice tshirt, GT wind breaker). So, next time you see me at a tournament don't be surprised to see me in a suit.

Clarity of Revoke Laws and Offender's Obligations

Since we are on the topic of ethics lately, here's another one. A few months ago I posted about the one and only time I revoked, http://bridgemaniacs.blogspot.com/2010/06/catching-revoke.html. For the few of you who read this but not bridgeblogging.com, I'd like to direct you to an article about the 1983 Bermuda Bowl in which Zia "got away with" a revoke while playing for Pakistan against Sweden. http://cam.bridgeblogging.com/?p=568#comments

Personally, I don't care what the actual rule book says. If a clear error (all 4 players agree the wrong score was awarded) can be corrected, it should be corrected. If I were the director, equity would be restored for the revoke in both my case and Zia's even if it is not quite consistent with the laws. There must be some clause in the bridge laws that says common sense and reasonable morality takes precedence over some silly rules about how much time can pass before changing a score or who can/should bring attention to a revoke. I guess there should technically be some limit, but during the same session or in the break between that session and the next is certainly acceptable - just don't go trying to change a score 3 days later when everyone has left.

I also disagree that a player is not obligated to "draw attention to an infraction by one's own side." This seems rather inconsistent with the law that a player must announce any failures to alert or wrong alerts at the end of an auction (if on is the declaring side). While it is the opponents' fault for not catching the revoke, I don't think they should be obligated to be the ones to point it out. Bridge is kind of like golf and tennis - gentleman's games (at least it should be) where people are expected to conduct themselves with class and play honestly and police themselves for the most part.

Pre-Alert: Canape, Variable 1C Openings

Last weekend, I sat at the bridge table with the Feagins 3 times - once as a kibitzer and twice as an opponent - and each time (over a mere 14 boards) they had a bidding misunderstanding. This is easily one of the top 3 or 4 pairs in Georgia and a pair that has been playing together longer than I have been alive, maybe even twice that long. So, bidding misunderstandings happen even for the best and most experienced partnerships. The one against us in the Sunday Swiss epitomizes one of the main difficulties of playing against a mulit-meaning 1C opening such as Polish or Swedish and some problems with the ACBL pre-alert system.

We got to the table and, per ACBL procedures, pre-alerted that we play canape. I also mentioned we play a variable 1C opening and they quickly agreed to treat it as natural. I normally don't mention the 1C opening in a pair game because it's not a pre-alertable and can take up a lot of time, but in an 8 board match, I generally try to mention it to them as a courtesy. A couple of boards into the round, Sean opened 1C, alerted and explained as balanced 12-14 or unbalanced 17+ or any 18+. Jack overcalled 1H, I passed, and Claudia bid 2C. What happened with the rest of the hand is unimportant. The point is that they didn't know whether 2C was natural or a cuebid showing heart support, even after agreeing before-hand that they would treat our 1C as natural. In my opinion, and the opinion of most people, you should play "imaginary cuebids" to show a good heart raise. Opener is very likely to have a weak balanced hand, and you definitely need constructive bidding available. There are several specialized defenses to multi-purpose 1C openings, but I don't think any of them are worth playing - just assume it's a "could be short" 1C and bid naturally.

ACBL laws and most directors I have asked clearly state that canape is pre-alertable but any system with 1C as a forcing opening is not pre-alertable, whether it is precision, polish, swedish, or some similar variant. Most good players know what methods they use over a big 1C opening, over a standard 1C opening, and over a "short" 1C opening, but I have found that most do not know what they do over a variable 1C opening even though such systems are fairly common worldwide. In Poland, 1C is a typically a balanced 12-14 or 15+ with long clubs or any 18+. In Sweden, it is a balanced 11-13 or any 17+. In the Asbury-Gannon Swedish Canape system, it is a balanced 12-14 or unbalanced 17+ or balanced 18+.

The purpose of pre-alerting is to allow the opponents to discuss how they will defend against a system or convention that is highly unusual. Canape is definitely unusual and the fact that we can frequently open the bidding and conceal a 5 card side suit is unexpected (which therefore could never be alerted in the bidding), but there's not really anything the opponents could have to discuss about their bidding. Bidding is still natural (opening 4 card majors is and never will be any sort of an alert). The canape rebid of a 5 card side suit is definitely alertable, but there's still nothing the opponents should do different from standard, at least in what their bids mean. A variable 1C opening seems to need a pre-alert more than canape, at least in the US where most players are unfamiliar with such systems. Without a pre-alert, the opponents will be caught off guard and frequently do not know whether to treat 1C as "could be short", natural, or big, opening up many potential cases of mis-information, bad alerts, failures to alert, and general confusion.

