Ethel

Thank you very much.

[hv=pc=n&s=st4hdc3&w=shdc&n=shdct98&e=s86hdac]399|300[/hv]

Thank you for your reply. The defender had two trump left plus and outside card that was good. As the director you have to make the ruling before seeing the defender's cards, but to make life simple I shall show Dummy's last three cards, Declarer's last three cards and RHO's last three cards. The lead was in declarer's hand. LHO's cards have no play. See hand portrayal in next post. I am just learning how to work this system. Thanks. ]

Declarer claims: "My hand is good". There is an objection. Declarer holds: Ten of Trump , 4 of trump and small other card. The Ten of trump is boss, the small other card can be played to dummy which holds boss card. Defender objects to claim. Declarer did not mention that all the trump were gone. How do you rule that Declarer has to play the cards? All trump had not been played. Do you need more information? Would a competent Declarer play the ten of trump, then the 4 of trump and then the small card to the dummy?

Thanks everyone. I am so glad this forum is continuing. The different explanations certainly make it helpful to those of us who still struggle with final decisions, especially as most of us are playing directors and usually have to make a quick decision to keep the game moving. I always like to check with other directors to see if my rulings are close to correct. LOL I appreciate your input. I sometimes get a call with very little information (as in this problem) and am asked my opinion. It is nice when my answer is confirmed by the experts on this site. Again thank you.

I was asked this question about the ruling on this situation. I was not involved in any way in the process or the decision. If anyone can help I would appreciate it. Contract is 3NT Dummy holds: K Q x x Clubs LHO has discarded two clubs on another suit that was led Now a small club is led from the dummy and RHO HESITATES (this was admitted by RHO) Declarer holds the A T x and plays the TEN LHO wins the J Declarer calls director - Do you adjust for the hesitation? The declarer in question is very experienced. Do you rule that the play of the hand was inferior and the result stands? Thanks.

Would someone kindly tell me the name of the convention and where I can find out more information about it? Opening bid is: 2♦ Responder bids 3♣ Neither bid is alerted,but 2♦ is an opening NT hand with 18 + points and 3♣is Stayman. Is this convention allowed under General Chart in the ACBL or is it Mid-Chart? Is the convention permitted at the club level? Thanks

Might not be 100% legal, but most people do accept as a pass. One must be careful tho' as someone may have a nervous habit of drumming their fingers.

I am well over my teen years and enjoyed this book very much. I have recommended it as a gift for someone over 85. There is always something you can get from a well written novel.

Hello everyone, This does not seem to be getting any easier. Could someone please answer the question that Karlson posed? I understand that some directors in the ACBL at the tournament level are okaying the fact that RHO can "direct that partner lead suit X". If RHO has made the comment before his partner LHO has pulled out a card, and before the director has been called, how do you determine that LHO probably would NEVER have led the suit "directed"? In the situation I started with, declarer has all winning tricks if the "directed" suit is not led. This is law 70 D2 2. The Director shall not accept any part of a defender’s claim that depends on his partner’s selecting a particular play from among alternative normal* plays. It appears to me that once all the cards are on the table LHO can see that the "directed" suit would allow partner to trump the suit and put the contract down. Ergo, it should be ruled as ok, even tho that lead would probably under normal* circumstances would never be led. When rulings have to be made at the table, it would be helpful if all situations are made abundantly clear or should just be thrown out. I understand that my last statement has no bearing on the question in mind. It is just very frustrating to not be able to state that: THIS IS THE LAW and that is all there is to it.

I was not party to this event, but I am interested in the LAWS which would govern it. Declarer makes a claim. He does not state what he is going to do. His LHO is on lead. His RHO jumps in and says to her partner: "I direct you to lead such and such a suit". This will put the contract down as declarer has to follow suit, RHO has a trump and can trump this suit. On the table is the ACE of the suit that RHO wants led. LHO had just won a trick with the K of a suit, there were more of the suit on the table and as LHO was also holding the Ace of the suit, probably would have continued with that suit, thinking that that would put the contract down. The director was NOT called. If RHO is allowed to direct the suit that her partner can lead would you please tell me under which law this is. I understand that declarer could lose a trick with an unmentioned trump, with rational play: however, I cannot find the wording in the laws that allows RHO opponent to direct a certain lead from her partner. Thank you very much. Sorry was not specific - This was duplicate bridge. As the comment had been made what should the director allow the LHO to lead? What do you suggest for the RHO - PP or warning or??? This is ACBL land and not too many PP's are given out. Would you be interested to know that the RHO was a director herself? Any suggestions now that you know that?

Declarer in 3NT contract. Declarer wins trick. Declarer leads card from hand and immediately picks it up and explained it was played by mistake. Card replaced in hand and play continued. LHO had not played to the lead. Law? Does law 45 para 4 sub d apply? "a player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought..... The original (incorrect) card was tabled as a major penalty card, I believe after a little discussion. Rational given: "I felt that I pulled the wrong card by mechanical error (it was adjacent to the correct one) and could correct this as LHO had not played to the trick". Please your thoughts and reasons. Thank you

Hands are not known. West is dealer and opens 1NT LHO bids 2H (no alert) Partner bids 3C RHO bids 3H Dealer asks about the 2H bid and is told it shows Hearts and a Minor and South says "Sorry, should have alerted". Dealer (West) wants the bidding to revert back to East as East did not have the information that the 2H bid was alertable. What should be done? Second part: IMO dealer knew what the 2H bid meant and only asked so that East would know what it meant - Not allowed?

The opening bidder: 3C LHO Pass Partner (Responder) 3D RHO Pass Opener Pass Is the 3D forcing and by which law if it is? Thank you If it is NOT Forcing - is it Alertable?

Thank you very much - Nice to know that one has made the correct call even if others do not think so. I appreciate the prompt reply. ;)

West is the dealer. East opens 1♠. Your ruling please, A: if South passes; B: if South does not accept the bid. My understanding is: A: Life goes on as normal - no problems B: West must pass as his turn to call (this includes his opening bid) West is subject to Lead restrictions if he is defending If East is able to bid 1♠ again,( or some number of spades) is West still subject to lead restrictions? Thank you. ;)

Picks for the tournament: 1. Ritong 2. Fred 3. dkgrab 4. Reisig 5. Sheri