[kenrexford]

So, in Gatlinburg, at the recent Regional, my partner and I had a weird occurrence probably never experienced before and (hopefully) never likely to be repeated by anyone. We had three bids of 4S where 4S was RKCB for a different suit each time and yet was passed all three times to end up in the right contract.

The first was 1S-P-2H-P-3H-P-4S. We had a strict agreement that 3H sets hearts as trumps, period. 4S, therefore, was Exclusion RKCB, excluding spades (HEARTS as trumps). It was early, and partner seemed more likely to be asleep than awake, so I passed. Partner had bid 2H on a four-peice suit (?!?!?), and 4S was the right contract.

On the second, CLUBS was the agreed suit. I opened 1C-P-1H-2D-X. This double was support. Pass, then partner bid 3C. I cuebid 3D, and he bid 3S. I now bid 4S, clearly the "out of focus major" and RKCB for CLUBS. Partner had bid 3C with 4423 pattern (again, ?!?!?), so 4S was again the right contract. Partner misunderstood the 4S, of course (he does this), and passed.

The third featured 4S as RKCB for DIAMONDS, of course. Partner opened 1C, opponents silent throughout. I responded 1S, partner reversed then to 2D. As 2S or 2NT would be the partnership weak call, I bid 2H to see where we were going, holding AJxxxx-x-AQxxx-Q. When partner bid 3H, I thought a long while about this. Normally, we solved the "which minor" problem with 4H as RKCB for clubs and 4S as RKCB for diamonds. I feared that 3C or 3D might be taken as agreement with hearts. 4S, however, seemed clear as RKCB for diamonds. So, there I went. Strangely, but expectedly, Deep Finesse claims that 6D is down one, but that 4S makes (I did), despite an encouraging answer (if given). Notably, I could not resist this third chance, took it, and was rewarded by a hat trick.

[Walddk]

kenrexford, on Apr 24 2006, 03:59 AM, said:

Notably, I could not resist this third chance, took it, and was rewarded by a hat trick.

The term hat-trick was originally used in cricket, and was connected with the custom of giving a hat or cap to a bowler who achieved the feat of taking three wickets in a row (three consecutive balls).

It may be connected with the concept of giving someone their "cap", i.e. acknowledging them as a regular member of a representative team.

Another school of thought mentions that a bowler was challenged if he could take three in three. Hats were passed around to collect the odds. The bowler succeeded and collected the large amount of cash. Thus the term hat-trick could also have been derived from this event.

[inquiry]

Stop playing 4♠ as RKBC... you guys clearly are not up to it.

[jdonn]

inquiry, on Apr 24 2006, 09:51 AM, said:

Stop playing 4♠ as RKBC... you guys clearly are not up to it.

Agree. You should also be barred from using the word "clearly" so much. The only thing that is really clear here is that whenever you think something is clear, it turns out to be anything but.

First hand
Exclusion in partner's suit, on responder's second bid! That is ridiculous, but anyway why have an agreement that is so unlikely to be remembered that you play partner to have forgotten it whenever it comes up?

Third hand
Why would 4♠ be keycard for diamonds (seemed clear?!?), at what point exactly were diamonds agreed? 2♥ could be anything, in fact why not just bid 3♦ forcing over 2♦. If 4♠ has to be keycard for anything then why not hearts, opener is maybe 1345 and responder could be 5-5 in the majors. On second thought, I shouldn't be giving you more ideas...

[joshs]

I usually play that both players first bid suit is NEVER rkc except when a second suit was strongly raised (a splinter or something else that shows 4 card support and slam interest). For instance in 1S-2H-4C, kickback applies, but it applies in few other sequences that start 1S-2H.

In my more practiced partnerships we have more detailed agreements about when a trump suit was firmly set. As an example,
I have never played that 1S-2H-3H sets trumps. I usually play that hearts are trumps unless the next bid is 3S or 4S, in which case spades is trumps. Responder can have 5H and 4S and want to show his 2/1 suit before agreeing spades. 1S-2H-3H-4S shows something like AQxx AQxxx xx xx for me.

And so on.

But it was a funny story!

[Cascade]

kenrexford, on Apr 24 2006, 02:59 PM, said:

The first was 1S-P-2H-P-3H-P-4S. We had a strict agreement that 3H sets hearts as trumps, period. 4S, therefore, was Exclusion RKCB, excluding spades (HEARTS as trumps). It was early, and partner seemed more likely to be asleep than awake, so I passed. Partner had bid 2H on a four-peice suit (?!?!?), and 4S was the right contract.

I am not sure that you are entitled to base you pass on the fact that partner "seemed more likely to be asleep than awake".

"Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law." Law 16

4♠ = RKCB when partner seems awake and Natural when partner seems asleep doesn't seem to be a proper agreement (even if implicit) to me.

[Walddk]

Cascade, on Apr 24 2006, 07:54 PM, said:

I am not sure that you are entitled to base you pass on the fact that partner "seemed more likely to be asleep than awake".

Wayne put "not" in the wrong place in that sentence, perhaps intentionally.

I am sure that you are not entitled to base your pass on the fact that partner "seemed more likely to be asleep than awake". Wayne gave a clearcut reference: Law 16.

Roland

[jdonn]

Walddk, on Apr 24 2006, 02:05 PM, said:

Cascade, on Apr 24 2006, 07:54 PM, said:

I am not sure that you are entitled to base you pass on the fact that partner "seemed more likely to be asleep than awake".

Wayne put "not" in the wrong place in that sentence, perhaps intentionally.

I am sure that you are not entitled to base your pass on the fact that partner "seemed more likely to be asleep than awake". Wayne gave a clearcut reference: Law 16.