I sometimes want to tell people what our 1C opening is and then tell them that they need to decide how they are going to defend against it but that is very time consuming, especially when playing only 2 or 3 board rounds. And sometimes I think that when I alert one club and explain it I should suggest some defense or tell them they can discuss what they play over it at that time even thought neither of those are technically allowed. But it would eliminate the need for a director call for misinformation or having all of us at the table just unsure about whether he had a takeout double of 1C, or the majors, or a strong hand, or just clubs. In a way, though, the lack of an agreement probably keeps many people from entering the auction and gives us a slightly unfair advantage, even though I'm sure we are following the alert procedures properly. The fact that our 1C could be a flat 12 count probably keeps out some of the ragged nuisance overcalls and preempts that people often make against a strong club because you don't want to deceive partner who may well hold a very good hand if we have the weak NT variety.

Hesitation After a Gambling 3NT

There are some little old ladies who you will never be able to educate about hesitations and the fact that bidding after partner hesitates to clearly show values is unethical. This incident last night is also why bridge games should have non-playing directors. But in a fairly small club with games of normally 6-8 tables such as Warner Robins.

Last night, I picked up xx, xx, AKQJxxxx, x and opened 3NT, alerted and later explained, in 2nd seat both vul. I know this alert might require a little extra time for a beginner and this lady was probably only slightly past the novice stage, but she took close to 1 minute.. much too long. Partner passed and, whether you know the Gambling 3NT convention or not, based on the alert that I have a solid suit with no A or K outside the suit, common sense should tell you that my partner has a decent hand, else he would "correct" to 4 of my minor. Anyway, passed hand RHO chimed in with 4S. Her hand: xxxxx, AKxx, x, Jxx.

Now, a director should have been called after the tank pass over 3NT to protect our side from RHO making a borderline bid, which would likely be based on the fact that the hesitation indicates LHO has a good hand. But I was the only director at the club that night and my partner and I were probably the only 2 people that have any significant knowledge about hesitations and the ramifications thereof. Anyway, dummy wasn't as good as it should have been for the tank but did include 3 spades. Fortunately the contract went down 3 doubled against our non-making 3NT (we could lose 4 hearts and a spade if they lead them immediately).

Alert Procedure

This is Sean. Andre invited me to post on his blog whenever I have something I think is relevant, and after this last weekend of unsuccessful bridge I did take away some possible posts. After this weekend in Atlanta, I walked away with more gripes about our opponents than usual. We started the weekend with an argument with a good Atlanta pair who were extremely rude and refused to check the seating chart or explain that they asked the director for that particular seat - the directors had accidentally forgotten when placing the seating assignments so they reassigned us. From that point it might have been impossible for me to feel good about my opponents, but there were a lot of things that stuck with me more than usual.

Although I am a junior and may make some borderline tactical and psychic bids, I still view myself as a very ethical bridge player. During the Sunday Swiss my RHO picked up: ♠xxx ♥Qx ♦Qxxx ♣Txxx. I preempted a 9-12 2♠ in first seat R/w: 2♠-[X]-P-[2NT]*;P-[3NT]-X-?. 2NT was alerted as Lebensohl. 3NT should show a very strong hand: 22-25 Balanced ((too strong for 3NT over 2♠)). The only real options here in my mind are pass or a penalty redouble; I can’t imagine anyone pulling 3NT. At the table, however, 2NT was not alerted by LHO. This makes it pretty clear to pull to 4 of a minor which is what occurred at the table. I called the director after the bidding and she told us to call again if we feel we were harmed. We got 1100 against a possible 1400 in 3NT so we didn’t call the director because it wasn’t worth the time. I believe that the director should have been much harsher on this point, however. In my eyes it is a pretty clear violation of the rules and thus cheating. It is illegal to compensate for partner’s lack of an alert. This was clearly the least ethical thing I saw all weekend, but there were also some other minor irritations.

