[kenrexford]

Partner and I had perhaps the most hilarious live auction esoterica I've ever seen. It requires some context to follow. We had just discussed a story from a few years ago. My partner was playing fill-in with a guy whose partner left with two rounds to play because he could not take it any more. This, of course, was a great reason to agree to this, as two rounds with someone who made his partner insane would be fun.

In one auction, my partner had passed initially. When the opponents were in a clear slam auction, he jammed them with a 4♣ call. His partner cuebid 4♥, and they ended up in 5♣X for a top when the slam made. Of course, y'all know what the "cuebid" was. "4♣ is always Gerber."

So, years later, in G-burg, we have this start:

P(me)-1♣-P-2♦!(GF with club fit)-
3♥(white on red, my turn)-4♣-?

At this point, my partner was in a zone. A scary zone for him, because he was thinking like I do. This should terrify anyone. Plus, his cigarette during the smoke break lacked a filter. So, the obvious call?

4♠! This is, of course, the out-of-focus major and, accordingly, RKCB for clubs. This is the best way to find out whether out heart sacrifice at 6♥ will be a phantom sac, you see.

His LHO, somewhat puzzled by the 4♠ call (no alert -- ace-asking bids require a post-alert), bid 4NT.

Now to me. I now have a problem. Usually, after interference, we would play D0P1, but doubling 4NT seemed a tad rich. It seemed logical to drop the "D0" part and simply pass with zero, bid 5♣ with one, etc. The problem with this approach is that it leaves too little room for asking about the trump Queen. When I hold one with the trump Queen, I'd bid 5♣, partner could bid 5♦ after the D0P1 from the opponents, but I'd be stuck and unable to answer.

It seemed to me that 1430 works better here. I would pass with one, allowing 5♣ from partner, and then could clarify whether I held the trump Queen. So, assuming that partner had also worked this out, I bid 5♣, showing zero or three.

The opponents now bid 6♣. When partner passed, I knew that I had told my tale. So, I passed also. 6♥ would have been a good sacrifice, but partner had not been able to check on the trump queen, you see, by this preemptive bid by Opener. That's why people preempt!

In reality, this was the actual auction, but we were bored stiff. It makes no sense in practice. I just thought it was funny that we actually bid this way intentionally and understood each other. The opponents, after the explanations, were quite frightened for us.

[cherdano]

I think this is on the border of being unethical, or maybe beyond it. You are not bidding to get a good result in the board, but just to have fun and mess with the opponents by your explanations.

[the hog]

I love this Ken, but I'll bite: is it true? Arend, this is hardly unethical. Not one action could even be remotely described as so. Lighten up a bit.

[jdonn]

Well, he seems almost a little too proud of not having to explain 4♠ and of his opponents' confusion. On the plus side, the title of this thread sounds a lot like a porno so it sure made my day.

[kenrexford]

I'm not sure how adherence to the alert policies, even taking some advantage of them, is "unethical." It is not as if 4♠ and 5♣ were not viewed as obviously strange and thus easy triggers for "what the heck?" questions from the opponents during the auction.

It is also not purely obstructive. The 4♠ call does have an interesting obstruction/preemptive effect, but it is less interference than a simple 5♥. The beauty of this call, from preemptive analysis, is that it dangles the 4NT possibility before the opponents, allowing a stretcher 4NT when 5♦ could be a troubling response. So, by giving another losing option, it has some merits.

That being said, 4♠ as RKCB does have a theoretical benefit -- it indicates an interest in a sacrifice and invites partner to explain his defensive strength below five of our agreed suit. 5♣ answers this. How is this unethical?

[inquiry]

4♠ is unusual enough, it could generate a question from the opponents. In addition, it is not appropriate to alert the bid as noted.

Having said that, the response to 4S-(4NT) as dopi (and 5C as what is was) not allowing them to know during the auction what is going on seems very problematic. I would feel so uncomfortable with the whole thing, I would have probably called the director and taken him aside and discussed what was going on away from the table.

In fact, maybe the director should just set a chair next to Ken's table because a fair number of his auctions hinge on the unusual.

[cherdano]

The_Hog, on Apr 19 2007, 11:01 PM, said:

I love this Ken, but I'll bite: is it true? Arend, this is hardly unethical. Not one action could even be remotely described as so. Lighten up a bit.

I don't care really, so there is no need for me to lighten up.
You are not allowed in bridge to make random psychs, you can only psych when you think it improves your chance to win.

Ken and his partner are too smart to think that 4♠ is a sound bridge call; yes he is giving a lot of after-the-fact reasoning for it, but he knows it is way worse than just bidding 5♥.

Also, I don't know whether there is a bridge law against gloating about frightening the opponents with your explanations in public forums, but if not, there should be one. It would protect some from looking bad in public...

[AlexOgan]

inquiry, on Apr 20 2007, 09:32 AM, said:

I would feel so uncomfortable with the whole thing, I would have probably called the director and taken him aside and discussed what was going on away from the table.

Is that even legal?

[AlexOgan]

cherdano, on Apr 20 2007, 09:59 AM, said:

Also, I don't know whether there is a bridge law against gloating about frightening the opponents with your explanations in public forums, but if not, there should be one. It would protect some from looking bad in public...

I thought it was pretty clear that he meant that the opponents were frightened for his (and his partner's) sanity...

[kenrexford]

Geez!

First, the "frightened" was clearly meant as "frightened for us as being insane."

Second, it would be amazing to have a rule that post-event gloating and making fun of the opponents was not alowed. Everyone I know would be barred from bridge if zero tolerance reached the pubs.

Third, this was not meant as gloating. It was meant to poke fun at how insane two friends can get at the end of the week in Gatlinburg.

Fourth, this cannot be deemed as poking fun at the opponents. They got a great score. They ignored folly and bid their hands without problems. How would this story in any way offend them?

Finally, what exactly do I call the director to discuss? In agreement with Ben, I could see this occurring as follows:

"Director!"
"Yes?"
"I'm really weird. My partner is really weird now that he has played with me for a week. This auction suggests that we have lost our minds. However, as we each know our respective insanities, there is an inference about the auction that might be useful to the opponents. Nothing is alertable, and nothing has been requested as far as explanations, but they really should ask. So, I'm calling you over to let you know that the opponents might want to ask us some questions about what type of insanity we have."
"Uh, my ruling is that you buy me a round after the game."

[cherdano]

AlexOgan, on Apr 20 2007, 09:57 AM, said:

cherdano, on Apr 20 2007, 09:59 AM, said:

Also, I don't know whether there is a bridge law against gloating about frightening the opponents with your explanations in public forums, but if not, there should be one. It would protect some from looking bad in public...

I thought it was pretty clear that he meant that the opponents were frightened for his (and his partner's) sanity...

True, I misread that, sorry Ken.