toukie

One of our players is receiving unwelcome comments from a spectator who is not a club member. Does anyone know, is there a way for the director to block an individual player from spectating (without blocking all spectators)?

One thing I don't get. You said the player you threw out was a WBF director? I imagined that to be someone who directs international events. I don't believe anyone who directs at that level would behave in the manner you described. Directors, especially top ones, normally behave calmly. I would suggest checking that person's credentials. He doesn't sound like any WBF directors I know. From your description, the player's behavior and attitude was unacceptable, he would deserve a Procedural Penalty for bad behavior at the very least. Sounds like you did the right thing thowing him out.

If he asks about an alerted 4C and then passes, the UI is that he would have doubled a different meaning of 4C for the lead. I don't think there is UI about suit length, so i don't think a 5C bid is based on UI. But, if they end up defending and west leads a club then I think that is use of UI. Without the question all he knows is that east had a negative-inference lead-directing pass, the question tell him that east had a lead directional double.

Again, supposing east's clubs have been AKx. He would double Gerber, pass over a splinter, and probably pass over a natural 4C. Further east must surely know that there is a lot of confusion of what should and should not be alerted over 3NT (the evidence is in this stream), so therefore knows it is very likely that the bid is alertable and that south is confused about what should and should not be alerted. If he assumes the bid is natural and he passes and it later transpires that the bid was Gerber, he fears being told that he needs to protect himself in this situation by asking if the bid was alertable. Therefore, he is practically obliged to ask if the bid was alertable. Therefore, I don't think him asking says much at all about his hand. The only hands he could hold that does not need to ask would be a hand that would make the same bid over all possible meanings of 4C. I think west has made a false assumption and got lucky.

Returning to the original post ..... His partner might have good clubs for his pass, but that does not mean he has club length. I don't think you would double 4C to discourage the lead with AKx but I think you would double with xxxxxxx So good clubs doesn't mean club length, if it does the explanation was wrong. So, I think, either west is a weak player who misunderstood his own methods and got lucky when partner did actually have club length when he need not have had, or west has given a misexplanation of their methods.

Alright then, How do you answer the assertion "Well if I had been alerted to the fact that east had made a negative-inference lead-directing pass of course I would have played him for the club king, it's obvious...."

So this hand was made up. I suspected it was. I was the one who questioned whether the pass should be alerted. I wasn't suggesting NS were damaged by the failure to alert, I was merely drawing attention to the fact that an alertable bid had not been alerted, much the same as east did with the failure to alert the splinter. In answer to the question could a failure to alert a negative-inference lead-directing pass causes damage, well .... If NS ended up buying the contract, that knowledge could give some clue to the winning line of play. For example with xxxx in the splinter suit and a better holding an an unbid suit east might well double to say don't lead a club as a lead it's likely to give a free finesse, so if it's not doubled declarer could perhaps draw the inference that east probably has at least one club honour. If declarer had say AQJ opposite dummy's singleton, it gives him a clue whether to take an ordinary finesse or a ruffing finesse. How do you answer the the question "Well if I had been alerted to the fact that east had made a negative-inference lead-directing pass of course I would have played him for the club king, it's obvious...."

If we're going for the worst possible normal line then I make it 4 down. On the heart return declarer cashes the other top heart from hand discarding a spade, then leads the SQ covered by the K and ace. He can exit with a low spade but east rises with the 9 and cashes his master heart, west discarding a club. The defence makes 4 diamonds, 2 hearts, and 2 spades for 8 tricks, declarer makes 5 tricks.

Yes, I do. From the EBU Blue book Passes and bids Unless it is announceable (see 4D, 4E, 4F and 4G), a pass or bid must be alerted if it: (a) is not natural; or (b) is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning. I think pass is alertable when double is alertable, as it shows a hand that does not wish to make an alertable double. 1X - (1Y) - pass is not alertable (assuming take-out/negative doubles) since X is not alertable. On this hand west knows the East chose not to make a conventional double of the splinter, and NS are entitled to be alerted to that. NS would not expect a double of a splinter so say don't lead the suit, so they would not expect passing to have a negative inference that the splinter could have been doubled conventionally but wasn't, therefore it is an unexpected negative inference, and therefore I believe it is alertable. A similar example would be support doubles. If you pass when playing support double I think that is alertable. So if 1H (p) 1S (2C) X is alerted as a support double then 1H (p) 1S (2C) pass should be alerted and explained as denying a support double. I always alert pass from partner when he could have done a support double, don't you?

THe EBU White book may help us a little here. [For the non-englesh, the EBU white book is the EBU's interpretation of the laws] ‘Blatantly obvious’ An Appeals Committee thought the winning line was ‘blatantly obvious’ yet ruled against the claimer. The L&EC believed that if a line was blatantly obvious then all other lines would presumably not be ‘normal’, as defined by the footnote to Law 70C3. If so the Appeals Committee should have held that, in effect, the line should be permitted. Obviously the TD will rule that a heart has been returned. Declarer will at this point 'notice' that the club suit is blocked. So it is blatantly obvious that the only play is to cash the heart and unblock the club. Art least, that is how I think the EBU would rule. Other bridge authorities may interpret it differently.

I don't think the failure to alert 4C is particularly material to this hand. Attention was drawn to it in time and EW's actions were the same as if it had been alerted. EW Methods are are follows X of Gerber means lead clubs X of splinter means don't lead the suit pass over splinter means what? EW did not say it means lead the suit so it could be neutral. Was the pass over 4C alerted? There is no mention of an alert, and I think it is alertable. The methods EW play almost obliges them to ask the meaning of an alerted 4C. The only time they don't need to ask is if they have a hand that knows what action it would take irrespective of the meaning of the 4C bid, there can't be many of those. If EW ever bid over 4C without asking the meaning of 4C it would be highly suspicious. Of course, most oponents won't be aware of their methods so they would get away with it unnoticed most of the time. So, why did West assume East's pass showed club length? All it says is that I don't want to double to say don't lead the suit. Either the 5C bid is a wild punt or it looks like EW have an undisclosed agreement.

I was North. Stupid me. I thought that since a 2D response to Stayman was not alertable, that this wasn't either. Anyway I ask you to look at West's actions. He called the director when he suspected there was a failure to alert. This is fair enough, he may wish to establish the facts as soon as possible after the event occurred since it may be more difficult to get agreement on a failure to alert at the end of the hand. He also told the director that he wished to speak to him away from the table. This told everyone at the table that he would have doubled 3D. Q. Did he need to do this at the end of the auction? A. No. He could have done is at the end of the hand if he felt he had been damaged. If he did it at the end of the hand there would not be UI. By doing it at the end of the auctipn he has told his partner to return diamonds. On this particular layout a diamond return was obvious, but suppose it was not so obvious, suppose declarer had ducked the lead and supposed the his partner had returned a diamond. If this is not deemed acting on UI from west, then effectively what we are saying is that once NS have failed to alert something EW are free to pass UI at will and not be held responsible for it, and that cannot be right.