I feel strongly about people using proper procedure when it comes to alerts. If I alert my partner’s bid and you are my LHO then don’t ask what it could be and don’t expect a response. This might annoy many people who are trying to get the information, but it is very easy to give away information while asking. Since it isn’t your turn to bid it you can simply be asking to give partner information or ask for the benefit of partner which is illegal. I feel extremely strong about asking solely for the benefit of partner because of an incident in the Mini-Spingold in New Orleans. Also if you look at my convention card and then put it down and ask a question such as “do you play 2/1” or “so that was ____?” then I feel extremely torn at answering. Is it possible that you looked at my card and were unable to find the 2/1 box? I doubt it. You can only be asking because you don’t think partner has the sense to ask or look for themselves. However, I am a junior and any action that seems to be taken as offensive such as not answering this type of question becomes the fact that I am rude and inconsiderate.

The correct way to ask what an alert or bid is to ask “please explain” or “what is ____”. Almost any other way could accidentally be revealing information about your hand to partner. Take for instance the auction 1H-[P]-3♣*. Let’s say you ask “is that Bergen?” That implies that you know that your right hand opponent doesn’t have a club suit because you must have the suit. If you ask “is that a fit jump?” it implies just the opposite – you have club shortness. Simply ask what 3♣ is if you are thinking of entering the bidding. If you aren’t thinking about entering the bidding then wait for the auction to end and your partner to select his lead; you are entitled to the information, but you want to make sure you don’t give the opponents a chance to exchange any information they don’t deserve or know.

The worst of these scenarios may be when my partner makes a bid such as a natural weak 2♦ opener and my RHO thinks for a while and says “2♦ is natural?” I always want to respond “yes, but his diamond suit isn’t nearly as good as yours.” When asking questions in this fashion you are telling your partner that you have reason to believe that 2♦ can’t be natural such as a good diamond holding.

If the opponents do not alert an alertable bid then the director is going to be forced to bend over backwards to help your side. Had you been told that their 2♦ opener was Flannery or Mini-Roman and you would have bid then the director will adjust the score to make sure you were not harmed. Not asking will also give you the added benefit of the opponents having a misunderstanding and giving you a good result while you have no way to be harmed because the director will adjust the score in your favor had the information helped you. Asking in these situations goes from a net gain to the only help from asking is so help let your opponents “wake up” and to get yourself in trouble by incidentally giving partner information about your hand that will give the director a reason to rule against your side.

Alert procedure is very easy to follow and should never be misused. I feel very strongly about how alerts should be done and it is a major pet peeve of mine when someone doesn’t do it correctly. On different tone, I dislike all announcements – most of all a natural 1NT, but that is a relative side point.

-- Sean

Don't Gloat

Do you ever play against people that just really irritate you? Of course, we all have, whether it be for the place they keep their convention card, the fact that they don't know what a proper takeout double is, the way they turn the played boards, the way the place the cards on the table, their analysis of the hands, the fact that they criticize partner at every opportunity, the way they don't claim when they have all trumps and aces left, or simply the way the look at you. Most of those are just little pet peeves that aregenerally nothing to legitimately be concerned with but sometimes it can be down right rude.

Take, for example, a player who is in 2SX making an overtrick when the defense has no chance to set it. The player goes on and on during the hand and after about how it was cold and how his partner made a good bid and how they just got a top and that the opponent made a stupid double. Or maybe the player who was just defending 3HX and set it for 1400 but goes on for awhile about how they should have gotten it for 1700. Or maybe, a player psyched or semi-psyched a 1S overcall and got the opponents to a doomed 3NT instead of the makable 4S. After the hand, the pair praises each other for their "good bidding" and tells the opponents they should have bid 4S or how they got a top by screwing the opponents by making a bid or play that was onorthodox. Just accept your good score and move on. You can laugh about it and talk about how you "got 'em" after the round is over but while you're still at the table, spare them the embarrassment. Would you like it if your opponents shoved your bad boards in your face like that? No, you'd want them to keep quiet and move on.

This all qualifies as gloating. It is rude, and is something I have very little tolerance for unless everyone at the table is drinking. It is probably not as bad as the angry player who critiques his partner after every hand or gives unwanted lessons, especially bad lessons. It is just bad etiquette and very unsportsmanlike. It is also the reason there are many bridge players, particularly juniors, who I have lost respect for or refused to play with. You can be confident and show that you're a better bridge player without having to tell people about it all the time. Let your score do the talking. If you beat 'em by 50 imps while being pleasant the whole time, they're realize that you're good, and they'll respect you more than if you beat em by 30 (dropping 20 imps by doing silly crap and not getting away with it) but make sure they realize when you've stolen a good board from them.

Full Disclosure of Agreements When You Know Partner Has Forgotten?

