[ahydra]

This occurred yesterday in a county swiss teams. Dummy had ♠K94 (I think this was no-trumps). Partner (declarer's RHO) led the ♠6, declarer followed with the 5, I followed with the 2. Declarer called "small" and as dummy started to pick up the 4, after around 2 seconds from the original "small" call, declarer corrected herself "no, win, bigger!".

The contract would go down if dummy had followed small. At the table we felt kind enough to let this slide (my partner joked "the 9 is still fairly small"), but if we'd called you over as TD, would you allow the change?

While we're at it, for some reason this declarer's partner seems to act rather rudely towards me at the table on occasions. Some examples:

• partner defended a contract very accurately, but then I screwed up on the last few tricks, letting it through. After the hand we were discussing it and I said "good defence". This lady replied with "You are joking, I hope!" (I'd say that definitely violates L74A2!)
  
• her partner opened 1♦, they eventually had some checkback auction to 3NT. I asked for an explanation of the auction and was told that opener had shown a 4-card spade suit.
  
  Me: "but I thought you said you play 4-card majors?" (standard in England is to open 1S with 4 spades and 4 diamonds, if not in NT range)
  Her: "yes, we do; don't argue with our system"
  Me: "ah - so if you're balanced..."
  Her: (interrupting) "we bid our 4 card suits up the line, yes"
  Me: "OK, thanks"
  Her: "She might also have 5 diamonds, but I shouldn't be giving you clues, you can work it out for yourself"

Any advice on dealing with this? At the moment I'm just ignoring it but I really do wish she'd either tell me what her problem is, or (better) act rather more courteously, so that I don't get worried about getting into an argument every time I'm drawn to play against her.

ahydra

[Endymion77]

> but if we'd called you over as TD, would you allow the change?

It's fairly obvious what declarer's intention was, so I think I would allow the change. It's a miscommunication issue, not a change of mind.

> This lady replied with "You are joking, I hope!"

It's technically a violation but I wouldn't take this to heart, it's not such a big deal. If you call the director, they would get a warning though.

> Her: "She might also have 5 diamonds, but I shouldn't be giving you clues, you can work it out for yourself"

I would definitely call the director here and ask him to advise them to explain their agreements in full and refrain from other remarks.

[RMB1]

Endymion77, on 2013-September-30, 04:07, said:

> but if we'd called you over as TD, would you allow the change?

It's fairly obvious what declarer's intention was, so I think I would allow the change. It's a miscommunication issue, not a change of mind.

I think declarer's intention was to win the trick. But I am not convinced declarer's intention was to win in dummy. At the point declarer called for a card from dummy, she may have thought the card she had played from hand was winning the trick.

[gordontd]

ahydra, on 2013-September-30, 03:49, said:

(standard in England is to open 1S with 4 spades and 4 diamonds, if not in NT range)

Not so, in my experience. Both methods are played.

[gnasher]

gordontd, on 2013-September-30, 05:56, said:

Not so, in my experience. Both methods are played.

Yes. Or some people play that you can open either.

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2013-September-30, 05:56, said:

Not so, in my experience. Both methods are played.

Indeed, we always open the minor, if you play a weak NT and wide range 1N rebid (so it doesn't get passed that often), it's fairly common to open the minor.

[Zelandakh]

I can get pretty testy when opps are not playing cricket at the table. Especially when they attack my partner. It is sometimes better if your partner takes the initiative when the actions are directed at you. Some examples:

ahydra, on 2013-September-30, 03:49, said:

This occurred yesterday in a county swiss teams. Dummy had ♠K94 (I think this was no-trumps). Partner (declarer's RHO) led the ♠6, declarer followed with the 5, I followed with the 2. Declarer called "small" and as dummy started to pick up the 4, after around 2 seconds from the original "small" call, declarer corrected herself "no, win, bigger!".

(from either) "Well normally I would let this go, but seeing as you have been so unfriendly I am going to ask for a ruling today."

ahydra, on 2013-September-30, 03:49, said:

[*]partner defended a contract very accurately, but then I screwed up on the last few tricks, letting it through. After the hand we were discussing it and I said "good defence". This lady replied with "You are joking, I hope!" (I'd say that definitely violates L74A2!)

(from you) "No, my partner defended this hand extremely well."
(from partner) "Not that it would be your place to criticise either us regardless."

ahydra, on 2013-September-30, 03:49, said:

her partner opened 1♦, they eventually had some checkback auction to 3NT. I asked for an explanation of the auction and was told that opener had shown a 4-card spade suit.

