[RSClyde]

 ArtK78, on 2013-November-22, 08:58, said:

I can't believe that there are discussions of insufficient bids after 7NTxx.

The fact is that the auction does continue, and it ends with three passes.

For a while I assumed that everyone knew this, but from the later posts, I am not so sure.

It seems far from obvious that this would be the case. Why would the rules of duplicate bridge allow for a situation whose only possible outcome is irregularity? It may be well be the case that the auction "continues", I'm not familiar with the rule, but to act as if it's common sense is pretty far fetched.

[ArtK78]

 RSClyde, on 2013-November-22, 15:52, said:

It seems far from obvious that this would be the case. Why would the rules of duplicate bridge allow for a situation whose only possible outcome is irregularity? It may be well be the case that the auction "continues", I'm not familiar with the rule, but to act as if it's common sense is pretty far fetched.

Obviously you are not familiar with this rule. That is why I provided it for you.

As Law 22A(2) states that the auction does not end until there are three consecutive passes after the most recent bid, it is clear that the redouble of 7NT does not end the auction. In the case of 7NTxx, the most recent bid is 7NT, and there have not been three consecutive passes until they occur after the redouble. Until that happens, the auction has not ended.

The only possible outcome is not an irregularity. The only possible legal outcome is three consecutive passes. And then the auction is over.

I don't see why that troubles you.

[RSClyde]

 ArtK78, on 2013-November-22, 16:30, said:

Obviously you are not familiar with this rule. That is why I provided it for you.

As Law 22A(2) states that the auction does not end until there are three consecutive passes after the most recent bid, it is clear that the redouble of 7NT does not end the auction. In the case of 7NTxx, the most recent bid is 7NT, and there have not been three consecutive passes until they occur after the redouble. Until that happens, the auction has not ended.

The only possible outcome is not an irregularity. The only possible legal outcome is three consecutive passes. And then the auction is over.

I don't see why that troubles you.

I can bid an insufficient 1♦ and the opponents have the right to accept it. That's a legal outcome.

[Bbradley62]

 RSClyde, on 2013-November-22, 22:55, said:

 ArtK78, on 2013-November-22, 16:30, said:

The only possible legal outcome is three consecutive passes. And then the auction is over.

I don't see why that troubles you.

I can bid an insufficient 1♦ and the opponents have the right to accept it. That's a legal outcome.

And that still must be followed by three consecutive passes to end the auction. I also don't see why this troubles you.

[RSClyde]

 Bbradley62, on 2013-November-22, 23:04, said:

And that still must be followed by three consecutive passes to end the auction. I also don't see why this troubles you.

That's probably because you snipped out most of the quote that I was responding to voiding it of context. So let me walk you through it slowly:
Art claimed that the only possible legal outcome following a 7ntXX bid was 3 consecutive passes. I pointed out that this is not the case because an insufficient bid could be made and accepted, and yes, it would still need to be agreed by 3 passes, what happened after the insufficient bid was not the point.

[blackshoe]

 sfi, on 2013-November-21, 22:48, said:

There's always the option of an insufficient bid to continue the auction...

Or of a bid of 8 of something, or another double or redouble.

[RSClyde]

Let me explain why I find this so strange:

Let's start with computers:
If we designed a computerized bridge program, then we could prevent insufficient bids entirely. You can't make an insufficient bid on BBO or bridge baron. Now how any specific system happens to be designed is irrelevant. But I believe we'd all agree that there is no reason to design a bridge program to accept (or give opponents an option to accept) illegitimate calls. Just like it would make no sense to allow for revokes or leads out of turn. Thus when playing on such a system, 7ntXX ends the auction at the point that the bid is made. Why? Because no other contract is possible. It is meaningless to say "you still have to pass," because you have no other choice. When playing a game statements like rolling a one sided di, or flipping a two headed coin, are meaningless. You are logically doing nothing. Such is the case here. Most existing programs probably don't have it built into their design to make a special exception here and not prompt you, but again, how a specific program happens to be designed is irrelevant.

