bixby

Thank you all. I was West. Just wanted to check that our explanation is sufficient.

ACBL club game. West, on lead against South's 2♦ contract, leads the ♥7. South asks for an explanation of E/W's leads. East says, "Standard, fourth best from length. We do lead top of three small." It later comes out that West led from the ♥Q87. South was unhappy and thought that the possibility of leading small from three to an honor should have been disclosed. Was East's explanation sufficient?

I agree with Lamford that the change of call is permitted by the 25A footnote but that North's remark is still illegal and subject to penalty. I respectfully disagree with the above remark by Pran. North may have been surprised, but in bridge, particularly duplicate bridge, players are expected to restrain their verbal and physical reactions to surprises. Oddities and surprises come up all the time, and unless North is a complete newbie he or she should have learned to control his or her face and mouth during the bidding and play. The "automatic reaction" of an experienced bridge player to a surprise like South's 6NT bid should be to maintain a "poker face" and say nothing. As for those who have suggested that this kind of attitude takes the fun away from bridge, I say that for me, bridge is fun when everyone plays by the rules so that play can be fair. What takes away the fun for me is when people get an advantage by breaking the rules, whether they do so intentionally or otherwise.

I agree with mgoetze that only the person who scores the beer card gets the beer. But the OP didn't mention the result -- as I understand it to get a beer you have to get a plus score. (Which leads to the question, what if you get positive IMPs or an above-average MP score for going down in a sacrifice in which you win trick 13 with the beer card?)

Lamford's suggestion that insufficient bids are not infractions is threatening to hijack the thread, so I have posted an answer to it in a separate thread. Returning to the original topic, I would just add that traffic on this board has decreased noticeably over the last couple of years. If we start banning topics there might be nothing left to read.

Lamford's suggestion that insufficient bids are not infractions is threatening to hijack the "hypothetical questions" thread, so I am addressing it separately here. Lamford is correct that Law 18 could be better worded. It does not expressly state that a bid must be sufficient. But the Laws as a whole make clear that an insufficient bid is an infraction. Law 27 covers insufficient bids. Law 27B says that "If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted . . . it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call." This necessarily implies that an insufficient bid is not a legal call. Moreover, Law 27D provides that "If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score." In context, the phrase "the infraction" can only refer to the insufficient bid. This shows that an insufficient bid is an infraction. This law also refers to the "non-offending side," which implies that the side that made the insufficient bid is the offending side, which again implies that an insufficient bid is an infraction, or at least an irregularity. And, as I said in our other thread on this topic, everyone knows that bids must be sufficient and that an insufficient bid is an infraction. If an insufficient bid is not an infraction, or at least an irregularity, why do we call the Director when one occurs?

I generally dislike Lamford's hypothetical postings (with occasional exceptions) because (1) I feel they are a misappropriation of the Mollo SB character, who had a good understanding of the laws but invoked them inopportunely, as opposed to Lamford's SB, who frequently comes up with completely absurd interpretations of the laws that IMHO no director would agree with, and (2) I disagree with Lamford's methods of interpreting the Laws. But I don't think it's a good idea to ban such posts. Yes, some people, myself included, dislike them, but other people clearly enjoy them. It's the Internet. No one forces anyone to read anyone's post. People can read what they like. I think the downsides of censoring hypothetical posts would outweigh the benefits.

Oops, that is correct. Sorry. I still think playing the nine on the Queen should be ruled irrational.

IMO, playing the nine on the Queen would be irrational. But I would still award a trick to the defense, because if LHO ruffs with the seven on trick 12, declarer might play the King. Declarer might do this either because he thinks it doesn't matter, or because he might wake up, remember that the Queen is outstanding, and play to drop it with the King. Declarer can't be allowed to take a successful finesse after claiming when playing for the drop is a logical alternative.

I'm sorry, declarer won the heart trick with the Jack, not the King. So after drawing the last trump he can cash HA, ruff a diamond and discard a diamond on the HK.

