dburn

Not bad, campboy. Not bad at all. But "play" is (as Defined in the Laws) It is my contention that if someone suggests that his opponent cease to deliberate, this is a deliberate attempt to shorten the period during which the cards are played, and hence to "curtail play". That is: to suggest that there "be less play" and to suggest that "the same amount of play happen more quickly" are both "attempts to curtail play" per the dictionary definition of "curtail" and the Lawful definition of "play" according to [3] above. Keen observers will have noted that there is no [1] above. But that, as the same keen observers will also have noted, is sub judice - I await as keenly as other observers the further arguments of pran to the effect that a card led may not be a card played (previous arguments to that effect having been more or less complete nonsense).

This is unclear to me. If I am thinking and someone says "it doesn't matter", this is at the very least a suggestion that I cease thinking. Now, to "curtail" is (and is also a very stupid choice of word by the Lawmakers - what is the Japanese for "curtail"? - but it will take longer to remove Kaplanese from the Laws of bridge than it will to remove spilled oil from the Gulf of Mexico). To say "it doesn't matter" whilst at the same time to say "but I'm not claiming" appears to me on a par with saying "I smoked, but I didn't inhale". Of course "it doesn't matter" is an attempt to curtail play (and so is showing your hand to one opponent but not the other), and just because some Director rules that it is not does not mean the Director in question isn't an idiot.

There is no question of whether one "wants" or "does not want" to pursue a link that plainly exists in the Laws (despite pran's remarkable assertion that it does not). If one is to give a ruling as a Director, one is in duty bound to explore every reference from any Law to any other Law, and refer to the Definitions if there is room for doubt. Moreover, what one emphatically must not do as a Director is to state on one's own initiative "this is a nonsense link that I do not want to pursue". After all, Scripture has it that: Again: this case was not one with which I had to deal at first hand, nor was it one that I made up to demonstrate my own "cleverness" or otherwise; whether in the actual case Law 57 was or was not invoked did not matter in the slightest; but the case appeared to me to contain certain points of interest. Maybe it doesn't. But, to misquote William Windham, I wish I was as sure of anything as bluejak and pran are of everything.

Really? In my copy of the Laws, these words appear: Admittedly this makes little sense, for a card prematurely led by a defender is also a penalty card. But as I have remarked before, just because something makes no sense this does not mean it is not the Law. By the same token, just because someone makes no sense this does not mean he is not a Director.

No, the seven of clubs was a card exposed during the auction for which Law 24 applies. The Director should have ruled that this card must remain faced until the end of the auction and that East must pass when next it is his turn to call (and Law 23 may apply). At the end of the auction period South is presumed declarer, the seven of clubs becomes a major penalty card and as West is the correct player to make the opening lead he must lead this penalty card. End of problems. The Director did rule that the seven of clubs remained face up until the end of the auction; he did rule that East had to pass at his next turn; and he wondered afterwards whether West could deliberately lead out of turn in order to stop East pulling if either opponent redoubled. When I suggested that he look at Law 23, his mind was at rest on this point. South duly became declarer, and the seven of clubs was duly led (this time at West's actual turn to lead). Unfortunately, this was the beginning rather than the end of the problems. You see, the seven of clubs was a card exposed prior to the play period, but it had also been prematurely led. Law 57 makes no mention at all of whether the play out of turn is a premature lead to the first trick (a lead is, of course, a play), or whether it is a card exposed during the auction period, or whether it is Mrs Bun the Baker's Wife. Law 57 just says that "When a defender... plays out of turn before his partner has played... the card so led or played becomes a major penalty card, and declarer selects one of the following options..." Two constructive suggestions might be made to the WBFLC some time before 2018: First, as was suggested by a contributor here, the words "to the current trick" should be inserted after "before his partner has played" in Law 57 (otherwise, in theory at any rate, a lead by a defender when it is declarer or dummy's turn to lead will incur the penalty prescribed by the rest of Law 57). Second, the Definition of a defender should be replaced by "an opponent of the player who has made the final bid in the auction; he becomes a defender following the final pass of the auction".

Not by three-quarters of the table. It is this that I think distinguishes it from the situations in the Laws (rather than the definitions) that talk of "presumed declarer" & "presumed dummy". In fact, or so I gather, West had led and North was about to put the dummy down when East said "hang on - the auction isn't over". Whether or not South knew this is not recorded, but it may well have been that South was the "presumed declarer" by everyone at the table except East (and even East presumed that South was about to be the declarer). Supplementary question: what would have happened if after West had led, North had in fact tabled the (presumed) dummy?

