bixby

My partner was paying full attention. RHO didn't tap the alert strip or bring out the alert card. He said "alert" but it just happened that he shifted his weight as he did so, turned his head slightly, said it in my direction, and said it very quietly. I'm sure it wasn't intentional or anything, but the manner in which it happened was such that I barely heard it and I suspected (correctly) that partner hadn't heard it at all. For purposes of the question, rather than impugning my partner, let's just assume that RHO's alert was such as to give me reasonable grounds to suspect that my partner hadn't heard it. I agree that after all was over the Director could award an adjusted score if we were damaged, but that strikes me as an inferior solution. Better to prevent the need for an adjusted score, I would think. So the question is, if RHO commits an irregularity by alerting in such a way that my partner may not have heard, can I ask partner if he heard the alert?

Club game, ACBL jurisdiction. In the course of the auction, my LHO made a bid that my RHO alerted. But RHO alerted very quietly, and I suspected (correctly, as it later turned out) that my partner had not heard the alert. I wanted to say, before my partner called, "Partner, did you hear that alert?" But on a previous occasion I had been reprimanded by a Director for calling attention to an irregularity in the auction when it was not my turn to call. So if RHO alerts, but I suspect that my partner has not heard the alert, am I permitted to take any steps to ensure that my partner has heard the alert before he calls?

The time this happened to me was when I called the Director after a non-established revoke. The revoker's partner was one of the best players in the area (in fact I think he was playing as a pro and the revoker was his client). Mr. Expert ridiculed me for calling the Director -- I don't remember his exact remarks but when the Director arrived he jumped in before I could say anything and said something like "my partner revoked and this guy made you walk all the way over here so you could tell us that the card is a penalty card which we all knew" and waved the Director away. It's true that most players know how to handle penalty cards but not everyone knows what to do when the partner of the player with the penalty card is on lead, and some Directors have been known to rule that the card is not to be treated as a penalty card if the Director wasn't called at the right time. So I think it is wise to call the Director, and obviously people who complain about calling the Director are out of line. IMO objecting to a call for the Director is an independent infraction and should be penalized.

I agree with your initial ruling of no adjustment, as the case appears to be a misbid, not a misexplanation. Technically, I would say that the bid was not "sandwich" as South was a passed hand. To me, 1NT by a passed hand is simply "unusual notrump." Obviously South, as a passed hand, could not have had a real 1NT overcall. It is highly likely that the N/S agreement is that this bid shows length in the unbid suits, as was explained. So it is a case of misbid and the result stands. As to whether South has violated the ACBL prohibition on "Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings," the answer is no for several reasons: * South's call was not a psych. A psych is a "deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or suit length." Assuming you believe South's statement that he missorted his hand, his misstatement was not deliberate. * South's call was not in a suit. * South's call was not a response (it was an overcall). So the results stands.

This suggestion, while theoretically correct under the Laws, overlooks the fact that in real life there are numerous situations in which it is customary to point out an irregularity without calling the Director. If someone places a quitted card incorrectly, facing the wrong way, do you call the Director? I've never seen anyone do that. Players just point out that the card is pointed incorrectly, the mistake is corrected, and play continues. In real life, it would be considered absurd to call the Director for this form of irregularity. Anyone who did would be branded as the Secretary Bird of all Secretary Birds. My sympathies are with the OPer. If declarer led to trick 2 while I, as defender, still had my card facing up for trick 1, I wouldn't call the Director, I would just point out that trick 1 wasn't finished and expect declarer to wait until everyone was finished with trick 1. If I were declarer in this same scenario, I would be stunned if someone called the Director (I wouldn't object or anything, but I would be stunned). It was only when the declarer changed his card for trick 2 that something happened that merited calling the Director.

After the opening lead of a spade, dummy comes down with a singleton ♠A. Declarer thinks for a while and then, hauling out the old joke, says "play low." Then one of the defenders points out that dummy has only 12 cards. The ♠5 is discovered hidden behind dummy's clubs. Has declarer irrevocably called a card? If so, which one? Would it make any difference if the ♠5 was not hidden behind the clubs but rather was visible among the clubs? What if declarer had said, "play the Ace"? Would that be binding or could he call for the ♠5 instead?

Law 23 applies only when the offender "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side." I find it hard to imagine a case where, looking at your cards before anyone has bid, you can tell that your side would benefit if you open out of turn and later are forced to pass and your partner is forced to make a guess knowing that you must pass at your first turn. Here, the offending side got lucky that the abnormal 3NT contract outscored the (apparently) more normal 4S contract. Score stands.

I agree with those who say that Law 52 supersedes Law 61. But this is not textually obvious. Pran points out that Law 64B3 exempts revokes that consist of failing to play a penalty card from rectification (this was also pointed out in the OP). But Law 64B3 only exempts such revokes from rectification "as in A above" -- i.e., it only exempts such revokes from the one- or two-trick penalty provided by Law 64A. It doesn't exempt them from restoration of equity under Law 64C, nor does it say that Law 62A does not apply to such a revoke. I think the answer has to involve application of the interpretive principle that "the specific controls the general." Laws 61-64 are general laws governing revokes; Law 52 provides a procedure for one specific kind of revoke. So in resolving the conflict between them -- and they do conflict -- I think Law 52 takes precedence. But the Laws are curiously conflicting on this point.

The "New Year's Riddle" thread asks how a player can win a trick while revoking, without playing a trump (or at notrump). (Spoiler alert: If you want to work on the riddle, stop here.) The answer involves a careful look at the definition of "revoke" in Law 61, which includes "failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law." So suppose declarer is playing a notrump contract and a defender has the ♣5 exposed as a major penalty card. Declarer leads a club from his hand or dummy, and the defender with the penalty card follows suit with the ♣A instead of playing the exposed ