knyblad

One of my first TD calls was from a player that had done as I described. I have later experienced that that player is fairly knowledgeable when it comes to bridge laws.

The Danish translation is worded in such a way that it has made some TDs think that the suit mentioned in 46B3a is the suit of the call lead. So in their interpretation 46B3a can only be used if dummy has won the trick by playing the highest card of the suit lead (and nobody ruffs.) I interpret the English and Danish text as you do, but wanted to be certain that born English speakers agreed.

In Denmark we have a discussion on how law 46B3a is to be understood. Assume ♥ is trump and dummy has ♥Q3, ♣Q. Declarer play ♦3 from his hand and let dummy ruff with the ♥3. Dummy winds the trick, and declarer asks for the queen. Declarer says ♣Q when he sees dummy reach for ♥Q. TD is called. Should law 46B3a be used, so that dummy has to play ♥Q, or should dummy have asked which queen to play?

Playing Smith you have to decide in advance if you want to encourage or not. In an Danish case a player playing reverse Smith had to discard from 3 small cards, but he had not decided whether or not to encourage in the suit of the opening lead. Declarer was missing only one honor in the suit currently being played and concluded from the opp's hesitation that that the opp had the honor. Based on that conclusion he planed his play erroneously. The TD and appeals committee adjusted the score, because you are not allowed to hesitate with only small cards in the suit played.

Thank you, Bluejak for your answer. However, there are a number of points, I do not quite understand. As far as I can see, ♣4 is a card that must be played. It is not a card that has been played. The law makers went through the trouble of distinguishing between cards that must be played and cards that are played. They did it to handle situations like declarer asking for card A, and RHO hearing card B and plays a card before dummy places card A as played. Back to this problem. I think, declarer has played ♦K. He went through the process described in law 45B, and dummy has not previously played a card to this trick. Why can't we use law 47E2a and let LHO take back the card? Placing ♦K as played can clearly be called misinforming RHO. I do not know of any law that states that a player has to be informed using words in order 47E2a. Jesper is not that interested in tournament direction any more and is not active in the Danish forums. Jens Brix is the original poster of the problem. He has been shouting down the solutions other have suggested, e.g., he is the one that pointed out that ♣4 was a card that must be played, not a card that is played.

Dummy went to the toilet. Dummy is to lead. Declarer takes ♣4, but changes his mind. and plays ♦K. The next defender plays ♦3, before the other defender stops the play and asks declarer shouldn't play ♣4. We have not been capable of finding the right law to apply, and in this includes some of Denmark's best TDs. The decision would be easy if had the next defender not played ♦3. In that case the we can simply apply §45C3, and change the lead to ♣4, but have the next defender accepted the lead of ♦K by playing ♦3? In case you suggest that the lead should be changed to ♣4, what happens to ♦3. Can the next defender take it back? Will it been a penalty card or can it simply be taken back and §16D making UI to declarer and AI to the other defender? Further, in case the lead is changed back, what is the last chance for changing the lead? Please write which laws you are using in your decision.

It is very likely that the missing alert of 2♣ screwed up E-W's bidding. East has no way of knowing that that have a 10 card fit. Assume that West would not bid a four card suit without and honor. Then West could 4342 distribution or even 4441 distribution. I think the score should be adjusted to 5♣ 11 tricks.

Opening lead a little ♣. West gets the trick with the king and finesse for ♦Q. Now N-S have 3 ♣ tricks, 1 ♦ trick and 3 ♥ tricks for 3 down. I think there is something totally wrong with the arguments in this thread. If the pair is playing Ogust, then 2NT should have been alerted. At the same time you are claiming that Vest has UI, because the East did not alert 2NT. If I was in Wests seat playing Ogust and Flannery I would assume that East had simply forgotten to alert the 2NT. Besides, E-Ws CC should clearly state if they are playing Ogust. Starting to claim that they are playing Ogust when it is not listed on the CC seems like miscarriage of justice to me. Anyway, the 3♦ bid looks based on UI to me. East hand is so good that it is a logical alternative to raise a natural 2NT to 3NT. Without knowing E-Ws agreements, it is hard to see where the bidding would have ended.

In my opinion it is not clear that the answer is MI. One problem with discussing rulings is that too often, you do not get the whole story, and then people guesses about the rest of the facts. It seems like N-S have asked questions about the meaning of 2♦. Was there anything in Souths question or the previous discussion that might lead Dummy to think that the question was just about the weak variant? I would like Bluejak to give a full account of the discussion at the table.

I cannot read law 17D in any other way than that both sides are at fault, because both sides have bid on the cards from the wrong board. This also implies that E-W should have only 40% if they are going to play the board at a later, and the bidding at the new table is different from the first bidding. Also, some jurisdictions make have additional rules, e.g., in Denmark we must check the bridgemate that we are sitting correctly before playing.

Of course opener should not use the UI that responder only has enough for a 2 level bid. But both sides are at fault. Say opener raises to 4♥ because he thinks that is a logical alternative some players would chose. Now he only makes 9 tricks. Should the score be adjusted to 3♠ nine tricks? What if he makes only 8 tricks in an attempt to make 10, but there is an obvious gameplan for getting 9? Should the score be adjusted to 3♠ 8 or 9 tricks? Finally say there is only 8 tricks in the cards. Should the score be adjusted to 3♠ 8 tricks?

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=saq9h83d1098743cj5]133|100|[/hv] North opens out of turn with a PASS and East does not accept the bid. Director tells him to pass when it becomes his turn to bid. South realize that E-W may have game in there cards and choses to open with 1NT as a psycke. It is AI to South that North must PASS, and UI that his bid out of turn was PASS. May South bid such a Psycke?