[hv=pc=n&s=saha8dq8532cak953&w=s7hqt75432d7cjt82&n=s9832hkj6dakcq764&e=skqjt654h9djt964c&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=4s4np6cppp]399|300[/hv] ACBL. East led the SK, taken by dummy’s Ace. Declarer called for the C3, taken with the Queen as West followed with the C2 and East discarded S4. Declarer then played the DAK, West ruffing the King with the C10. West returned a heart, taken by declarer with the King [edit: Jack]. When declarer then played a club to the Ace, West dropped the Jack. Declarer paused, said, “hmm, what’s going on,” paused some more, and dummy said, “are there only twelve clubs in this deck?” Declarer then called for the CK. West called the Director. West said he was trying to induce declarer to miscount the trumps and while success was unlikely he was upset by dummy’s comment. Declarer said that he was thinking about whether East had revoked. Dummy said that the position was obvious to everyone at the table and that declarer would never miscount trumps. Your ruling?

There is an important distinction between Victor Mollo's original Secretary Bird and Lamford's character. The original SB knew the Laws of bridge and their correct meanings but his special characteristic was that he invoked the Laws at times when doing so disadvantaged his side. If SB was declarer and his RHO made the opening lead of a heart out of turn, SB would bar a heart lead even though it would turn out later that only a heart lead would let him make the contract. The special characteristic of Lamford's SB, by contrast, is that he delights in inventing absurd readings of the Laws, which may have some basis in the Laws' literal text but which no one would ever imagine to be the correct meaning of the Laws. The more absurd the literal, textualist reading of the Laws, the better Lamford's SB seems to like it. In this case, Lamford's SB doesn't do that well even on the text alone. True, he has noticed the oddity that Law 18 doesn't specify that players who bid are required to make sufficient bids. But, as others have pointed out, (1) Law 27 says that an insufficient bid can be "treated as legal," which clearly implies that it is otherwise illegal, (2) Law 27 is contained in a part of the Laws headed, "Irregularities in Procedure," which also clearly implies that insufficient bids are illegal, and (3) Law 27 references Law 23, which makes sense only if an insufficient bid is an irregularity. In interpreting the text of a law, one looks not only at the particular words at issue, but at the entire set of laws of which it is a part. Here, the full context of the Laws shows clearly that an insufficient bid is an irregularity. And besides, as others have also pointed out, perhaps the most important point is that everyone knows an insufficient bid is an irregularity. If I were the original SB, I would sue Lamford's SB for libeling my character. The original SB may make strategic errors in invoking the Laws, but at least he knows what they really mean.

This is how the 2-session final of the North American Pairs qualifier is run in my area. There is no arrow switch. But one significant detail: we do the Howell movement in the first session, and the Mitchell in the second. Players are tired in the second session and there would be many mistakes if that was the Howell session.

That is a good point. Thanks.

How can Pass not be a LA? As this deal itself shows, you might be in a situation where 4H and 4S are both going down. So bidding 4S could be taking you out of a plus and into a minus. You certainly can't be sure as you be 4S that North will go to 5H. So I don't understand how pass can not be a LA. And I don't think the fact that you planned a 4S bid as you bid 3S means you have a right to bid it if your partner subsequently hesitates.

What, if anything, is the redress for inconsistent use of the stop card? I've been somewhat put out recently by opponents who use the stop card before pre-emptive jumps but then fail to use it before raising 1NT to 3NT or before Blackwood or something like that. I haven't called the Director because it seems too petty. If I did call the Director, is there any chance of anything other than an instruction to use the stop card consistently? I'm in the ACBL.

Pran, do you really mean "If North failed to use STOP properly then that is end of story, no adjustment"? What if North fails to use the STOP card but East takes 90 seconds to pass? Assuming adjustment is otherwise appropriate, I can't agree that North's failure to use the STOP card forfeits N/S's right to an adjustment -- certainly not under ACBL regs.

You can post or not post more hands in this series, that's up to you, but claiming that you are not accusing R-S of cheating, on the theory that you are "merely repeating" an allegation, is cowardly. The OP in this thread clearly implies that R-S were using finger signals to indicate heart length. The statement came with your name attached to it, not Truscott's. You need to take responsibility for your actions (and frankly, I don't understand why you are reluctant to do so).