In real life:
You do have insufficient bids, revokes and leads out of turn. No one really wants this to be "part of the game," this is just a logistical hurdle of playing by manipulating cards physically rather than electronically. So now when 3nt is reached, it is still possible to play in 1H. Because when offered the chance to bid over 3nt, something that you must have a legal option to do, an irregularity occurs. By contrast, there is no reason to give someone a chance to bid over 7ntXX because they have only one legitimate call. The only purpose it can serve is to allow an insufficient bid. I'm not saying that's the only possible outcome, but it's the only alternative to simply saying that 7ntXX ends the auction. Since, irregularities aren't really a part of the game that anyone wants, it seems weird to give someone the chance to commit one, when they didn't technically have a decision to make anyway.

[RMB1]

When playing on BBO and the auction reaches 7NTXX the interface only gives you one call to "choose" from, but you still have to click "Pass" to move on with the game. Just as you have to click your 13th card to play trick 13 and finish the play.

There is an autoplay singletons option which presumably make trick 13 automatic. There could be an auto-Pass over 7NT for players for whom Double/Redouble is inadmissible: this would make the auction over 7NTXX automatic.

But face-to-face and online there is a point to making players pass over 7NT: Law 25A and UNDOs.

[billw55]

Gosh I thought the 7NTxx thing was just a bit of humor. Why so serious?

[Vampyr]

 billw55, on 2013-November-25, 08:08, said:

Gosh I thought the 7NTxx thing was just a bit of humor. Why so serious?

This thread, with the exception of the posts directly relevant to the OP, is probably the most boring one in BBO history.

[broze]

 Vampyr, on 2013-November-25, 17:29, said:

This thread, with the exception of the posts directly relevant to the OP, is probably the most boring one in BBO history.

You clearly haven't seen the climate change thread.

[Vampyr]

 broze, on 2013-November-26, 05:19, said:

You clearly haven't seen the climate change thread.

Actually I did look at it once years ago. I stand corrected.

[GreenMan]

 Vampyr, on 2013-November-25, 17:29, said:

This thread, with the exception of the posts directly relevant to the OP, is probably the most boring one in BBO history.

You're not helping.

(Yes, I know I'm not either. )

[mikestar13]

 billw55, on 2013-November-22, 07:09, said:

While you were there, did they have any arguments over what is or isn't a psyche?

Yes, the club defined it as a deviation of more than a queen in strength or one card in length from the convention card (or SA in no card was filled out--the usual case) as a psychic -- but preempts could not be a card short of the expected length. Weak two on five cards a bridge felony in the club's eyes Like I said, I needed the money.

[Zelandakh]

 mikestar13, on 2013-November-26, 18:36, said:

but preempts could not be a card short of the expected length.

So the Robson-Segal suggested 1st seat 3♣ opening of ♠7532 ♥J63 ♦4 ♣QJT94 would be right out then? Surely the expected length refers to our agreements rather than to the agreements that the TD thinks we should choose...

[blackshoe]

No, no. It refers to the agreements your opponents think you should choose.

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2013-November-27, 08:44, said:

No, no. It refers to the agreements your opponents think you should choose.

I think my opponents should bid 7NT with any hand of less than 20hcp and pass otherwise; and redouble from 7NT bidder's partner shows 0-10. I will play their system if they play mine.

[1eyedjack]

Usually the bidding box has run out of pass cards by the time that you reach 7NTXX. I am just pleased to have an opportunity to stop.

[mikestar13]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-November-27, 07:04, said:

So the Robson-Segal suggested 1st seat 3♣ opening of ♠7532 ♥J63 ♦4 ♣QJT94 would be right out then? Surely the expected length refers to our agreements rather than to the agreements that the TD thinks we should choose...

Exactly--no one in the club had ever dared try it, but I expect the club's card committee was have banned the offending party for at least a year. Expected length was per the CC (if filled out) for other bids; for preempts, it 6 cards for a weak 2 and seven cards for 3... illegal to agree to open a shorter suit. A partnership could agree to a longer minimum suit length if properly disclosed (God knows why they would want to.) Truth is, these folks really wanted everyone to play 1950's Goren, but they very grudgingly accepted some innovations/heresies from up to about 1970. Quote from one of the players (excellent at declarer play, good defender, unimaginative bidder) -- "I never opened a weak two in my life!"

[Vampyr]

I don't see anything wrong with a club choosing to have whatever rules they want -- provided, of course, that they are not affiliated to an NBO or other organisation.