sanst

Would it be abnormal, for whatever reason, for the dclarer to play clubs before having drawn all trumps? If he did that, he, or she in the case of Mrs. Guggenheim, would certainly loose three tricks.

[hv=pc=n&s=s8hkj92dkj7ckt986&w=saj654htd864cj532&n=skqhaq65dqt5caq74&e=st9732h8743da932c&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1cp1h1s4h4spp5hppp&p=sasks2s8d4d5dad7d2dkd8]399|300[/hv] W starts with ♠A and switches to a small ♦. E wins with the ace, returns a small ♦ which is won by S with the K. Now S puts his cards on the table and says "The rest is mine". No line of play is given. W protests that its quite possible that S plays clubs before all trumps are drawn and that therefore E will make a trick. The TD decides that S will play trumps first and, when he discovers that W holds all the outstanding clubs, the finesse is marked, S making 5♥. What's your verdict?

So both S and W think that E is declarer. Why did N wait till all of West's cards were on the table? He could and should have interrupted W doing so. So S changed his mind. I don't say that the director didn't make a mistake, but it's not so clear cut as others seem to think. In cases like this it's usually best to assume that the director has investigated the case properly, unless it's obvious that he didn't. He was the only one who spoke to all concerned and could have asked W whether he passed or just picked up the dards.

It's clear you don't duplicate boards, which would give you a print of the hands. It makes live much easier, but it is a rather costly machine. So you have to reconstruct both hands. The best way to do this is to get both players who had these hands in the previous round and let them establish which card, or even cards, should be exchanged. It's time consuming and not always possible, but it's worth the effort.

How do you ruff the ace of trumps? ;) It was probably the ace of diamonds that was ruffed. Pran has already explained what would be a reasonable line of play, provided the declarer has the insight to ruff a diamond and use the last one to get rid of a loser.

By giving a PP in IMP's, VP's or a percentage of the MP's. In the last case you have to substract so many procents or MP's of their score, but you don't add these to the score of the other pair. I dn't know about ScoreBridge, but if it's a half decent program, this should be possible.

It's probably dependent on the jurisdiction. I find in the ABF Laws Interpretation: This is more or less the same as in the EBU White Book and the way Dutch TD's are supposed to operate. So in this case the declarer gets his tricks, but I would tell him that this is sheer luck.

What are the agreements on overcalls? It makes quite some difference if EW play weak jumps, in which case 1♠ shows a decent hand with values and double would certainly be an option, otherwise pass is a more than reasonable choice. But there might be players who would go to 4♠, given the vulnerability, especially when E has a habit of making very weak overcalls.

If a partner of mine makes an undiscussed jump cuebid, I would need some time, maybe rather long, to figure out what message he is trying to convey and what should be my action. "Excessive" is in the eye of the beholder, opps using a different watch than the thinker and his partner.FWIW, I would probably raise to 5♣ too, one off when S leads a trump.

I'm inclined to rule that pass is a LA, but I would certainly organize a poll if possible. S has no way of knowing whether the "topless clubs" (never thought of QJT9874 in that way, but I've probably a dirty mind) are worth anything, which makes passing more logical than raising. If the poll shows passing to be a majority choice, I would lecture S about the use of UI.

Praise to SB for behaving like a civilized person. It makes life so much easier for all concerned. SB certainly has a point: RR was thinking for quite some time, and that must have been about raising to 7♠. The Chimp's action made sure that he couldn't do that and it's also clear that W wasn't considering raising himself. It'snot unlikely that E, after a redouble would have bid 7♠, and that would certainly have been doubled. So EW get a score of --500. But redoubling knowing that W has the ace of trumps and also knowing that E has to pass and W can't go to 7♠, even if he is so inclined, is idiotic, so NS will keep their score.

May I suggest that Lamford sends SB on a behavioural course, so that he in the future first calls for the director quietly and then to the TD explains why he thinks that he has been damaged by his opponents without making accusations and refraining from aggressively ranting or shouting. The North London Club could only gain by that.

That seems to be totally out of character for one of the weakest players of the club. Somebody that bad can't loose all the time.

And he did all that working out the moment the tea pot hit his hand??? Or had he worked this out beforehand, assuming that N would show two key cards and the queen of trumps, and keeping his hand in such a position that the pot had to touch him? If you think that's the case, I put it to you that NS deliberately had such a slow auction that W had time to order the tea, burn his hand and work out that he, for some odd reason, should drop the king, seemingly by accident. Which of the two it is, the culprit is cheating, since he must have had prior knowledge of the hand.