How hard is it to say "ruffing high"? In this kind of situation, I find any argument based on how "obvious" declarer's line of play is to be self-defeating. The more obvious it is, based on the previous play, that ruffing high was uppermost in declarer's mind when he faced his cards, the easier it should have been for declarer to say it. One trick to the defense.

I thought "generic" meant "normal." I didn't understand that it meant "artificial." As I see the case (putting aside the fact that there was no damage), the issue is whether it was my responsibility to understand the term "generic," or whether it was my opponent's responsibility to use a term that I would know. Several of you have suggested that "generic" means "artificial" in bridge lingo, and I'm ready to accept your wisdom, but I have to say I've never heard the term in bridge even though I've played tournament bridge for decades. Given the ACBL regs ("When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient. . . . The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. . . . Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically."), it seems to me that the explaining side should have a duty to use terms that the great majority of players would understand.

Ah, good point. So it takes a low spade lead to set the contract, which wouldn't have happened. But I'm still interested in the question of whether the explanation was adequate. Thanks for your reply.

Sorry about the double post -- I must have hit the wrong button while editing. Admins, feel free to delete the earlier version.

[hv=pc=n&s=st754hq82da932cj9&w=sa8hj5dqjt85cqt43&n=sj32hak9763dkca52&e=skq96ht4d764ck876&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1hp2hp2sp3dp4hppp]399|300[/hv] ACBL. I was West. 2S was alerted. When the bidding came around to me, I asked what it was, and South said, "It's a generic game try." No other explanation was asked for or offered. On the basis of the bidding, my partner chose not to lead a spade (SK would have been her natural lead otherwise), and North made 4H. On a spade lead we could have set the contact, assuming I overtake the SK, return a spade, and get a spade ruff. After the hand was over, N/S explained that 2S was artificial and had no relation to spades. My partner and I felt that that was not conveyed by the term "generic game try" and partner thought she would have led her SK had she understood that 2S was not just "generic" but artificial. We didn't call the Director, but later during a break I spoke to the Director about the hand and while I didn't seek an adjustment, I suggested that he tell N/S to explain their agreement more fully next time. The Director, however, suggested that the phrase "generic game try" necessarily means "artificial game try." Is that right? To me, the word "generic" just suggests that it's a game try without further refinement -- i.e., it's not a short suit game try or a help suit game try -- but it wouldn't occur to me that it had no relation to the suit bid. Is "generic game try" a recognized bridge term and does it necessarily mean "artifical game try"?

I prefer to play A/X even though I would be well within the limits for B, but I find it annoying that ACBL keeps raising the limits for the B game. B used to be limited to 1500 in my area; it was raised to 2000 some years ago and recently the B limit for NAPs was upped to 2500, which might lead to a general change in the B limit for other games. The latest trend is to run games for those with up to 10,000 MPs simultaneously with the open events at National tournaments. I suppose this makes people who like to play against their peers happy but I think it's bad for those of us who like to take advantage of the unique opportunity that bridge presents to play against top-flight players. It means that you have to be prepared to face very stiff competition. It's one thing to play in an open event with everybody; it's another thing to play in an open event where almost everybody has more than 10,000 MPs because the under-10,000s have the option of playing in a separate event.

"Mild" was North's description of West's BIT. (Actually, he may have said "brief" or "short," I don't remember exactly). I would estimate it was a break of an extra 5-7 seconds beyond the normal bidding time. It certainly wasn't an extra minute or anything like that. West did not deny that there was a break in tempo. As I mentioned upthread, the Director did not inquire whether South paused following the 4♣ bid. I appreciate the suggestion that West may have been privileged to pause because of South's failure to do so, but I would also be interested in people's opinions as to the proper ruling if we make the assumption that South acted appropriately and that West did break tempo (not egregiously, but noticeably) before bidding 4♥. So let's assume that there was a break in tempo.