bixby

jeffford76, East did not use the skip bid warning. I don't remember whether South actually paused or not. The Director did not inquire about these facts. ggwhiz, 5♦ was control-showing, and suggests that West holds the ♦A, although it's not guaranteed.

I should have mentioned that the splinter was explained as showing 10-14 HCP. East stated his reasoning as being that he felt he had extras, given his additional strength and fifth heart, and thought a slam try was appropriate even opposite a partner who had not gone forward after the splinter.

[hv=pc=n&e=sak3hakt84djt43c6&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1hp4cp4hp4sp5dp6hppp]133|200[/hv] BAM teams, both sides vulnerable, West dealer. ACBL jurisdiction. 4♣ was alerted and explained as a splinter. There was a mild break in tempo before the 4♥ bid. North called the Director after the 4♠ bid to point out the break in tempo. Declarer made 7. At the end of play North recalled the Director and suggested that East was obliged to pass after 4♥. How do you rule?

I think we are in agreement. You are correct that the OP doesn't mention that the player expressed surprise at his own IB, but neither does it expressly state that he didn't. You have chosen to give your opinion based on the assumption that he didn't, which is fine. I would still guess, though, that he probably did. It's a Bayesian thing. In my experience, the a priori probability that a player noticing his own IB would express surprise is high. Adding in the additional information that the OP doesn't say that he did reduces the probability, but not so much as to make it probable that he failed to express surprise. But as I say, I think we agree.

On the question of whether changing an IB necessarily draws attention to the irregularity: I would agree with Pran that in theory a player could change an IB to another call in a way that would not constitute drawing attention to the irregularity, but would, rather, constitute a second irregularity. However, in practice, at least in my experience, a player who notices his own IB and attempts to change it without calling the Director almost invariably begins by gasping or saying "oh!" or making some gesture of surprise, which calls attention to the irregularity. So I think this discussion is about a very unlikely occurrence. If, somehow, a player, in perfect silence and with no change of expression, made an IB and then replaced it with a different call, I would say that that does not by itself call attention to the IB, because, as Pran pointed out earlier, a player might do the same thing if his first call had been legal. But as I say, that almost never happens. Players who notice their own insufficient bids generally can't help but show surprise in a way that calls attention to the irregularity. There is no requirement that the "calling attention" be done using words.

Saying, "wait a minute, my partner has the option to accept that 3♦ bid and might choose to pass it, Director!" would be ill-advised. But saying, "Director, please!" and then informing the Director, "West bid 3♦ over my 3♥ and then changed it to Pass," would be perfectly appropriate. Indeed, calling the Director is required by Law 9B. So as Pran says, it depends on the manner in which you call the Director. If you call in an appropriately neutral way, there wouldn't be UI.

I'd really like to know how E would have taken out his own double.

What is the rationale for this? Opposite a 1NT opener, everyone accepts that a 2♦ or 2♥ transfer can be made with a hand of any strength -- weak hands make those bids all the time. I think just about everyone accepts that 2♣ Stayman might be bid on a very weak 4-4-4-1 hand, although it doesn't come up as often. So what would be the rationale for not allowing an asking 2NT response to a weak two bid to be made with a hand of any strength?

Agreed -- and it is doubly shady to throw in a psych on that basis! Incidentally, what does it even mean to "psych a pass" in the situation described? I think that when someone psychs, they are pretending to have the hand described by the call psyched. But there is no hand that would pass a multi-2D opening, surely? I suppose someone might think about passing with xx/x/Jxxxxxxx/xx, but isn't multi forcing?

This article by Alfred Sheinwold on the ACBL website: http://www.acbl.org/play/in-their-own-words.php?convention=sheinwold gives the exact auction you had (up to the 2NT bid) about halfway down and concludes that the 2NT bid is the UNT and says that "the chances are that no expert would ever make the bid for the natural purpose." However, the discussion suggests that some thinking is required to work this out, so perhaps it's not completely clear. And it's not totally clear whether the natural use is alertable. The alert chart says that a natural jump to 2NT is alertable, but doesn't discuss the situation you're asking about. You'd have to rely on the general requirement that natural bids should be alerted if they show "Unusual strength, shape, etc."

It depends on local regulations. In the ACBL this would be illegal. The ACBL general Conditions of Contest provide: "A pair may not elect to have no agreement when it comes to carding. There have been pairs that say they just play random leads or that they lead the card closest to their thumb. They must decide on a carding agreement and mark their convention cards accordingly. Of course, some leeway needs to be given to fill-in pairs or very last minute partnerships." But you'd need to check the local regulations for the location you're interested in.

I really don't see how it indicates anything at all about South's hand. As others have pointed out, North, knowing that South is barred, is highly likely to bid 3NT at his proper turn. So if we were to psychoanalyze South's comment and try to infer what his annoyance shows about his hand, the last thing we would expect is for South to have a hand that would simply respond 3NT to a 1NT opener anyway -- which is what he has (assuming that, like me, he wouldn't bother with Stayman when he's 4-3-3-3). So we might think that South is upset because he has a 3-count and foresees that the likely 3NT contract will fail, or that he has 19 and regrets missing a cold slam. Or maybe he has a distributional hand and wants to transfer. But the one thing we wouldn't guess is what he actually has. Result stands.