This past weekend, I came across two bridge laws that may need some change. This first one I guess is more of an ethical question than a bridge law question. I mean, the law that ace asking bids should be announced at the end of the auction, especially if 4NT was not the asking bid, makes sense, but the way it is used sometimes seems unethical. Our opponents had the uncontested auction: 1S-2C-2H-4C-4H-6C-P. Before I lead, the declarer announces that 4C asks for specific aces and 4H shows the ace of hearts but not the ace of diamonds. The play and defense to the hand was irrelevant. He had 12 tricks no matter what, but dummy had QJxxx of hearts and declarer had the ace!

Was it unethical for him to volunteer that information, knowing his partner had not bid correctly or not follwed the agreement, or perhaps the declarer thought they had that agreement but they did not. It's hard to tell whether this is the actual partnership agreement because it's not something that's normally on the cc somewhere and most people don't carry around detailed system notes. You're only supposed to announce or alert or announce failures to alert when you are sure you and your partner have an agreement about what it means, otherwise you say nothing. Anyway, assuming that is their actual agreement, should he say anything at all or should he state their agreement with a little caveat that his partner may have forgotten, or a caveat that maybe he forgot? I'm not sure, and the directors and other top players had very mixed views on this. I know he is well within the ACBL laws to announce the ace-asking bid. In fact, I kind of applaud him for trying to fully disclose their agreements, but in this situation I tend to think nothing should have been said at any point as any explanation given in this situation is likely more misleading than saying nothing or it's giving away too much information about declarer's hand. Fortunately, nothing we did on defense made any difference.

My other little gripe is about the revoke laws. We were defending 5DX and had taken two tricks already and partner still had the boss trump but he ruffed in too early he still had 1 club in hand when he trumped a club. I think any honest player would concede down 1 regardless of what the law is. He doesn't deserve to make 5 with 3 top losers after we our two not big trump winners right away. And isn't the main point of the revoke laws to restore equity, giving the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt and not so much to punish the revoker? Regardless, I think the rule should be changed to disallow someone to lose the top trump. You should not be able to make 7 off the A of trumps just because of a revoke. In this hand, making 4 would be the most that could ever be made, even with revoke trick penaltied. It is kind of similar to the rule that you can't revoke at trick 12. Yes, a player pulled the wrong card or had a card hidden or was thinking ahead, but when there is no line of normal play that could allow declarer to take all the tricks, a revoke should not allow that to happen.

Bridge Etiquette - Asking About Opponents' Bids

So, this weekend at the D7 GNT Flight A qualifying was not a very memorable experience. One round, however, in the sectional Swiss that we qualified for by placing 8th in the 10 team round robins Saturday, was rather humorous. And it's a good lesson in how not to act at the bridge table. The pair at first seemed to be reasonably experienced.

On board 2, LHO looks at our convention card for about 30 seconds, puts it back where I had it, and asks "Do you play 2/1?" "It's at the top of the damn card that you were just looking at." No, don't respond like that either (a simple yes sufficed).

Third board, white vs. red, it's 2 passed to me and I open a weak 2♥ on a 2-6-3-2 12 count. They somewhat rationally bid to 4♠ and go down 2.  Had I opened 1♥ they may have done 1 trick better and may have stayed out of game. Actually our teammates were making 3♥ our way so it was a 2 imp gain. Anyway, LHO was visibly upset that I had a little more than anyone else at the table expected me to have. But of course, our card is marked very light 3rd seat and very light preempts so this bid is clearly within range.

Fourth board, I open 1♣ , LHO passes, partner bids 1♥, RHO passes, I bid 2♥, LHO asks if 1♣ was natural (yes), partner bids 4♥, all pass. Not surprisingly, LHO has 6 clubs and RHO dutifully leads a ♣. Nothing really mattered on this hand and it was a push and we didn't comment on the unauthorized information given to RHO.

Next board, LHO opens 1♥, two passes, and I balance with 2♣. Partner bids 3NT and LHO jumps in his seat and noticeably shakes his head. RHO dutifully leads not a heart from Kx. Again the lead didn't make a difference and he made 5 for a push and no comment was made about the UI. Yes, on this auction, my partner tends to have something like a trap pass (with very good hearts) or a takeout double of 1♣ (and therefore probably 4 hearts) so a heart lead is often not right in this situation, but LHO's body language conveyed his bad heart suit quite clearly.

Last board of the set, LHO opens 1♦, partner doubles, RHO passes, I bid 1♠, LHO asks if the X was takeout. He competes to 3♦ and I compete to 3♠ , making. I guess there's not really any unauthorized information given by asking if it's a takeout double, it is just odd. I dunno.

