An Interesting Decision
Playing in a KO match you pick up an exciting hand, dealer, both red.
Q 
5 3 
6 4 
A K Q 9 8 7 6 5 4
Let us suppose that you choose to open 4. LHO passes and partner calls 4. RHO passes.
What is your move?
UPDATE: What actually happened…
Thanks to everyone for offering comments. As several of you suspected, it was not our partnership that bid this way. 4 was alerted as showing hearts. The partner, holding A J x, A x x xx , A Q x x, x bid 4!! (I would probably still be bidding:)) The opener, hearing the alert, removed to 5, a bid that she viewed as “automatic - just bidding my hand.” The responding hand now passed. To our surprise, the director ruled that this was OK.
Since the issue never went to a committee, it was my hope that some objective commentary from impartial players would provide a little education on this subject. Perhaps it will do no good, but maybe it will.
It is the old lesson — the player with unauthorized information always sees the bid as “automatic.” How hard it is to be objective…
Thanks,
Jeff
This auction illustrates why it’s a bad idea to open 4C in first position when you hold an opening one bid: you make constructive bidding impossible when partner holds a rock. If partner holds xxxx, AKQJxx, AKx, void, you’re on for 6C. Equally you can have two fast diamond losers. Whatever you guess now (I guess pass), partner and teammates will not be pleased with you if it goes wrong. (By the way the hand posted on rgb has 13 cards. This one has a 9th club.)
November 26, 2006 Larry Gifford
All the whines about your choice of openings are simply irrelevent since your methods are unknown. (People do so love to whine.) It is a common treatment to pass 4H since your partner may have game-in-hand in hearts. Partner should know that, your club suit at this vulnerability is especially good, so if this was the key to a heart slam, he should have, hopefully, key-carded then bid the slam in hearts. So, partner is not likely interested. More to the point, your partner has assumed captaincy-of-the-hand after your preempt because you have made a very limited and descriptive bid similar to opening 1NT and 2NT. To go slamming in clubs, you have 4D available which, otherwise, is a quite useless bid here. Generally, it would ask for shortness.
The concept of captaincy is a very powerful tool in situations where opener makes a limited descriptive bid or rebid (again like 1NT or 2NT.)
November 26, 2006 Slammer
BTW, the comments about the whining was from reading the comments on rec.games.bridge and not about the first post which, I thought was a kindly offered constructive comment.
November 26, 2006 Slammer
Like everyone else, I would not have opened 4C at gunpoint, but I would certainly pass 4H. It’s anti-partnership not to pass once you’ve decided your hand is a 4C opener.
–JRM
November 26, 2006 JRM
I would call the director. The posted hand has 14 cards.
Q
5 3
6 4
A K Q 9 8 7 6 5 4
November 28, 2006 B. K. Oxley (binkley)
As for the “bidding”, your story is ridiculous.
At least here in Texas, the pair pulling a stunt like that would be penalized at the table and then disciplined after depending on their level of competence and if they had any history of this sort of behavior.
At least responder has some defense in that looking at his 5 hearts and hearing neither opponent speak when each has a heart void, he can reason out his partner’s miscall.
Opener, however, should take 4H at face value and pass. If he had not heard the alert, why would he correct his partner’s bid? For a natural 4C opening, he has quite a decent hand for hearts.
November 28, 2006 B. K. Oxley (binkley)
well, clearly you should pass. But this hand illustrates a subtle flaw in the alert system. If there were no alerts, after partner bids 4H you might suddenly remember that you were playing Namyats with this partner, and then you might be able to stumble into a club contract. But of course after the alert, you aren’t allowed to have a recovery from a “senior moment”.
November 29, 2006 Mark Kinzer
The actual hand was: Q 93 74 AKQJ9854 as I held it at the other table.
Bidding 4C and then 5C is silly, but I am obviously bias as I held this hand at the other table. I am curious as to what the folks who think this an openning 1 bid are planning on rebidding.
November 29, 2006 Jim Dressler
In standard (including the standard-ish weak NT that you and I play) 1C would be my third choice (after 3NT or 5C), but if I did open 1C, I would be planning to rebid clubs at the lowest possible level. If you guess not to preempt the first round, you might as well assume you guessed right. And with hands that make game, partner almost always will have another call over 2C.
In competition I would use bad 2NT if available (and if it denied support so that partner would know I could only bid it with a long primary suit) in preference to a non-jump 3C rebid.
November 29, 2006 Christopher Monsour
The premise is that the player opened 4C. The question is what to do over partner’s 4H. I only see two logical alternatives: pass and bid 5H. 5C is poisoned and a player who bids it is not fulfilling his Law 73C obligations and the result on the board should be adjusted (assuming there is damage) and the player should be sharply educated.
November 29, 2006 M Huston
Would your answer be different if the pair were playing control asks with step responses (none, second, first) over their 4 level and higher preempts? In that case, opener should have to rebid 4S. Of course, since he would also have to alert 4H (still first round of the auction), his partner might have unauthorized information [might not if no information was asked for…some people would alert 4H to Namyats since it denies whatever 4D shows] and would not be able to rebid 5C unless he had to because of a clear agreement (e.g., if Namyats follows by next step is Kickback 1430 in their agreements, then responder could rebid 5C because there would be no logical alternative to giving keycards correctly).
Question: If explanations like that had occurred, how does a director sort things out, barring system notes?
November 30, 2006 Christopher Monsour
Christopher Monsour raises an interesting point, several in fact. With regard to the last question, the director is supposed to sort things out, but there is a presumption of misinformation/UI unless the “offending side” presents substantial evidence to the contrary.
December 1, 2006 M Huston
Truly ludicrous that a director would rule this way. Seems that this director has a miniscule understanding of the laws and proprieties.
Of course, I, too, would never have opened 4C on this hand. (1C or 5C seems far more rational.)
BUT … once having done so, I live with partner’s decision to bid 4H.
December 7, 2006 Peg