Well, as long as we are praising “subminimum” bidding, how about S doubling E’s 2H bid? N would now bid 4H, which is colder than a witch’s uh broomstick.

David Warheit

Hi Bobby,

A couple of questions on responding with very weak hands. Firstly, when does such an approach become alertable, as there is a world of difference between occasionally borrowing a point or two vs. routinely replying on 3-4 pts with shape and/or support? Secondly, how do you get partners with 18 counts to put the brakes on?

regards,

Iain

Ok, Wolff sign off covers some cases.

Hi David,

Yes, as long as North, while playing 4 hearts wins the first trick, if its the king of spades, it is as cold as a witch’s whatever.

From whatever to however, South’s hand, being facecardless, is just too weak to even think about voluntarily entering the bidding and especially, under other circumstances, such as getting partner off to the wrong lead, in case West becomes the declarer in spades.

One of the special advantages in playing and discussing bridge are the many varieties of opinions often arising on many bridge hands, and sometimes pertaining to both the bidding and the play as well as the defense. It is indeed a difficult task to emphasize realism rather than results and because of that, bridge partnerships, like many marriages, become subject to emotional differences which cry out to be solved.

True, 4 hearts is certainly a decent contract, and as you have deftly pointed out, better played from North rather than South, but in actuality, all that resulted from what happened, East became a hero with his imaginative low club return, without which South would have scored up his game. No
doubt all of our commentators, after looking at that dummy would have done the same, so David: 1. We had a hand to write about, 2. All our readers were enabled to not follow the herd and therefore make a winning defensive play, 3. All of us are now better placed to understand what may happen when very weak hands still respond to partner’s opening bid by bidding instead of passing and choosing one spade rather than a simple weak two club raise. 4. Side issues such as later bidding decisions can be discussed.

And finally getting back to witches and body parts, I once was asked a question as to what part of a woman’s body was a yet. When I queried exactly how was it used I then heard:
“In a Mickey Spillane murder story, the subject line read: The knife stuck in her yet”.

Hi Iain,

Your question sends us all into the twilight zone of subjectivity.

It probably becomes counterproductive to alert various responses as possibly very weak and more aggressive than many other players may be. My above opinion, at least attempts, to take into consideration what really happens at most bridge tables and that being, when an alert to that effect is made, it may mislead their inexperienced opponents into doing something unnatural and then creating a bad board for themselves trying to allow for those opponents not to get the best of them.

In other words, the alert may be used by wily opponents to create doubt, where most of the time it does not exist, but the alert raises the specter of that happening which will accrue into advantage, those who alert.

If a TD is called to adjudicate a dispute involving the above, he needs to have experience in dealing with wily coyotes (dressed up like bridge players) who often frequent duplicate bridge tournaments.

The cure then becomes worse than the disease making your sought after answer, “Everyone is expected to practice active ethics, to be decided on an individual case basis by the bridge police”. Difficult? YES, Impossible? NO, but involving the development of character throughout the bridge world with accountability second only to total transparency in its application.

Hi again Iain,

Forgot to answer your other questions. There is no legal way to determine when one’s partner is basically psyching and therefore becomes just throwing the ball into the air, hoping it will land in a favorable spot for the tosser.

The only additional caveat I can offer is very controversial and will be argued to eternity by those who constantly play bridge on the edge. Players or pairs who prefer that approach should be subject to more scrutiny to go as far as humanly possible to be ethical, which means to me, that they have a special obligation to make sure that the whole table is convinced (and on every hand they play) that their bridge ethics are above suspicion.

Are they then being profiled? You bet they are and by making the choice THEY made, the only way our game can be played ethically is for them to accept that important restriction and not cause any competitive tongues to wag against their upholding their responsibilities. No ifs ands or buts!

And finally there are those who only think that a Wolff sign-off is being used is when I pass, which BTW many of my partners would like to see occur more often.

Hi Bobby,

Thanks for this, and I also enjoyed the inadvertent (very British, I suspect) bit of slang in the 2nd reply.

Regards,

Iain