Me: "but I thought you said you play 4-card majors?" (standard in England is to open 1S with 4 spades and 4 diamonds, if not in NT range)
Her: "yes, we do; don't argue with our system"

(from either) "We won't argue with your system if you explain it to us clearly in a way we can both understand."

ahydra, on 2013-September-30, 03:49, said:

Her: "She might also have 5 diamonds, but I shouldn't be giving you clues, you can work it out for yourself"

(from partner) "My partner asked for an explanation of the auction. We expect to hear everything so it is not necessary to give clues. So did your 1NT rebid (or whatever) promise a balanced hand or not?" "Are 6 diamonds also possible?" "What about a singleton?" "You know, if you told us all the information in the first place it would not be necessary to play 20 questions like this. Now, is there any other relevant information?"

The above would be typical from me if my partner was attacked. But you could also just go with "We are clearly not as expert as you, so could you please explain the complete auction in every detail."

ahydra, on 2013-September-30, 03:49, said:

Any advice on dealing with this? At the moment I'm just ignoring it but I really do wish she'd either tell me what her problem is, or (better) act rather more courteously, so that I don't get worried about getting into an argument every time I'm drawn to play against her.

Either you or your partner is going to have to be direct about it. There are lots of players around who love to do this, either because it makes them feel like Lord of the Table or, more commonly, because they realise it gives them an edge. And if her antics have you on edge then she is getting an advantage from it. Never allow anyone to bully you at the table. And even more importantly, never allow anyone to come between you and your partner. If you want to give your partner a compliment then that is your right. If someone wants to criticise your partner then tell them where to go. And the same from your partner when you are the target.


And finally, while many other systems are played, the Standard system in England (at least outside of London) is still majors first with 4432 hands. That is a part of both the EBU Modern Acol and Bridge Magazine systems. If the auction had been, for example, 1♦ - 1♥; 1NT - 2♣; 2♠ - 3NT, how difficult would it be to explain that Opener had shown a balanced or semi-balanced hand with 4 spades, 2 hearts and 4-5 diamonds and 15-17 hcp and that Responder has shown enough for game opposite that and implied 5 hearts? Or whatever the actual agreement are. If the description offered was only that 4 spades had been shown then this is hardly a complete explanation of the auction. Of course a better follow-up question would have been "and anything else" or some-such but you can hardly blame the OP when it was the opps that chose not to give a complete explanation to a question asked in the recommended format in the first place. All that does is encourage a lack of full disclosure, which should not really be tolerated at county level imho.

[jules101]

Zelandakh, on 2013-September-30, 19:27, said:

And finally, while many other systems are played, the Standard system in England (at least outside of London) is still majors first with 4432 hands. That is a part of both the EBU Modern Acol and Bridge Magazine systems. If the auction had been, for example, 1♦ - 1♥; 1NT - 2♣; 2♠ - 3NT, how difficult would it be to explain that Opener had shown a balanced or semi-balanced hand with 4 spades, 2 hearts and 4-5 diamonds and 15-17 hcp and that Responder has shown enough for game opposite that and implied 5 hearts? Or whatever the actual agreement are. If the description offered was only that 4 spades had been shown then this is hardly a complete explanation of the auction. Of course a better follow-up question would have been "and anything else" or some-such but you can hardly blame the OP when it was the opps that chose not to give a complete explanation to a question asked in the recommended format in the first place. All that does is encourage a lack of full disclosure, which should not really be tolerated at county level imho.

Attended my first Brighton congress this year, and after oppo auctions started

1m - 1M
1N

1!C - 1!D
1N

1!H - 1!S
1N

etc

... we asked many opps whether

"if your partner (opener) has 4m and 4M and intends to rebid 1N then do they open the major or the minor?" (ie are they major or minor suit based).


In nearly every case the oppo said EITHER

that they'd never discussed this, OR

"it depends..." (it depends what we feel like, it depends on the quality of the suit, and/or it depends whether there is an R in the month presumably).


We were somewhat astonished that so many regular partnerships had really not discussed, but .......

[Zelandakh]

Oh for club level players it does not surprise me at all. I get similar answers even from 5 card major players regularly on, for example, whether they rebid a major with a balanced hand after a 1m opening. Also, many regular partnerships do really know what their partner does in these situations and either do not want to declare it or fear that they might be wrong. Mostly though, they have not thought about but "just know".

There are pairs of this type in almost every club, often having played together for 30 years and finishing in the middle of the pack on club nights. The level of the disclosure bar for these pairs is considerably lower than that for county level imo. Naturally it would also be different if they were playing in the top echelons of the Congress but I am guessing that is not the case here.

Note also that even where there is an absolutely definite rule on how to open 4432 hands, it is not always easy for some players to explain. In one of my local clubs, they teach to open the major with some shapes and the minor with others within an Acol framework. Multiple players have made attempts to explain this to me (at least one of whom plays in the equivalent of county standard) but I am still none the wiser on what the actual conditions are, nor for the bits I did grasp what the possible benefits might be. And I am probably above average in understanding how an Acol bidding system works. I would think it was impossible for a player coming from, say, Berlin to get a satisfactory answer.

