Lanor Fow

[hv=pc=n&s=sq43h953dqj3ct632&w=st82h764d9872ca75&n=sakj7haqjdkckj984&e=s965hkt82dat654cq]399|300[/hv] There was an interesting situation in a recent event. I was not directing at the time. South was playing 3N on the 8♦ lead. The ♦K was taken by the ace and a diamond returned to South's q. South played the 10♣, ducking from North, which held the trick when East revoked (throwing a ♠). South played another ♣ and West played the Ace, East playing another spade. West now played a third round of ♦. At this point South claimed "On the marked club finesse". After confusion East finds the Q♣ stuck behind another card. How would you rule?

This sounds like the sort of call where everyone at the table should owe the director a drink, except East who I don't think has done anything wrong. As this is in the EBU, the blue book applies. It states (4A4): "The alerting player must make all reasonable efforts to ensure that both opponents are aware of the alert." If I were called to the table, I would need to determine if all reasonable efforts were made by west to ensure north was aware. Two things initially spring to mind: firstly if it were obvious that north wasn't paying attention, it would seem reasonable to try and make the alert more obvious, or attract north's attention in some way. Secondly, this regulation doesn't attach a specific time frame to the reasonable actions, so (and I would want to consult other directors on this, though in judgement rulings I would of course be consulting anyway) my reading would suggest that if it does become obvious later in the auction to west that north missed the alert, they should make them aware of it. Also worth noting is law 74B1 "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: 1. paying insufficient attention to the game." So for the three cases: a) If I determine there is MI based on the above, I'll award an adjusted (most likely weighted) score. If I don't think there was MI then score stands. I would consider a warning or PP to north for paying attention under 74B1. b) If there is MI then I would make sure North was aware of the alert and explanation and request the board be completed. I would consider a warning or PP for south under 16B1A and 73B1 (UI from partner). If there was not MI then this is now a unauthorised information case. South's question is UI to north. I would make this known, ask for the board to be played and if called back, consider whether it should be adjusted. I'm probably likely to rule that actions where North is unaware of the alert are LAs. In both cases I would consider a warning or PP to north for paying attention under 74B1. c)I would generally proceed as per b). If I worked out the situation in time I would try and speak to west and south away from the table to avoid the UI component, but I can't see that really happening as I imagine that the alert will be mentioned before I have a good idea what the situation is. I think this is interesting with law 16A3 which does say that "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following);" are not UI, but given the reference to 16B1 I would still consider this a UI situation.

I agree it will affect her decision, but the current advice I've seen on ruling on these is that as a director I'm not meant to say whether there is a 27b1b replacement before a choice is made, but to make LHO aware of the law and make sure she is aware that she can ask questions about the system to determine for herself whether such is available. I had to give such a ruling at YE to four experienced players. One had bid 1c (could be 2) not noticing a 1M bid before them. In this situation LHO decided not to accept the bid, but the table was then surprised that I then ruled 2c not to fit 27b1b. I gather than everyone (but the player I took away from the table) was expecting 1c to be replaced with 2c and bidding to continue.

The BB specifically says that part three is subject to proper disclosure, which 'artificial, strong and FG except a 2NT rebid would be 23-24 balanced and could be passed' doesn't fit. I don't believe it's sufficient for any hand fitting parts 1 and 2, but it's certainly not for part 3 (or why would they put in 'subject to proper disclosure'). SB is opening many more hands 2c than most people who describe it as 'strong' or 'GF'. Whilst this description is not wonderful in the majority of cases, it's misleading in SBs case where his agreement is so different than the usual one here.

I don't believe game forcing is a correct description of any hand that fulfills part 1 or 2 of the ER25. This part of a desciription of what can be considered strong according to regulations, not what is a GF hand. Even if it were just these two parts, I would not consider this disclosure enough when asked about the bid, and would rule MI. It is even clearer if the bid can conform to part three (10+ points and 8 clear cut tricks) of the definition of ER25, as this specifically states "subject to proper disclosure". It would not be enough to describe a bid containing hands that fit part three and not parts 1 or 2 'Strong', and certainly not enough to describe them as 'GF or 23+bal'. As others have said, just because SB can legally open these hands 2c, doesn't stop him having to disclose correctly. I would accept 'All hands that fit ER25' assuming that SB was happy to explain ER25 and they did open all hands that fit ER25 2c, but this was not what was said at the table and when you inquire about a bid, you should be told what the bid systemically means. This was not done.