More Hesitation Problems

You hold: void, KQ8542, J3, AT972. None vul, you open 1H. The auction continues 1S-2H-2S; 4H-4S-X-P to you? I think so. It's close but it sounds like 4S will be making. I have less defense than partner is expecting (only 10hcp, extra heart and club length) so unless partner has a really good trump stack, which also seems unlikely, 4S will be making. I mean, he only raised to 2H so he couldn't have too much. Double by partner should be based on spade honors and a clear interest in defending because with a typical hand with nothing in spades, he could pass and it would be forcing. We've bid game, presumably to make so we aren't going to let the opponents play 4S undoubled.

If partner takes 25 seconds to double, does that change things? Yeah, sure. It makes bidding on look more attractive. The slow double in this case clearly indicated that partner is unsure of the double, probably based on something like 4 spades to the QT instead of 4 to the KQT which would be an easy double. No director was called on the hesitation and my opponents at the time would probably have been clueless as to the many inferences and unauthorized information I could have obtained from partner's hesitation. And I did not bid 5H even though I knew well that it must be the winning call in this case. Partner's hand: JT9x, AJxx, Txx, QJ Result: 4SX made while at the other table 5H was set 1 trick.

Ethical Drury Dilemma

Here is another hand from the Reno tournament that posed a potential ethical problem. This one actually came up immediately after I played 2 spades in our 2-2 fit, not that that is really relevant. It's just a bit ironic. I picked up KJTxx, Ax, Kx, xxxx and it's pass-pass to me so I open 1S. Partner bids 2D, which I properly alert as a limit raise with 4 spades. I duly bid 2S showing no interest in game. The ethical dilemma for me would be what to do if partner then bid 3C. Am I obliged to go back to spades or is it reasonable and ethical to assume partner forgot drury and just pass? I am thinking I would be permitted to pass and assume partner forot drury if that's what I choose to believe.

I am never one to believe that my partner has forgotten a convention but what would 3C mean here if 2D was Drury? I've already said I don't have a real opener so you're not supposed to bid again. That's part of the convention - it allows us to open really weak hands in 3rd seat and still not get too high when responder has a maximum pass with 4 trumps (a hand that normally would force to at least 3 but we can confidently stop in two). So maybe in these circumstances, when his bid does not exist if had been following our conventional agreements, I might believe that partner has forgotten our convention and I think that is totally ethical.

The real ethical dilemma might be for partner who held: void, xxx, AQTxx, ATxxx. Clearly he forgot that 2D was Drury. He is not allowed to be "woken up" by my alert so he is required to bid as though he didn't hear the alert. Does this mean he should bid 3C or is passing 2S now an acceptable and ethical call? Without an alert, passing 2S is a reasonable action - it's a misfit, if we bid again we may just get into more trouble so let's just keep it low and hope partner has a really good suit. With the alert, 2S looks like a less attractive spot to play because opener is not showing any extra spade length that might have been shown with a normal 2S bid. So, does the unauthorized information that responder has (that partner is expecting 4 card spade support instead of a diamond suit) prohibit him from bidding 3C or require him to bid 3C? Amongst people who do not play Drury, I expect many will bid 3C but some will pass so both are logical alternatives. I'm not sure what the UI suggests here. On one hand, it suggests biddind 3C because the hand will play better in a minor because opener does not have 6 spades that were supposedly "promised" from responder's unbiased point of view. On the other hand, it suggests passing to get out before getting into more trouble.

At the table, the director was never called and I played 2S down 2. This would be a difficult one to rule on but I think if I was the director called to this one, I would just let the result stand.

What does a Hesitation Suggest

I was involved in more director calls about hesitations last week than I think I ever have been. I was never the hesitator. According to the director's handbook, there should only be an adjusted score due to a hesitation when: 1) a call was made with undue hesitation (typically more than 10 seconds), 2) could the innocent side have suffered damage? 3) were there logical alternatives to the call chosen by hesitator's partner, AND 4) could the hesitation demonstrably suggest the call chosen would be more successful than the logical alternatives?