That is a good question, and one that I had initially hoped would resolve the matter in favour of the "common sense" interpretation. But as I have already remarked, the Definitions (perhaps foolishly) state that a defender is "an opponent of (presumed) declarer". Since South is presumed to be the declarer, and since West is South's opponent, West is (at any rate for the purposes of Law 57) a defender. The situation is not helped by the fact that the Definitions say of "Declarer" that he is: "the player who, for the side that makes the final bid, first bid the denomination named in the final bid. He becomes declarer when the opening lead is faced (but see Law 54A when the opening lead is made out of turn)." and of the opening lead that it is: "the card led to the first trick". Well, the seven of clubs was the card led to the first trick, even though it was initially led before the auction was over. Law 54A isn't much help, since East didn't lead anything - face down or otherwise. Of course, if West had only led his card face down as he should have done, none of this would have happened, but... Again, this is not a case I have made up to show how clever I am, or to show how stupid the WBFLC is. This is a case that actually happened, where someone making an honest and diligent attempt to follow the Law as written reached a conclusion repugnant to common sense. But it is emphatically not sufficient for anyone to say "that doesn't make sense, so it can't be the Law".

Let me tell you how this "clever" reading of the Law actually came about. A match was played at TGRs the other night during which the exact situation I have described occurred (except that the final contract was redoubled by North). The host on duty acted as Director and, after following the path I have described through Laws 24, 50 and 57, found himself in considerable doubt as to whether Law 57 applied; a literal (not a "clever") reading indicated that it should, but common sense suggested that it should not. This reading, whether "clever" or otherwise, was not in any case mine. Fortunately, East's clubs were KQJ108 and dummy had ♣A9xx, so East's highest and lowest clubs were functionally equivalent - it did not matter whether South could ask for either of them or not. (Unfortunately, at least from the point of view of the defenders, the contract had nine top tricks anyway.) The quondam Director discussed the situation with me the following day, and I agreed with him that the words of the Law did not say (or at any rate, might not say) what the people who wrote them intended them to say. So, I posted the question here. I did not know then and do not know now whether this is a Law 57 case, and I am not remotely convinced by the argument "it isn't because it isn't". Nor am I particularly impressed by the latest attempt at bluster and bullying perpetrated by bluejak.

This wasn't a "clever" reading of the Law. This was a reading of the Law that involved considering at each stage what the words of the Law meant. Is it "the practice of the matter" for Directors to ignore what the Law says? If so, where is this "practice" documented?

Depends on the reality. This would actually be quite a tough problem with screens in the usual alignment (North-East and South-West as screen-mates).

This is not altogether clear. If over what South thought was a natural 2♦ East bid 2NT, alerted and explained by West as minors, would South now be permitted to remember his agreement? If so, North-South would have no difficulty in reaching 4♥ - one would then have to consider the chance that the vulnerable East-West would save over it, and the chance that North-South would continue to 5♥ anyway. But the procedure for doing that is well understood - my first question, though, is not.

Not really. If East has a penalty double, maybe North has his values outside hearts.

South bid 3NT, West passed, North passed, East doubled, West led. Thus West attempted to lead at South's turn to call - he thought East has passed, not doubled, so that the auction was over. ...then it is a lead, which is per the Definitions "the first card played to a trick". The fact that no one else is going to play to this trick yet is neither here nor there - West has led a card when it was not his turn to do so, and therefore... ...West has certainly played out of turn before his partner has played, since per the Definitions a "play" is (inter alia) "the contribution of a card from one’s hand to a trick, including the first card, which is the lead."

Oh, no particularly "good" reason. But... So, West has to lead ♣7 and the Director has to turn to Law 57, where he finds that: Now, Robin argues that since it was no one's turn to play a card during the auction, West's lead of ♣7 was not out of turn. But if you do anything when it is not your turn, you ipso facto do it out of turn (the Definitions say only that "turn" is "the correct time at which a player is due to call or play"). This position actually arose a few hours ago. Probably the Lawmakers did not intend that the draconian provisions of Law 57 should apply, but if they didn't, they have in my view done a rather poor job of saying so. I suppose it might be argued that Law 57 doesn't apply because at the time West led out of turn, he was not a defender (the auction had not finished). But the Definitions say only that a "defender" is "an opponent of (presumed) declarer"; at the point at which West led, he (and everybody else) presumed that South was the declarer, so this argument is... well, tenuous at best and untenable at worst.

Either or both.

West leads ♣7 against 3NT by South which he thinks has been passed out. Unfortunately East has doubled, so this is a card prematurely led during the auction. However, everybody passes. After West leads ♣7 again, can declarer compel East to play his highest (or his lowest) club to the trick?