I have already conceded that I cannot produce such a law; I am instead relying on the overall structure of bridge that is implicit in the laws. I know you think that is nonsense, but I would say that written rules don't necessarily cover everything. Sometimes competitors dream up violations that the rulesmakers never imagined, and they are not necessarily let off on that basis. Indeed, since you contemplate the possibility of awarding an artificial adjusted score, are you not implicitly determining that claiming before the bidding is over can be an irregularity? Can a director award an artificial adjusted score in a case in which there is no irregularity or violation?

OK, sorry, I missed that in Post 26 you said that you cannot impose a procedural penatly. But let me up the ante: if that's true once, it's presumably true every time. So now let's suppose West does this on every deal throughout a session. For 26 deals in a row, West exposes his cards and claims before the first round of bidding is over. Are you really going to simply adjudicate every claim as stated in your post 26, and not even suggest to West that he is proceeding at all improperly? I think a large percentage of directors actually faced with this situation would instruct West that he is acting improperly.

If you really think it's nonsense, I would like to know what you would do if you, as Director, were summoned to the table in such a case. Here's the case: the players take their cards out of the board, North opens 1C, and West immediately faces his cards and claims that E/W will take five tricks and N/S eight. What will you do? I would be particularly interested to know whether you would consider imposing a procedural penalty on E/W.

You raise a good point and I have to concede that I see no law expressly forbidding it, but I still think that some claims are so far outside the structure implied by the laws as to be illegal. Example: the players take their hands out of the board, North opens 1NT, and West immediately exposes all his cards and says, "I claim 5 tricks." North/South dispute the claim. Is the Director really supposed to simply "adjudicate[] the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides," while resolving doubtful points against the claimer (Law 70A)? How would the Director do that? By imagining everything about the subsequent auction and play, and although resolving doubtful points against E/W, being equitable to both N/S and E/W? If we say yes, then weak players could protect themselves from making gross errors when playing against strong players by simply claiming before the bidding even starts. They might get better results than if they had played the deal. So while, as I concede, I see no law expressly covering the point, I would still say that this hypothetical claim would be illegal.

I don't have it in front of me, but I recall that in Alan Truscott's book "Grand Slams" one of the deals discussed concerns an eminent player who bid a grand slam as a sacrifice, and (after three passes) told his LHO, "No lead, down five," and then proceeded to say in some detail what LHO held based on the bidding -- I seem to recall that declarer was able to infer that LHO held the 8 of a particular suit. So this eminent player obviously thought it was proper to claim before the opening lead. David Stevenson's Laws Page (at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/law_crit.htm) contains the story of a leading pair who bid to a grand slam and then put their hands back in the board, another example of strong players who obviously believed it was appropriate to claim before the opening lead. Although in that story the bidding had not concluded, and one of the opponents outbid them as a sacrifice. I would say it is illegal to claim before the conclusion of the bidding, but legal (if often unwise) to claim before the opening lead is faced.

At rubber bridge, declarer was in 4♥, down 2, not vulnerable, and declarer's heart holding was AKQJxx. Is this properly scored as 100 points above the line for both sides, or as no score either way? It actually made a difference, because the two pairs were playing to see which pair could get to 5000 total points first, and this 100 points would have brought the leading pair pretty close to that amount, so the other pair wanted no score. (ACBL jurisdiction, if it matters.)

Long ago I posted two similar Law 57/68 incidents that happened to me in the same tournament (after years of never encountering this problem at all): in both cases I, declarer, led a card to trick 12. In one case, my RHO immediately faced a winning card (out of turn) and then shortly thereafter faced his other card; in the other case, my LHO faced a winning card and then shortly thereafter (before RHO had a chance to play) faced his other card. Neither defender said anything in either case. In both cases, the defender who faced his cards prevented the possibility that his partner would make the wrong discard at trick 12 (wrongly overtaking wasn't in the picture). I called the Director in both cases. One Director applied Law 57, which allowed me to force a defender to make a discard that was favorable to me; the other Director applied Law 68 and ruled that the other defender would have made the discard that was good for him. At the time I felt robbed by the second ruling, but with the perspective of time I think the answer is that when this kind of thing happens at trick 12, the Director must make a judgment call as to whether the defender has made a premature play or a claim. I don't think there can be any hard-and-fast rule about it. The factual circumstances of each case will be determinative. If the Director rules that the defender was claiming, the laws on contested claims apply, including Law 70D2's statement that "The Director shall not accept any part of a defender’s claim that depends on his partner’s selecting a particular play from among alternative normal* plays." Personally, I hate any claim by a defender that relies on correct play by the other defender. It particularly drives me crazy when a defender (as happened in both of the cases above) indignantly insists that his partner's correct play would have been "obvious" and that he just claimed "to save time." The more obvious the partner's correct play is, the less time is saved by claiming. So I wouldn't allow such claims at all, but the Lawsmakers have taken a different path. Returning finally to the OP, as much as I dislike these kinds of claims and as hard as I would be on them, I think the equitable ruling is that the defenders get both tricks, unless there is some reason to think that West doesn't know that the ♥Q is still out. Overtaking on defense is unnatural and is unlikely to be done carelessly; before overtaking a player would probably stop to think, and it doesn't take much thought for West to realize that either declarer has the ♥Q, in which case overtaking is a bad play, or East has it, in which case overtaking is unnecessary. I don't like ruling for the defenders in this situation, but the Laws require the ruling that is as equitable as possible to both sides and in this case I think the probability that West would get it wrong is quite low.