[helene_t]

jules101, on 2013-October-01, 05:20, said:

[...]"if your partner (opener) has 4m and 4M and intends to rebid 1N then do they open the major or the minor?" (ie are they major or minor suit based).

In nearly every case the oppo said EITHER

that they'd never discussed this, OR

"it depends..." [....]

We were somewhat astonished that so many regular partnerships had really not discussed, but .......

Yes, that surprised me also when I moved to England because in the Netherlands even novices would have a clear answer to the question.

Once I got the very annoyed answer from the husband that "of course we open the major, like everybody does". His wife was surprised as she would always open the minor.

[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2013-October-01, 06:38, said:

Yes, that surprised me also when I moved to England because in the Netherlands even novices would have a clear answer to the question.

But for those that open 1 of the minor, could they give you a clear answer on whether a 1NT rebid denies 4 cards in a major that could have been bid at the one level? Or on whether a 1M rebid denied a balanced hand?

[nige1]

ahydra, on 2013-September-30, 03:49, said:

This occurred yesterday in a county swiss teams. Dummy had ♠K94 (I think this was no-trumps). Partner (declarer's RHO) led the ♠6, declarer followed with the 5, I followed with the 2. Declarer called "small" and as dummy started to pick up the 4, after around 2 seconds from the original "small" call, declarer corrected herself "no, win, bigger!". The contract would go down if dummy had followed small. At the table we felt kind enough to let this slide (my partner joked "the 9 is still fairly small"), but if we'd called you over as TD, would you allow the change?

IMO, there was an irregularity, attention was drawn to it and the players had a duty to call the director (Other posters disagree with that interpretation). Anyway, if all relevant facts are as given, then the director shouldn't allow the change.

[helene_t]

Zelandakh, on 2013-October-01, 08:33, said:

But for those that open 1 of the minor, could they give you a clear answer on whether a 1NT rebid denies 4 cards in a major that could have been bid at the one level?

Yes I think so.

Quote

Or on whether a 1M rebid denied a balanced hand?

Depends how you phrase the question. Almost everybody would know how their partner would bid with a [4234] hand but if you ask them what precise inference they can make from a particular bid they will often get it wrong. For example, even if they wouldn't make a reverse bid on a balanced hand themselves they might not be able to infer that partner has an unbalanced hand when he makes a reverse bid.

[VixTD]

helene_t, on 2013-October-01, 14:17, said:

Almost everybody would know how their partner would bid with a [4234] hand but if you ask them what precise inference they can make from a particular bid they will often get it wrong. ...

I play Acol in quite a few partnerships where one of any suit opened promises at least four cards. I try to get an agreement about which suit we open when 4-4 major-minor outside the no trump range, but even when I do my partners seem to lapse after a while into choosing one of the suits apparently at random, and don't seem to understand that it's important or why it's important. So my partners (three current and a former one spring to mind) don't know how they would bid these hands.

This is not unusual in England. The next time you're at a congress try asking a middling player how they decide which of two four-card suits they open and see how long it takes you to get them to understand what the question is, let alone how it could possibly be relevant.

[Vampyr]

Back to the OP: I think that "letting this go" is very poor*, and the idea that the director would allow a change of call is surely a joke.

* It cannot be a good idea to refrain from requesting a ruling if people are nice, and calling the director if they are nasty. If this became a common procedure, then director calls will cause ill will between the two sides, and the director will no longer be seen as someone whose role it is to sort out irregularities; he will be seen as Mommy, who will spank one pair if the other pair tattles.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-02, 08:06, said:

Back to the OP: I think that "letting this go" is very poor*, and the idea that the director would allow a change of call is surely a joke.

* It cannot be a good idea to refrain from requesting a ruling if people are nice, and calling the director if they are nasty. If this became a common procedure, then director calls will cause ill will between the two sides, and the director will no longer be seen as someone whose role it is to sort out irregularities; he will be seen as Mommy, who will spank one pair if the other pair tattles.

It has frequently occurred to me, listening to the tone with which many players call the director, that what they're really doing is calling for "Mo-om!" Couple that with some of them acting like two year olds when they don't get their way and, well, you get the picture.

[Trinidad]

Zelandakh, on 2013-October-01, 08:33, said:

But for those that open 1 of the minor, could they give you a clear answer on whether a 1NT rebid denies 4 cards in a major that could have been bid at the one level? Or on whether a 1M rebid denied a balanced hand?

If you phrase the question clear enough (after all we are dealing with novices here), the novices in the Netherlands will give you a clear answer. 98% will reply that a 1NT rebid will deny a 4 card major, 1% will reply that it denies a 4 card major worth bidding (they are slightly advanced novices) and 1% will reply that it doesn't deny a four card major (expert novices). Of those 1%, 0.9% will have alerted the 1NT rebid for exactly that reason.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

I am impressed that your novices are so disciplined with system Rik. In theory the same answers should be given in Germany (ignoring the Acolites) but my practical experience has been somewhat different.