I seem to have not brought back hand records but in one case, my LHO held: x, AKQxxx, Kx, AQxx at unfavorable vulnerability. I opened 3S, he bid 4H, partner bid 4S, long hesitation-pass by RHO, and then this guy bids 5H. I think the hesitation certainly suggests that he has values. Is pass a logical alternative in this case? If so, he should be required to pass. I would say pass is a logical alternative, despite the huge hand. 4S could easily be making 5 on this auction (sans hesitation) with the DK and CQ finessable and bidding again opposite an partner with virtually nothing could garner -800 or -1100. Anyway, the director ruled that pass was not a logical alternative and the hesitation did not suggest 5H instead of double or 5C. Eh. They made 5 and we got a really bad score. But then again, partner should have bid 5S with 4 spades and a stiff and only the A of diamonds for defense.

One or two other hesitation calls turned out to be nothing and then this one in the final session of the Red Ribbons, which was possibly the most miserable session of bridge followed by the most miserable night I've had in a long long time. I held approximately xxxxxx, xx, Qxx, xx. None vul., partner opens a strong NT, RHO bids 2NT, I pass, LHO bids 3C, partner checks the CC finding a slew of other information about their defense against NT openings but no information about the 2NT bid, then asks and is told it shows the minors. For some reason, she then takes another 15 seconds to pass. What could the NT opener have to think about in this situation? Bidding a 5 card major, doubling (which I guess would be penalty), or just general confusion? Anyway, director is called on the hesitation and when 3C gets back to me, I bid 3S anyway. I think it is a normal action. Maybe if we were vulnerable this wouldn't be a good bid but white, it seems normal to compete to 3S. However, I wouldn't argue much about pass being a logical alternative. I did argue that the hesitation suggested bidding 3S would be better than the logical alternative of pass. If anything, I think the hesitation might suggest good clubs and therefore indicate that bidding again would not be better than passing. The director said that it doesn't matter what the hesitation suggests as long as it could suggest something, so he supposedly polled 3 peers (yeah, nice sample size), two of whom passed and 1 bid 3S. Therefore he decided both are logical alternatives that could have been suggested by the hesitation and the result we get should be the worse of the two. So, he adjusted it from 3S down 1 to 3C making 5, which was still a good score because they were cold for 5H, but I don't like the ruling.

Your thoughts, please?

Ethical Blackwood bidding

... several times in a row. Going into the 5th round of the round robin yesterday, we had 43 on a 40 average and seemed to be playign a competent pair. On the first 3 hands, they stopped in 4D making exactly and bid 2 making minor suit games, only one of which did 3NT have a chance. On the 4th board, they have the uncontested auction: 1H-3H-4NT-5D-6H. Seems fairly straighforward. No major breaks in tempo. Partner asks about the bidding. 3H was a limit raise and 5D, after about a 30 second hesitation, was 0 or 3 keycards. Partner leads a spade from 4 small and I play the queen, taken with the ace. Declarer draws trumps and leads the king of diamonds, with QJTx showing in dummy, along with Kx of clubs and a few small spades. So, she takes the A and leads another spade. I didn't have a chance to make an encouraging signal for clubs, so, from my partner's point of view, logically, the only way we're beating this hand is if I had started with KQ of spades, still an unlikely holding. And I wind up going to bed with my ace of clubs.

I should have called the director. I know there is nothing the director can do about the declarer being an idiot and bidding a slam knowing he is off 2 cashing aces or about him forgetting his partnership agreement. In this case, I am much more likely to believe it is the ladder. If I were playing against a novice, I could/should shrug it off and think, well, he didn't know any better. I can accept losing 11 imps like that once in awhile.

The guy wouldn't respond when I asked about what he was thinking or why he gave misinformation. He never looked at his card during or immediately after the auction so he wasn't reminded by that. I actually didn't look at the card either. So, my problem with this is that he seems to have bid thinking that 5D showed 1 or 4 keycards because no reasonable bridge player (which I assumed he was) would have gone on to slam with only 3 of the 5 keycards. And I know he isn't obliged to tell us that he forgot their agreement, but is it ethical or proper to bid the hand one way and then after the bidding remember what your actual agreement is and tell the opponents that actual agreement? Personally, I think he should have just said "I'm not sure whether we are playing 0314 or 1430 blackwood but you may check our convention card." There is no guarantee we would have found the defense to beat 6H if we are not convinced that declarer holds 4 keycards, but we certainly would have a better chance.

On the other hand, at the end of such an auction the guy should be able to tell what 5D is immediately without pause for thought. I mean, he was just thinking about this 15 seconds ago and now he needs another 30 seconds to think before telling us. That seems fishy. Perhaps at that point we should have called the director. If there are eny experienced directors reading this, I'd like your opinion.