North -South could show damage in just about any jurisdiction in the world, because North would not bid 6♥ if he knew that he had been doubled for penalty in 2♥. Instead, he would pass out 6♣ doubled, where his partner would go down three, and that appears to me a sensible adjustment.

If in need of a swing, will bid 4NT (straight Blackwood). Partner will hold: ♠xxxx ♥Jx ♦AQxxx ♣Ax and bid 5♥, which I will raise to six. This will make with 2-2 hearts and 3-3 diamonds with the king right, and I shall be a hero. If not in need of a swing, will bid 2♥, because I don't think we'll make any game if partner passes this.

You need to understand that wank is from the modern school that has dispensed with a 3♠ overcall to ask for a spade guard for 3NT; to him and those like him, a 2♣ overcall has exactly the same significance. To be honest, I'm not sure I'd bother bidding with this hand at all. But if I did consider doing so, it would help me to know the vulnerability and the form of scoring.

Whenever hearts are 3=4, they can arrange for West to win the third heart. If hearts are 2=5 and RHO has ♣Qxx, that makes the spades 7-2, which is possible but unlikely given that West didn't bid. Yes, he did - apparently he "transferred to spades". But I am finding it hard to imagine how the auction actually went, and without knowing that I find it rather difficult to plan the play. The OP says that "partner didn't want to double them" in 2♠, which I can well understand, but I should like to know at what stage he was given the chance to double them in 2♠ and what he did instead. My best guess at the moment is that East knows I cannot run the clubs. This is matchpoints, and if he thought I could run the clubs he would not underlead in hearts to give me an eleventh trick - instead, he would cash a top heart intending to lead a low one next if his partner encouraged, a high one next otherwise. Hence, I will cross to a club and run the diamonds; if East started with ♠Kxx ♥AKxx ♦Axx ♣Qxx, he will have to discard down to the singleton ♠K and play low on the second or third round of hearts, which would risk handing me an eleventh - and indeed a twelfth - trick if I had ♥J. If East does all of that, he deserves to beat me - but since I couldn't make the contract anyway, I shall not mind all that much.

Pass, assuming that partner can double 2♠ for penalty if West passes. If North wants to do that I will be pleased, but I am not going to force him to defend 2♠ doubled if he would not decide to do so on his own.

So if someone were to play a hand evaluation methods where 1NT is mostly 12-14, sometimes a good 11 or bad 15 and once in a blue moon an excellent 10 or a really awful 16 (bridge merits aside), do you really think that it should be announced "10 to 16"? No. If NickRW actually plays "reasonable 12 to bad 15", which is what he says he plays, then he should tell me that it is what he plays - that is, his partner's announcement should be in those terms. But if every time he picks up (in some order) queen empty fourth, ace empty fifth and a couple of KQ doubletons he is going to open 1NT, then his disclosure should include the information. He argues that the hand is "in fact" a 15 count, and a bad 15 count at that, but it is in fact a 16 count and I cannot be expected to know that he will open 1NT with it unless his partnership tells me that he will. He argues, somewhat weirdly, that such a hand is "worse for playing in notrump" than some balanced 15 count or other. This is true, but perhaps he should consider that if your hand is bad for playing in notrump, you might open it with some other bid than 1NT.

I have no idea what has caused you to arrive at this conclusion, but it is not true. As I have remarked many times, I don't care what you play or how you count your points. You are entirely at liberty to open a "weak" no trump on ♠Qxxx ♥KQ ♦KQ ♣Axxxx if you wish - I happen to think it's pretty awful bridge, but there is no Law against your playing badly. What you are not at liberty to do is open 1NT with that and have your partner announce "12-14", for there is a Law against your playing methods that you do not properly disclose.

No, of course not. He passed in about half a second and prepared to blame me for being a gibbering idiot. He was probably right about that, although if he'd actually had the jack of clubs (so that his absurd 1NT opening was at least within range) I'd have made it anyway.

Possibly. If you persist in the attitude that "we explain our methods in terms that you walruses might grasp, but we judge our hands in terms of our own God-like standards that are utterly beyond your feeble understanding", then the bottom of my hitherto inexhaustible well of tolerance and bonhomie towards my fellow human might easily be reached. If on the other hand you just tell me what you're actually playing, I expect I will be able to cope. It occurs to me that there ought to be a box on the convention card for "most absurd hand with which we have ever opened 1NT on purpose"; in these days of word processors and the like this ought to be relatively easy to keep up to date, and it would be far more useful than any of the current "may contain a singleton" rubbish.