One Short

In anticipation of declarer continuing to lead trumps, declarer’s LHO lifts a trump a little way from his hand. Declarer does not continue with the trump suit but plays his singleton club up to dummy’s AQ. He then looks up to see LHO replace the card and play a club – also a singleton. The Q is played from dummy and the finesse fails. Dummy has a 6-card club suit. There is no entry to dummy and so declarer, instead of possibly two club tricks, or a certain one, gets none. At the end of the hand, declarer claims that had LHO not suggested he might have had more than one club by his “fiddling about” he would have played the A. Does declarer have a valid claim to redress? Can LHO receive a penalty?

♥[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1nd2hp2sd]133|100[/hv] North 1NT = 12-14 East X = Penalties South 2♥ = Rescue transfer North 2 ♠ = Transfer made East X = Penalties Is the final double by East alertable?

The playing director is called to the table to deal with an opening lead out of turn by west. Nobody objects to the allegation and the director asks no questions as the offending card lies face up on the table. The ruling is given and play continues without any further incident. When he later that evening arrives at the playing director’s table, west is asked by the director if he has been behaving himself in the meantime. Then the story unfolds. While west is taking his card from his hand, the declarer in an attempt to prevent a lead out of turn, wafts his hand towards west and accidently knocks the card out of west’s hand. The card flutters down to the table and lands face up. East confirms that it was not possible to see the face of the card before the accident happened. East/West are meek and mild and west is a nonogenarian using a walking frame to get round the room. The declarer is forceful and experienced. Is it now too late to do anything about it? If at the time the director had been aware of all the circumstances could he rule that the card is replaced in west’s hand without penalty? Would there be UI or AI? Would a PP be in order? The card was ranked below a ten

After the Auction period and before a card is led the defender on declarer’s right knocks over the card-holder. For a brief moment all 13 cards are exposed and it therefore appears under Laws 49 and 50 that the entire hand comprises major penalty cards. Law 51 is now relevant and it seems that this law is silent on the issue of declarer neither requiring nor prohibiting a lead. That is, offending defender's partner can lead without restriction. Does this mean that forevermore all 13 cards remain major penalty cards? If so, does it also mean that declarer can in effect play offending defender’s hand? (Law 51(A) Assuming that the card-holder is retrieved “in the twinkling of an eye” would it then, within the Laws, be a proper exercise of a director’s option to designate that none of the cards is a penalty card?

OK- so here is what happened. It was one of those “friendly club nights” where the offender was making a come-back after living away for a decade; not having played bridge during that time because there was not a bridge club anywhere near his home (Cornwall). He did think he had won the trick and his play out of turn was noticed to the extent that the table agreed that he should withdraw the card. Play then proceeded with the winner of trick 5 leading to trick 6; everyone pretending that the lead out of turn had never happened. He did not put the offending card back in his hand but quitted it. At trick 13 he had no cards left I was the playing director and at trick 13 was now called. My heart sank as my immediate thoughts were of a revoke and the rigmarole of finding out the play of the 8 remaining tricks. Because of the time this investigation might take it would probably have meant cancellation of 2 boards, one at this and one at my table. The aspect of the 5th card to the trick also crossed my mind and I told them I did not know how to deal with it. The table offered to score the board as average which I readily accepted in order to move on. It did seem to be a practical solution in the circumstances although I did later think that Average Minus to both sides might be more appropriate as they were all guilty of something even if I knew not what. These are issues now being considered at academic leisure, and the point to my original post was to consider how experienced directors would have dealt with it there and then so as to be better prepared should it ever arise again in the next 20 years or so.

A defender thinks he has won trick five, but has not. He therefore leads to the next trick, which is a lead out of turn. This is noticed by the table but the director is not called. Instead, the lead to trick six is now made by the winner of trick five and play just continues as if nothing had happened. The table had self-ruled but no-one had observed that the offending card could have been a major penalty card or that the lead out of turn could have been accepted. Nor did anyone notice that the offending defender did not return the card to his hand but quitted the card to the row of cards in front of him. At trick thirteen the defender duly announces that he has no more cards to play and the director is called. How should the director rule?

Playing in a club game declarer opened 1NT (12-14) and his partner responded 3♦. This was alerted and passed by declarer. When asked at the end of the auction, declarer said it was their method of a weak take out and that they had been advised that it was alertable by a very experienced director. I find it very strange that a natural bid of a 6-card suit should be alertable notwithstanding that the usual interpretation (at least around here) of playing the response of 3-minor is that of a game-force bid What do we think?

Right then – here it is. This is the hand that prompted the discussion posted in the Appeals section of this forum. [hv=pc=n&s=skj9532hq862d72c9&w=saqhjdak84cjt8754&n=st76hk74dqjt5ck32&e=s84hat953d963caq6]399|300[/hv] The contract is 5 ♣ by West after South opened the bidding with a weak 2 ♠, (only really relevant to enable South to recall that Declarer failed to take the marked spade finesse). On the face of it, the contract can be made and with careful play it is possible for Declarer to make an overtrick. At the table the contract was made. But, in the opinion of the TD, because of the way it was played by Declarer, it must have been made by a revoke by Declarer. The circumstances of discovery of the revoke were unusual. It was not until play had begun on the subsequent board that North queried the play of the previous hand and said that he believed a revoke had been committed. The TD was duly informed and the TD said he needed time to gather his thoughts and the facts of the play of the hand. North (a non-offender) set about forthwith detailing the play, writing it down specifically and coherently. South agreed verbally with North’s recollection. This is North’s submission: 1 Q♦ led taken by A♦ 2 J♥ to A♥ 3 Small ♥ ruffed in hand 4 J♣ led and held 5 A♠led and held 6 Q♠ led taken by K♠ 7 Small ♦ taken by K♦ 8 Small ♦ taken by 10♦ 9 J♦ led and ruffed by Declarer - THE REVOKE 10 Small ♣ to Q♣ 11 ♥ ruffed in hand 12 ♦ led ruffed with K♣ over-ruffed with A♣ 13 Back to hand with winning ♣ ruff Declarer (the offender) and Dummy put their heads together and in due course produced a joint letter. Their remembrance was not as clear-cut as that of North and comprised 5 points: 1 The lead of Q♦ 2 The loss of a spade trick (spade finesse not taken) 3 The loss of a diamond trick 4 Lead at trick 12 by Declarer of a diamond, ruffed by North with K♣ and over-ruffed in Dummy with A♣ 5 Trick 13 won by Declarer, ruffing with the last trump. The TD compared the two submissions, which had been composed independently, and could find no conflict between the two, and that North was specific where the losses of the spade and diamond tricks had taken place. The conclusion of the TD, based on Declarer and Dummy’s joint submission alone, was the contract cannot be reached in the way Declarer had played it. Therefore Declarer must have revoked. This view was reinforced by North’s quite specific recollections of the play especially where and how the revoke occurred, namely at trick 9. TD ruled accordingly under Law 64 C and adjusted the score. We have now all had wise counsel from the appeals forum; so Q1 Do you, if you are a TD, agree that the contract cannot be made? Q2 Would you, if so agreeing, deem that Declarer had revoked? Q3 If whatever the TD does decide is appealed, and if this time you are on the AC, would you consider that under Law 93 B 3 you have no power to overrule the TD, and why? Q4 You are still on the AC, if you consider that you have the power to overrule, would you and why?

The TD did not in fact "rule" on the night as matters were just left in abeyance until there was adequate information available. The appeal was made on the published result just to preserve the right to have the issue considered.

A Director is required to consider a revoke under 64 B 4. That is, after play to the next hand has been started. It is difficult to establish exactly the play of the cards to each trick and the revoke is not agreed upon. However, information from the four players enables the TD to decide that that the only way that the end result could arise is by the offending player revoking. The information was obtained by the TD on the next day and in the meantime a valid appeal had been made against the published result of no revoke. At the appeal hearing, TD submits a written report containing his findings of facts and concluding that the revoke had taken place with the result being amended accordingly. Has the appeals committee any powers to over-rule the TD or are they only able to recommend to the TD that he changes such a ruling?

[hv=pc=n&s=s2hdc2&w=shdk5c&n=shdjtc&e=sahdqc]399|300[/hv] This was the position at the start of trick 12 North is dummy and on lead but before South as declarer can designate a card to play............ East makes the claim not aware that K♦ is still out My OP describes this position

In No Trumps dummy wins the 11th trick , has Jack and 10 of a suit as the last two cards but before declarer can designate the next card, dummy’s LHO silently tables his cards. It is clear that LHO is making a claim. He has the queen and a winner in another suit. The queen is not necessarily a winner as the king is still out . It is LHO’s partner who has the king and a card in the same suit lower than the 10. Thus, LHO is not in control when making the claim as his partner could win the trick and then lead into dummy’s winning card. Should the director allow defender’s claim?