Sorry, in the preceding post I should have started the presumed play with South leading a heart or a spade. South leads, e.g., a spade, declarer takes the King, then the top hearts, then a spade back to hand, then the ♦Q.

Four more tricks to the defense. It is stated in the OP that declarer forgot the ♦A was out. It's not clear how this is known -- perhaps declarer said so, or perhaps this is just an inference from the fact that declarer thought he had the rest of the tricks. But if declarer really thinks the ♦A is no longer out, and that the ♦Q is a winner, then it would be perfectly reasonable for declarer to play ♥AK, ♠KA, ♦Q. At that point, South gets ♦A, two hearts, and a diamond to North's 9. It's just lucky for declarer that diamonds are blocked, or the defenders would get yet another trick after that. I'll allow declarer to retain a top spade in hand and a top club in dummy to get the last trick. "But I would never start running the spades and then switch to diamonds in the middle of them!" Sorry -- we'll never know what you would have done. You might have cashed the two AKs and then claimed without statement. Next time, don't forget which high cards are still out. I never understand the desire to protect declarers in this situation. If they're careless enough to forget which high cards are out, they might be careless enough to -- gasp -- cash what they think are winners in an unfavorable order.

Good point. Law 62A is even more in tension with Law 52B1b than Law 64C. I don't see how to resolve the conflict between saying that declarer must accept the play if he has played after the defender fails to play the MPC but the defender must correct the revoke if it is noticed before it becomes established.

There were two revokes. The second revoke occurred when East overruffed instead of playing the MPC. Law 61A, "Definition of a Revoke," provides: "Failure to . . . play, when able, a card or suit required by law . . . constitutes a revoke." So failing to play the MPC at the first legal opportunity, as required by Law 50D, constituted a revoke. The revoke was established when East or West led or played to the next trick. Law 64B3 provides that there is no retification as in Law 64A (i.e., no automatic transfer of tricks) for "failing to play any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table." So there is no automatic transfer of tricks for revoking by failing to play a MPC. However, Law 64C provides for the Director to assign an adjusted score when "after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification," the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated. So the Director is empowered to adjust the score for East's second revoke. Based on the statement in the OP that the contract makes if East does not revoke, I would adjust the score. It is true that under Law 52B, the declarer accepted East's failure to play the MPC by playing thereafter. So there is an apparent conflict between Law 52B and Law 64C. However, in such a case the conflict should be resolved by giving effect to both sections if possible. Law 64B3 shows that Law 64 specifically contemplates revokes that occur by not playing a penalty card. So I would interpret Law 52B's statement that declarer has "accepted" East's play to mean that declarer cannot require the play to be retracted and the penalty card played. So if, for example, East's action made no difference to the outcome of the hand, declarer would be stuck with it. But Law 52B does not, I would say, override Law 64C. So the Director may, and in the circumstances should, adjust the score.

Yes, the ruling followed the ACBL screen regulations. But here's a picky question: Law 27A1 provides that an insufficient bid is accepted if the offender's LHO calls. Law 80B2E, however, provides that the Tournament Organizer may establish "special conditions," and then parenthetically adds "(as, for example, play with screens – provisions for rectification of actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied)." So I see where the ACBL gets the authority to say that a call by West does not accept an insufficient bid by South if the problem is noticed before the tray is passed to the other side of the screen. But given that Law 80B2E says that "provisions for rectification of actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied," doesn't that at least imply that the Tournament Organizer lacks authority to vary the rectification for actions that are transmitted across the screen? Where does the Tournament Organizer get the authority to say that Law 27A1 does not apply in the case of an insufficient bid that has been transmitted to the other side of the screen?

I like this. Perhaps the inquiry could fall under Law 20A -- "A player may require clarification forthwith if he is in doubt what call has been made." The alert would be regarded as part of the call. And while I know one is not supposed to ask questions for partner's benefit, in all honesty the alert was so quiet that even I was not certain it had been made. As to your other point, in my area, the requirement of showing the alert card or tapping the alert strip has fallen into disuse. Even though the club at which this incident occurred is quite high level for a club, most players don't do it.