Law 24: "When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player’s own error one or more cards of that player’s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director shall require that every such card be left face up on the table until the auction period ends. Information from cards thus exposed is authorized for the non-offending side but unauthorized for the offending side. If the offender becomes declarer or dummy the cards are picked up and returned to the hand. If the offender becomes a defender every such card becomes a penalty card (see Law 50)".It's open for discussion whether the card was exposed by RR's own error. It was caused by a outside agent, i.e the hot tea pot and the clumsiness of the waitress (why not a waiter?). But the laws don't give an answer what should be done if the exposure is accidental. I would rule that the card should be picked up and the information that W has the king is UI for all, as it's information "arising from another source". Afterwards the TD should decide whether it has influenced the play. Since the finesse is obvious, probably not. SB's claim that RR, given the burning of his hand, dropped the card on purpose is something only a lunatic or a very devious mind can come up with.

Let's not spend too much time on the behaviour of SB, who again violates law 74. Of course he should have asked how RR's hand was and certainly not be ranting. Since he seems to be incorrigible, he deserves a PP of 100% or more. How RR could have been aware that the exposure of the King could be advantageous to his side, is far beyond me. That he dropped a card because the waitress held a hot tea pot to his hand, is an accident, or did SB asked her to do so? I fail to see how the slam can be made, with or without the dropping of the king. Indeed, the TD made a mistake by forcing E to pass more than once, but this has no effect on the bidding. Laws 24 makes the king a PC and law 50B a MPC. The,knowledge of the card is authorized for SB, Law 24 again. So, there's no TD error, but even if there was, the board is playable according to the TD, and I agree with him, so no way a AAS can be awarded, even if there was a reason to give an AS.

Law 16 provides the answer: it's UI for both sides. That law doesn't say anything about teams, only about sides, a side being two players who contstitute a partnership. Since the information is not authorizeed according to 16A, it's unauthorized and should be treated according to 16C3/2c. That the culprit should be punished, is obvious and a penalty of 2 or 3 VP's is in order, since this is a serious offence.

What has the speed of light to do with it? N made a mistake when laying down his cards and neither N nor S corrected it. It's a clear cut 23 case.

For quite a few not so good players around here it's normal to bid like that. Their double shows 12+ HCP and no 5+ in a suit. After their partner has made a call, which might show zilch, they bid on wth a minimum and quite often have a good result, because their opps do the same. I wouldn't call this a special double; the names I've in mind are not very nice.

Not in VP's, since these are not in the Laws. IMNSHO you should stick to IMP's. What advantage offer VP's?

I wouldn't rule without a poll. What would comparable players do, given the auction and North's hand? And as a player I would call a director.

I'm not so certain that mumbling "one off" constitutes a claim. Besides, South leads the diamond queen, which he wouldn't, or shouldn't, do when he claims. And why does East show the nine instead of the king? I don't think this is a clear cut case and to make a ruling, I would need to hear the players. Based on the information given, I would rule in favour of NS.

No, it was not. What W did was trying to give an interpretation of the redouble and it went everywhere. Many players, beginners and the like often do, don't say 'no agreement' but try to be helpful and come up with some guesswork.In this case N is to blame. Why let the 4♦x stand and get shivery when it's redoubled? Didn't he trust his partner having 20...22 pts?

It's clear that the director made an error in allowing W to bid. What he should have done is firstly establishing the facts. From the OP I gather that 4NT was Blackwood, 5♦ would show 1 ace and EW have no agreement over interference. I hope that W, and not E, explained that 6♦ is natural, but I think that was more of a guess than an agreement. Anyway, since 5♦ is conventional and 6 of the same natural W is forced to pass. But the director never explained that nor the alternatives that E had. If he had, changes are that E would have bid 6♠. In this case both sides are to be treated as non offending. But I can't see where the bidding would have ended. Would E have bid 6♠? Would either N or S have pulled 7♥ out of the box or have doubled 6♠? I don't like it, but I think I would have gone for Avg+ for both, but please correct me. OT: next time EW might know about DOPI and there wouldn't have been a problem at all.

Funny. Most posters are commenting on the declarer's "sm.." and giving some highly unlikely if not downright nonsensical explanations. For me, more important is the action of the dummy. I would have let the lpay continue, but given an AS and quite probably a penalty, at least a warning, to the dummy for playing a card without being instructed to do so and to the declarer for changing his play accordingly. Things would be different had the dummy not picked up a card. Would you allow the declarer to change or muddle his call? He could say" sm...ile, but play the eight", or "small ... club" when diamonds were lead and there are diamonds on the table? Some years back there was a case in Holland in which the declarer, leading from the dummy, said (in Dutch) "hea...spades six". The national AC decided that a heart should be played. Based on that decision I would decide that in this case the lowest card in the suit should be played in the dummy.