The Director calls for the end of the round and goes to collect the boards from the table next to his. He is told that there was a revoke on the first of the three boards which one of the non-offending players would like to be investigated. Not wanting to delay the play in the room and because he was about to play the revoke board and because he was hazy about time limits on such an issue, the Director said he would investigate at the end of play. It was ascertained that bidding had started on the second board when a non-offending player mentioned that Declarer had revoked on the previous board and as a consequence Declarer should not have made the contract. Do the Laws allow the Director to make an assign an adjusted score in these circumstances? If the Director decides at the end of play that he cannot deal with the matter adequately (eg offending parties having gone home) and allows the score to stand, has the non-offender a right of appeal?

apologies it was obviously EW who had already seen the hands

Normal club evening; 11 ½ tables; Mitchell movement; 9 rounds of 3 boards; skip after 6 rounds. The Playing Director forgot to mention at the start of the session that there would be a skip movement although he was aware there should be one. At the end of the 6th round (about 3 tables still playing) he duly announced the start of the next round but forgot to ‘remind’ the room of the skip. As a consequence, 6 of the tables started bidding, NS not realizing that they had already played the hand, but other tables did notice and announced their discoveries. 5 tables had not started bidding. The Director then corrected, duly implemented the skip, cancelled the 6 started boards due to the irregularity and the remaining 5 tables continued normally with all the players now in their correct seating positions. At the end of the evening the 6 cancelled boards were scored AV+ both sides; LAW 12: C.2.(a)with 2 pairs being allotted 66% and 65% C.2.©. Q1 In the circumstances it seems hardly practical that LAW 15: C. (Play of a wrong board) should apply to the 6 boards but has a Director any authority to cancel all 6 boards and award the adjusted scores? Q2 Is there any authority to cancel all 11 boards and not award any adjusted scores or is such a move unfair on the other 5 tables Q3 Hypothetical in this case – if the Director, at the start of the session, had announced a skip movement but then failed to implement it, would any player be considered to be partly, or even directly, at fault for not being aware of the correct movement at the time it should have been implemented? Q4 Facetiously – Should the Director award himself a PP?

All my fault in the OP Yes in reality it was the final round and therefore bidder's partner would not have a bid to make. However, what I was trying to do was create a situation for your views where bidder's partner's pass would end the auction. This would happen if RHO was declarer and had opened with a pass. Bidder, in second seat, wants to bid say 2NT, but pulls out the pass card instead of the stop card. LHO and bidder's partner are far too quick and the intended bid is being made at the same time that bidder's partner reaches for the bridgemate. Is the bidder too late to change either by Law or Orange Book; or is the TD allowed by common sense to decide either way? Yes I was the bidder and the TD allowed me to change my call to a stone cold 6♥

The auction ends with the third consecutive pass (Law22A 2) Regulation OB 7B2 tells us how we should make the call (remove the final pass card from the bidding card box and neatly overlap it etc.) However we don’t always do that. Sometimes we just tap the table, other times we might actually say “pass” or even scoop up all the cards and return them to the bidding box. Furthermore, if the person with whom the auction would end is also the bridgemate operator, none of the above happens because the operator begins to enter the final contract. Well and good as we all know it is glaringly obvious that the auction has ended. Now this is what happened on the final round of the auction: RHO passed Next bidder pulled out the Stop Card (only he wasn’t looking – it was a pass card – genuine error – Law 25 applicable to allow substitution) LHO quick as a flash passed Bidder’s partner (also with alacrity) reached for the bridgemate from the side-table while at the same time the bidder slowly made his intended call. The Director is called and the question is this :- Should the Director stand on ceremony and deem the bidder’s partner not yet to have made the call of pass (thereby allowing the substitution) or should the bidder be left high and dry and not be allowed his intended bid.?

Declarer opens the bidding 1NT LHO takes out the Pass Card and places it face down close to the bidding box which is situated in the normal right-hand corner of the table (that is, not in the position where the bidding cards are usually placed in front of the bidder).The card can be seen by all the players and they all know it is a Pass Card even though they cannot see its face. LHO then replaces the card, takes out the Stop Card and bids 3♣ The Director is called and, away from the table, asks LHO what he thought he was doing. LHO explains that he was thinking about what he should do and that those two calls (Pass and 3♣) were the only ones he was considering. At no stage he claims had he changed his mind. The bid of 3♣ was allowed to stand on the interpretation of Section 7 B 2 of the Orange Book. This states "A call is considered to have been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent" Is it correct to say that the bid of 3♣ is the only call to have been made? If the call of Pass is deemed to have been made, would it then be an unintended call within Law 25 and therefore eligible for substitution?

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt6hj73dakj97ct8&w=sa975h86d6ckj7543&n=skq32ha2dt42caq96&e=s84hkqt954dq853c2&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=2dp3cp3hp3nppp]399|300[/hv] On arriving at the table, East informs NS that they are playing Multi 2♦ and both East and West have Convention Cards confirming this. East opens the bidding with 2♦ and West, having a brainstorm, announces this as "strong non-forcing" Nothing further was spoken by anyone until East, prior to the opening lead being faced, told NS that his partner had forgotten the system and had given the wrong explanation. South then remarked that the final call could therefore be changed but choose not to do so. The director was not called at any time. West goes off 8 for a plus score to NS of 400. With hindsight on seeing the traveller at the end of play South wished to change the result. The other scores show NS in 3NT four times making 10 or 11 tricks, in 4♠ two times making 9 or 10 tricks and a further 3 part scores. Should NS have been allowed their appeal so as give them 660/630 and a joint first/second in substitution for their 6th place? The system bid by West should have been 2♥ and possibly North is in a dilemma because East could have a strong hand that the 2♦ bid allows. North was well aware of EW system as he remarked before bidding started that EW were not the only ones on the night who were playing Multi 2♦. North in fact does partner East on a regular basis when they themselves play Multi 2♦. West is regarded as one of the best players in the club but was not aware of the system failure until his partner pointed it out.

At a normal club game (UK) I was called to the table where it was explained that West had seen most of South's cards before the auction had begun. East and West were late arriving at the table but in anticipation, South had removed his cards and had started to look at them. West saw the hand on his way to his seat and thought it would "not be right" to start the auction without first calling the director (me). All the players were very experienced (minimum ranking 6* Premier Master) and they told me the board was unplayable and should therefore be scored as average to both sides. Being relatively inexperienced, and seeing a consensus, I agreed to score it as average. However, I can see a case in favour of playing the board as South could be said to be a victim of his own haste - I can find nothing in the Laws which refers directly to this situation but if I had been "with it" should I have acted differently?

[hv=pc=n&s=s854hk8764dk7ct65&w=s632hat53d64c8743&n=st97hqj2djt9852c9&e=sakqjh9daq3cakqj2]399|300[/hv] As time was pressing, declarer, having drawn trumps and a long way out, claimed the small slam in Clubs. He says that he plays A♦ and also says that if the K♦ falls then there is an overtrick. On a "normal" distribution it is unlikely that the K♦ does drop but in this instance it obviously does. There is no doubt that if the hand had been played out the overtrick would have been made. However, opposition say mistakenly that the K♦ does not fall and declarer accepts their word with the score entered without the overtrick. At the end of the session, the hand records are examined whereupon the mistake is noticed and the opposition now agree that the K♦ does fall to be ruffed thereby making the Q♦ good. The director has not yet closed the scoring as other adjustments are being made. The question is whether the score can now be adjusted to reflect the overtrick.

Dealer opens weak 2♥ Partner Bids 2NT Dealer Bids 2♠ DIRECTOR! The Director speaks to the insufficient bidder away from the table and decides there is no Law 25 remedy. The IB confirms that intention was to show a strong hand with a strong suit and that should have been done by a bid of 3♠ Is there now a bid which does not silence partner?

Declarer opens 1NT and his partner bids Stayman. Fourth in hand cuebids 3 clubs which is not alerted but should have been. Declarer and partner bid on and play in 4 spades. Contract fails and declarer claims an adjustment because his failure was based on his RHO having a club suit when he did not. Declarer did not ask what the 3 clubs bid meant The director was told by the defenders that the cue bid was a convention called “Crow” The director did not ascertain what the convention meant How should the director have dealt with the claim and How should the director have ruled

England The traveller shows that one particular pair bid and made 3NT This is disputed by a pair who, having played the same board later at another table, claim that it was impossible to arrive at the contract of 3NT let alone make it Their objection was made soon after the session ended They want it put right Nobody at the 3NT table kept a scorecard Not yet resolved and the debate rages on What now? What should really have happened?

Playing in a club teams event, the contested auction had reached the point where my partner was agonising over whether to raise my last bid of [5_CL] to [6_CL] when he overheard a trusted comment that the board was a stone-cold small slam in clubs. He felt that he could not now make the slam bid, passed and explained the position as he was tabling dummy. The small slam was indeed stone-cold but nothing further was done in a friendly club spirit............ but all the more devastating as the opposing team had not even bid the game. But what should my partner have done ?