Ace asking bids are forcing, so 5NT king ask forces. Most players consider 5NT to guarantee all aces or key cards. Pass 4NT if you psyched your opening bid.

I have seen a multiple world champion pass the 1430 queen ask twice in 3 boards in a Spingold match. He still won the match and the trophy. But he did not get a refund from Eddie Kantar.

If I was called, then I have to determine what the partnership’s agreed-upon meaning for 4NT is. I cannot assume that it is Ace (or key-card) asking. It may be that this partnership plays 4 clubs or 4 diamonds as the key-card ask.

The objective, of course, is to determine what 5NT means… according to the partnership’s agreements. I also have to intuit what is suggested by the UI. Here’s where polling other players comes in — especially for me as I have a terrible inability to interpret UI (as an aside, that really leaves me in a pickle when I get “UI” from my partner as I can never figure out what the ethical call is and my attempts to do something ethical usually result in a bottom board rather than just an average minus).

After doing that, I need to look at South’s hand and based on the agreed meaning of 5NT, determine what his options are.

If 5NT, for example, means (as Bill suggests) we have all the key-cards, cue-bid your lowest King (or step responses) with the alternative of bidding 7 if you “think it is right” (can count tricks, have extras, whatever), then I’m not going to allow 6NT — it’s not one of the agreed upon responses to 5NT. Also, in a UI situation, I don’t think I would accept the argument that 6NT suggests “I accept the grand-slam try and wonder if 7NT might be better than 7C” (unless this agreement is clearly marked on their CC or at-the-table-system-notes — highly unlikely unless a high-level tournament that I’m not certified to direct anyway!).

Perhaps the UI suggests passing which is not part of the partnership agreement.

So much hinges on N-S’s partnership agreements, that I cannot really answer. The above is only one scenario.

About the only thing that is certain, is I would definitely adjust the score or impose a penalty on N-S (or both) if South had passed 5NT. Similarly for the 6NT bid if it is not part of the partnership’s agreements.

Whoops! I missed that your question said “…suppose he passed…”.

I tell them to play the hand out and that I will be telling them my ruling after the result is known. Then…

E-W get either a procedural penalty (I can look up the appropriate Law that gives me the right to impose one) — I think it’s 1/2-board — or a warning (depends on a number of things).

If 5NT goes down and 6 or 7 clubs is a make, I let the score stand. Similarly if 5NT makes 6 or 7 and 6C would have made.

If 5NT makes, there are a number of scenarios. I don’t want to list all of them. One is if 6C would have (probably) gone down, I adjust the score to 6C down however many it would have gone down. People that play 4NT as control asking with clubs agreed virtually force themselves too high — so it depends what would have happened with correct responses. Possibly I adjust the score to 7C down however many it would have gone down

Hi Bill,

Your life in bridge is like the most prolific world traveler ever, been there, done that, experiences galore, nothing never seen, so you should hire yourself out as the reigning champion of knowing what to do when strange bridge events occur.

Even with that reputation, my money in on opposition by competitive opponents who want the best of whatever ruling you suggest.

Why you may ask? The answer is the human condition, especially ones involving bridge and wanting the best he (or she) can get.

Keep on truckin…. even though if the opening bidder has psyched with a 2 count and decides to pass 4NT and, God forbid, is right in his decision, you’ll no doubt hear it from the psycher’s partnership if you take his 630 or 430 away from him or from the opponents if you do not.

Hi JRG,

Although Paul posed the problem, your answer is so totally objective and self-effacing that it would (should) command respect (and possible the correct solution) to be across the board accepted.

My feeling, just from hearing your answer draws me to both your knowledge and your objectivity and my wish is for you to be a part of the decision making rulebook, for, at the very least, the humanity you would provide, and very likely, also the expertise to go with it, although that opinion could be modified if you get on a pulpit convincing me that you are just too inexperienced.

It would be my view, although probably (certainly) not even getting a mention in today’s rulebook: When North after hearing South respond 5 diamonds to his 4NT bid then saying whatever he said about his “bug..ing it up” the bridge on that hand stopped and the hand was no longer playable.

Therefore the opponents in matchpoints would (should) get either their percentage score on that hand or an average plus, whichever is higher, and N-S should get a zero, with compassion, but nevertheless an admonition that extraneous talk will always render a hand unplayable if it has the chance to impart UI and his comment certainly fit that category in “spades”.

At least to me, table rulings should tend to supply the following status quo:

1. Being fair to the field, including the players perpetrating the activities.

2. A valuable educational experience for the players at the subject table and for their future in the game.

3. Being a fair rejoinder to what happened and an objective judgment for everyone concerned.

No more, no less!

“Some think the world is made for fun and frolic and so do I” are lyrics to a very old popular song, but not so much at the bridge table which have to subscribe to important rules, substantive, but fair. Bridge is a different game than others with its ethics and specifically its dealing with unauthorized information.

When I wrote the post originally, I forgot that South stated after the auction that the reason he bid 6NT was that he had given the wrong answer when responding to the 4NT ace asking. He had two aces, and should have bid 5H. Don’t know if this makes the situation better or worse. Also, the setting was in a team game rather than pairs.

Hi Paul,

IMO with team games (IMPs), bridge also would stop (after the oral gaffe) and there would be an automatic penalty. However, if the board had not been played in the other room, it would be reshuffled and 3 IMPs added to the non-offenders side as the penalty. If the board had been played, then the result in the other room should be assessed (obviously by the best bridge players present who were not connected to either team, with total accountability and transparency always present) and they would determine the penalty to be given on that board to the offending side. For example, if the non-offenders had a classic poor result in the other room, the penalty would offset that poor result for perhaps a push. An average result would be about 3 IMPs to the non-offending side and a good result should be from 6 to 9 IMPs for the non-offending side depending on the degree of how good the result had been.

Again accountability and transparency would rule, with the amount of the penalty establishing a precedent which would be recorded and available for future committees.

In the above way we could add suitable stability to the process, which BTW has never (to my knowledge) ever been a part of the appeals process and which has been sadly lacking causing appeals decisions to be inaccurate, inconsistent and arguably biased in scope.

“Little by little we can do great things”, but never until we assess, study and then begin to change.