Roland

I think it depends what the original poster meant, which isn't clear to me even after rereading. When Wayne quoted him, he removed the first part of the sentence which may have been modifying the quoted portion.

"It was early, and partner seemed more likely to be asleep than awake"

If he meant "I looked over at partner and he appeared very sleepy" then you are right of course.

But if he meant "BECAUSE it was early (but not because of any look or mannerism I gathered from partner during this auction), I presumed partner might be sleepy, since in general people are sleepy early in the morning" then I see nothing illegal.

I believe that is why law 16 says "may be" an infraction of the laws, instead of "is" an infraction. Otherwise any number of reasons people commonly have for their bids and plays would be illegal, such as

- Making a play because a certain opponent is a beginner, or an expert, or a client, or old, or young, or Israeli/Italian/Dutch/American/whatever.
- Making a play because you presume the woman opponent is more likely to mess up than the male opponent (I would never dare assume such a thing )
- Having any sort of random algorithm for two-way finesses, like Barry Crane did regarding majors and minors, or for when you play the queen or jack from QJ doubleton.

I have a friend who bases his Q/J play on the second hand on his watch, Q for even seconds, J for odd seconds. Is this illegal since it is extraneous information not based on any calls, plays, or opponents' mannerisms?

[MickyB]

Agreed, Josh, it is hard to know what it was based on.

Are you allowed to base your calls on how partner looked during the previous auction?

[han]

Yes, I agree with that too, it is a messy situation. Of course, this situation can easily be avoided by playing conventions that you are able to remember in the heat of battle, which brings us back to Inquiry's post.

[kenrexford]

Suppose your partner, an ACBL Gold Life Master, makes the following interesting actions at the table:

He bids Stayman, then 2S after your 2D, and thinks this shows four spades and invitational, not 5S/4H.

When you bid a spade grand at MP opposite his shown Qxx-xxx-AKxxx-xx and he actually holds Q10x-Axx-AKQxx-Jx, he does not bid 7NT.

He responds to 1S by bidding 2H with four of them, and does not realize the problem.

Seeing this, do you:

(a) decide that he is tired?
( adjust your thinking?
© take inference?
(d) all of the above?

I'm not sure on this, but it does raise an interesting problem. Is it unauthorized information for you to be in on the secret that partner is particularly dense this morning? Could one alert this?

[FrancesHinden]

jdonn, on Apr 24 2006, 08:24 PM, said:

- Making a play because you presume the woman opponent is more likely to mess up than the male opponent (I would never dare assume such a thing )

I love it when people do that against me.

The first time I played Tony Forrester he went off in a slam he could have made, because he believed it wouldn't have occurred to me to give false count.

Sadly, this sort of thing doesn't happen so much any more.

[han]

kenrexford, on Apr 24 2006, 11:22 PM, said:

Suppose your partner, an ACBL Gold Life Master, makes the following interesting actions at the table:

He bids Stayman, then 2S after your 2D, and thinks this shows four spades and invitational, not 5S/4H.

When you bid a spade grand at MP opposite his shown Qxx-xxx-AKxxx-xx and he actually holds Q10x-Axx-AKQxx-Jx, he does not bid 7NT.

He responds to 1S by bidding 2H with four of them, and does not realize the problem.

Seeing this, do you:

(a) decide that he is tired?
( adjust your thinking?
© take inference?
(d) all of the above?

I'm not sure on this, but it does raise an interesting problem. Is it unauthorized information for you to be in on the secret that partner is particularly dense this morning? Could one alert this?

That depends of course on the usual level of your partner. It seems to me that he doesn't have the basics straight. A true expert would never ever think that 1NT-2C-2D-2S shows 4 spades, except perhaps when she is really intoxicated.

And where did masterpoints come into this discussion? Do you think that a gold life master should be able to play kickback? I don't.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Apr 24 2006, 06:31 PM, said:

inquiry, on Apr 24 2006, 09:51 AM, said:

Stop playing 4♠ as RKBC... you guys clearly are not up to it.

Agree. You should also be barred from using the word "clearly" so much. The only thing that is really clear here is that whenever you think something is clear, it turns out to be anything but.

First hand
Exclusion in partner's suit, on responder's second bid! That is ridiculous, but anyway why have an agreement that is so unlikely to be remembered that you play partner to have forgotten it whenever it comes up?

Third hand
Why would 4♠ be keycard for diamonds (seemed clear?!?), at what point exactly were diamonds agreed? 2♥ could be anything, in fact why not just bid 3♦ forcing over 2♦. If 4♠ has to be keycard for anything then why not hearts, opener is maybe 1345 and responder could be 5-5 in the majors. On second thought, I shouldn't be giving you more ideas...

You forgot to mention hand 2. The auction to 4S seems perfect to me, assuming that opener has some huge 4=3=1=5 hand, and responder a weak 4=4=1=4 hand. Assuming you play mandatory support doubles with good hands, this seems the only sensible way to reach the top spot.

Arend

[FrancesHinden]

This may not have been what you intended, but on this basis of this post I'd much rather play with your partner than you. For one thing, you deride partner's bridge ("he does this, of course") which never looks very graceful in print; for another you

i) agree to play an (absurdly IMO) complicated set of methods then
ii) when partner uses one of them, you bid on the assumption he has forgotten with no justification other than he looks sleepy

Even if you are right, ii is one of the (few) things that, for me, completely destroys partnership trust.

[42]

What is "the message" of this topic?

[Walddk]

42, on Apr 26 2006, 08:30 AM, said:

What is "the message" of this topic?

That the same happened three times, i.e. a hat-trick. Let's give the man, or his partner or both, a hat.

Roland