Whilst the laws say that the director should have been called earlier, as Vampyr says, assuming the director wasn't then there seems little point in 'reserving your rights' at any point. In hesitation cases this is normally done to get an agreement on the hesitation at the time without having to call the director. You don't lose any rights by not uttering the phrase 'reserving my rights', there is just the potential for time passing to obscure the situation. In this case an explanation has been corrected, a pass offered back (all of this incorrect without a director, but happens often). If opposition are not going to remember this (or even lie about it) how would you rely on them remembering (or admitting) that you reserved your rights. Blowing the defense in a UI situation doesn't remove any rights. If sufficiently bad, there may be a SWoG element to the ruling, but a competent director is not going to refuse to rule as you messed the defense up. Abiding completely by the rules the director should have been called a the change of explanation. If they weren't, then reserving your rights is going to be pointless in this case.

Even with legs at 120 degrees, wouldn't this still lead to problems as a bridge table. For a start there would legs interfering with legroom and seat placement. Moreover I can foresee issues if someone were to lean on the table, or play their (penalty) double card too hard.

Would you be ruling this basis on the fact that Declarer might not have known that any trumps were out (despite no rounds having been played) or that it would not be irrational to not attempt to draw them?

I got called to the table in a recent event. The ruling caused some discussion amongst the directors at the event, so I was interested to hear peoples opinions. [hv=pc=n&s=s987hkt42dj765cqt&w=sj53haq9876d8ck63&n=skqt42hj3daqt432c&e=sa6h5dk9caj987542]399|300[/hv] The contract was 5d by south. This was over a week ago, and I don't have my notes so I can't remember the auction. The play had gone: 3♠, 2, A, 7 5♥, k, A, 3 8♥, 3, 9♦, 2♥ A♣, 10, 3, 2♦ At this point declarer faced their hand and made a statement. There was some dispute over the statement. Declarer claimed he said he would draw trumps and throw hearts on the spades. Defenders claimed that declarer never mentioned trumps and just said he was going to throw hearts on the spades. Dummy didn't hear what was said. Defenders said that had trumps been mentioned the director wouldn't have been called. Declarer said that he knew there was a trump out, and corrected himself to two trumps out when defense said "More than one trump". Declarer claimed that he though that the heart had been ruffed with the King, so drawing trumps would not have been an issue regardless of the layout, and that the confusion in the discussion of the claim was to do with which trump the heart was trumped with. Both sides are adamant about their viewpoint. All players are of a good standard. How do you rule? The white book provides some guidance on the issues of trumps not mentioned and "top down", listed below. We thought, in discussion, an interesting point was whether, given declarer thought the king had gone, whether drawing trumps by playing a heart to the jack, to be able to play a spade up would fit the statements and be a normal line. Thanks in advance "8.70.4 Missing trump A declarer who is unaware of a missing trump is ‘careless’ in failing to draw the missing trump. Thus if a trick could be lost by playing other winners first then the TD should award that trick to the non-claimers. Examples (a) Declarer claims all the tricks with a good trump ( 9), two spade winners and a heart winner. The defence can ruff the heart with their outstanding small trump. Despite declarer swearing on a stack of bibles that they knew there was a trump out, if they are too careless to mention it, then they may easily have forgotten it and the defence gets a trick. (b) Declarer is in 7 with thirteen tricks so long as spades (trumps) are not 5-0. Declarer cashes one round and says “All mine” when both players follow. They clearly have not forgotten the outstanding three trumps and the claim is good. 8.70.5 Top down? A declarer who states that they are cashing a suit is normally assumed to cash them from the top, especially if there is some solidity. However, each individual case should be considered.White Book 2015 – Laws 7 August 2015 135 Example Suppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 opposite 42, forgetting the jack has not gone. It would be normal to give them three tricks since it might be considered not ‘normal’ to play the 5 first. However, with 754 opposite void it may be considered ‘careless’ to lose a trick to a singleton six."

What is the point of the footnote then, if we are always going to adjust anyway if it works out? Surely if that was the meaning, the footnote would specifically exclude infractions when allowing the change.

To my mind the footnote would be pointless if we were expected to adjust if the replacement was better than not replacing. The argument that they might not have noticed would be applicable every time. I might give a PP, I wouldn't give an adjusted score.

I've bolded the pertinent part. Noone has drawn attention to the 'when he should' part, just the not followed suit part. Therefore attention hasn't been drawn to the revoke

A revoke is not following suit when one can. Attention has been drawn to the fact that declarer hasn't followed suit. Attention has not been drawn to the fact that declarer could have followed suit. As such attention hasn't been drawn to the revoke. Drawing attention to the fact that declarer hasn't followed suit is necessary, but not sufficient, to draw attention to the revoke

I don't know about 2013. I know in September 2014 whilst the regulation was not worded in the current way, it was intended that 4c should have been alerted. I believe the regulation was most recently updated for clarity rather than changing the meaning. Nb. I can date this as it came up on my county course.

There isn't enough information here to give a ruling. How does south believe they were damaged, or in other words how would they have bid differently if it hadn't been alerted. What would 2s, then 3s then 4s have been over a natural unalerted spade overcall?

I was in a bad slam the other day. I wondered what people think the best line is. There were issues with the bidding (mostly on my side) but I've included it in case it is relevant. [hv=pc=n&s=sj5hkq875dat5cat3&n=sakqt9h64dk642ck2&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p1n(14-16)p2hp2sp4np5hp5np6hp6nppp]266|200[/hv] Lead of the 7♣ Thanks in advance

I revoked against a small slam with two natural trump tricks by ruffing with one of them, (partner coming up with a third trick) for a 17 imp and 12(ish) vp swing at Brighton about 8 or so years ago. This has certainly stuck with me to this day, and may have made me more careful (I don't think, however, that I habitually revoked before)

I agree it would be very unusual to deem this a law 25a change, but not impossible. I remember at least one director talking about a 25a ruling with spoken bidding which is obviously not a "mis-pull". For the sake of the questions, however I'll assume that the director deemed that the pass was unintended as per law 25a. 1) With the assumptions above, yes. A 25A correction can be made either before the end of the auction period, or before the players partner bids, which ever comes first. As the board was passed out the auction period lasts until all 4 hands are returned to the board (law 22) 2) Dealer now has 13 card that have to be left on the table. Dealer can make any bid they chose, but their partner is forced to pass for one round 3)See 2, they have to pass for one round 4)See 2 5)Correct 6)Yes declarer designates which card is played. More than that, there are lead penalties if his partner gets on lead. Assuming the exposed hand has no void, declarer could demand, or prohibit any suit (the penalty cards in that suit are then picked up).

I remember hearing about a carding agreement where carding was upside down if the original lead was odd and 'standard' if it was even.

True, remove the word clear then, If north believes one thing and south another they don't have an agreement (after all they don't agree!) "It is completely normal for a pair to believe different things in situations where they do have an agreement but one of them has gotten it wrong. It does not necessarily mean they have no agreement." If one person has forgotten the agreement, or forgotten it applies in a certain situation then yes they can have an agreement. If they believe two contradictory things about the situation, then there is no agreement about this situation.

If north believes one thing and south another, how can there be a clear agreement between them?

If you decide there is misinformation here (something I'd have to be at the table to decide, so I'll go by your judgement there, which seems reasonable based on the information posted) then you are better asking East if he would act if the description of the bid was 'undiscussed', or 'Cappelletti in direct seat by an unpassed hand but undiscussed if a passed hand' rather than natural. Did you ask if 3d would have been forcing here? It seems quite likely that it would be, especially if they play lebensohl. If so then 4d seems an unlikely result and 5d= seems more reasonable.

Did you mean opposite what he thinks is a limit raise?

It might be possible to play a web for 11 tables and 8 rounds, but why would you? Surely if you are going to try and reduce the number of boards not played, you'd just play a hesitation mitchell and have 12 rounds.

One of the main issues with looking at travelers as a director is that the auction may not be the same. Even if the auction were the same, the systems played could well be different, either obviously or subtlety, giving different inferences. Unless I could find a set of peers, playing the same system, against opponents with the same system, who had the same auction (and enough of these to have a sample set to suggest something) then the travelers are often worse than useless. Practically, trying to find this information when running an event, as well as consulting on the ruling and polling for LAs, is likely to be too time consuming to provide a timely ruling.