kb49

EBU I was declarer in a contract of 4H. When I started to draw the trumps, on the first round LHO followed suit. On the second round LHO discarded a diamond. On the third round LHO played a heart. Dummy immediately informed LHO that she had revoked. I know that dummy is not allowed to do this. What happens next? How do you rule on this one?

EBU In a teams of four match a board is played and scored in the first half. 3NT by S making plus one Vul. Score 630. In the second half that board could not be played. Not the players fault. How is it now scored considering it had already been played once.

Good question. Fortunately they do not object. In fairness I find bridge players usually very helpful in situations like this. I must confess I was surprised by their reaction. You are quite right it is Law 5. Thank you for that

EBU This is a trivial question but I would still appreciate any comments I am a Director of a club. Most of the members all live within a short distance of the club. However, I have one member who has to drive over an hour to get to the club. I decided that whenever there was a half table I would arrange for this particular member to sit out last. The decision to do this was mine entirely and it is not a club rule. Several members are up in arms about this and they feel it is wrong or even illegal for me to do it. What do you think? Do I have the authority or not? I told you it was a trivial question!

EBU. I am fully aware that a 2♣response to a 1NT bid by partner is Stayman and it is announced as Stayman. However, I have for years been ALERTING a 3♣response to a 2NT (20-22pts)opening. In the new Blue Book 4G2 it states that 3♣response to a natural 2NT opening by partner is announced. Did I misinterpret what it said in the old Orange Book?

English Bridge Union In the EBU White Book there is the following directive: 7.2.6.4 Relative The L & EC considered a hand where a TD had gone to a table to give a ruling where a blood relative was involved. It was understood there were times when this could not be avoided(e.g. the TD was the only one present). A different TD should attend the table whenever it is practical to do so. I am TD in our local club. I do not partner my wife on these occasions. We had a dispute recently (very friendly) when I was called to make a ruling at her table. My wife insisted that she was not a BLOOD relative and therefore I could make a ruling. What is the usual procedure in these situations?

Thank you for all your comments regarding the problem I submitted. We play Howell movements in our club. We do as a general rule try to avoid giving PP. This might not be a good idea but it is what we do. I was interested to read that East is not entirely innocent if they play the wrong boards as it seems to be a joint responsibility in Howell movements. I don't wish to challenge this ruling but just comment on the practical application. When both pairs arrive at a table it is North who takes responsibility. Should East ask to look at the details on the Bridgemate to ensure they are playing the correct opponents and that they have the correct boards? There is a tendency for East to trust North therefore I find it difficult to understand why East should be penalised in the event of a mistake.

English Bridge Union Please can you help us with the following problem that happened at our club last night. During this session we were using Bridgemates. If North has taken the wrong boards then as soon as he enters the board number into the Bridgemate it will alert him that he has the wrong boards. Unfortunately a player did not enter details into the Bridgemate until they had played the board. They then discovered that they had the wrong boards. Now when the players eventually come across this board later in the evening it cannot be played. We are not sure what score is entered at the later stage?. Are North/South and East/West both responsible for this mistake and a score of 40/60 recorded or is North held responsible and East is innocent and the scores would be say 40/60 and 50/60? This has never happened before and hopefully it will not happen again.

Thank you for your replies, it is much appreciated. Can you please clarify the following. Law 25 states 'but only if he does so, or attempts to do so without pause for thought' This seems to indicate that the correction must be made immediately. There is a possibility that LHO takes some time before bidding. Are you still within your rights to ask for the correction even after this delay?

EBU Can you please help me with the following problem? If I intend to open the bidding with 1S but I actually bid. 1C. Left hand opponent bids 1D at this stage I realise my. Is take and I call the Director. I believe I am entitled to change the bid to a spade because my partner has not bid and my left hand opponent may then change his bid. Is this correct?

English Bridge Union I am aware that Gerber is not used by most, if not all, of the best bridge players. They have far better systems at their disposal. Unfortunately I still come across many club players who use their version of Gerber. I was taught many years ago to use Gerber (4♣)only after a 1NT or 2NT opening by partner. Players are using Gerber after their partner opens with a suit bid. Is this illegal? What action should a Director take if attention is drawn to this bid by their opponents. There is added confusion to this problem because of the change in EBU regulations that stated that players do not alert bids above 3NT. A recent regulation now states that during the first round of bidding an artificial bid above 3NT should be alerted. Is this Gerber problem common or am I living in a time warp.

EBU This problem happened recently in our club. These are the details. West was playing in 4S. On the tenth trick they noticed that East (dummy) had two cards left and the other players had three cards. The missing card was found among the cards already played by dummy. How do you proceed to rule on this problem? Which law covers an infraction of this kind by dummy? If they check through the played cards and disagree about what had happened how do you rule? What actually happened was that the remaining cards were played out. West making 10 tricks. It was then discovered that dummy had played two cards to a trick and as a result had later revoked. As dummy had won the revoke trick and subsequent tricks two tricks were deducted from west. It was an uneasy ruling because there was a feeling that dummy could not revoke. However most people felt that the Director had made the correct ruling. What do you think?

English Bridge Union This incident happened recently in our club. Could you comment on the infractions that occurred and the ruling that was made. NS Game Dealer S South opened 2H (not announced or alerted). West asked North to clarify the bid. North said it was strong. North then bid 3D. East holding eight clubs headed by the AKC and also the ace of spades passed. South bid 3H. North bid 4H. Before West led a card South said that her partner had given the wrong information. The Director was called. West was given the opportunity to reopen the bidding but she refused. The contract was made. The Director adjusted the score to North making 3H+1. When somebody suggested that he looked at the final results on the traveller before making an adjusted score he said that was not allowed. 1. Was that the correct ruling ? 2. Was East damaged? With the correct information she could have bid 5C going down 2 which would have been a good score. 3. The EBU uses something called a 'Weighted Score' that is used for adjusting scores. Should that have been used? Don't know how to do it? 4. Did South have unauthorised information ? There were only four tables. The scores on the traveller were : 4C -2 (E) 4D -2 (N) 4H (S) 4H -1 (S)

EBU My partner opened 1C. Right hand opponent bid 2D. I bid 1NT (insufficient bid). It was not accepted. I then bid 2NT. I went down two. It was totally my fault and I should have been paying attention. However, I would like to clarify the situation in case a similar problem occurs in the future. Right hand opponent did not put down the Stop Card before bidding 2D. Had he done so it is unlikely that I would have made an insufficient bid. Had I called the Director immediately that I bid the 1NT what would be the ruling? I realise a Stop Card is not a call but there must be some ruling regarding it not being used at the appropriate time.

EBU Had an interesting problem recently in our club. A ruling was made but we are not sure that it was correct. At the beginning of an auction East started to remove a bid from the bidding box. He did not actually take the card out but he was just about to do so when West told him that it was not his turn to bid. The Director was called and he ruled that West was allowed to prevent an infraction. The bidding reverted to the correct bidder and West was warned that he had unauthorised information. He knew that his partner had an opening hand. The score would be adjusted if West took advantage of this information. We are not sure whether it was too late to stop East making the bid because he had shown intent. Therefore it should have been a bid out of turn that the Director had to deal with. What is the correct ruling in this case?

EBU We encountered this problem some time ago and were unable to resolve it. In one Sims event a board was played at one table for the first time. Players had been asked to check the travellers at the end of play to ensure the that the hands had been correctly recorded. It had not and it was necessary to cancel the hand and make the necessary correction for future play. Both pairs were given an average plus because they were not to blame for this error. At the end of play it was noted that everybody had bid and made 3NT. Without the error everybody would have got an average score. Many players felt that average plus should not have been awarded. What do you think?

EBU This incident happened recently in our club. The auction had finished and North was in a contract of 4♠. North and South then informed West that it was his turn to lead. He led the A♦. East then announced that it was his turn to lead. Law 47E states that if the player has been mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead then the card can be retracted without further rectification. East held two diamonds, k♦ and a small one. He led the k ♦ then the small one that was won by West's A♦. West continued with a diamond that was trumped by East. The contract went down. The problem we have is whether the AD was authorised information for East because they were not at fault. E/W much be implicated. They could quite easily have told N/S that they were wrong if they had been paying attention. The question is 'Was the lead out of turn of the A♦authorised information or not?'

EBU Declarer, who was on lead from dummy, said 'Di' and then immediately said 'Club'. Their opponents insisted she played a Diamond. I have checked the law book and Law 46 B2 states that if declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated. Would that law apply in this case where the suit was not clearly stated and the correction made instantly?

EBU This happened recently in our club. South opened a weak one no trump. West doubled and North bid two diamonds. South said 'Hearts'. East passed and South bid two hearts. North now realised that he had made a mistake when South announced hearts because in fact he had a diamond suit. He now bids three diamonds and the bidding ends. Was North legally allowed to bid three diamonds to correct his mistake? Was the 'heart' announcement unauthorised information to North that he could not act upon or was he perfectly entitled to make the correction?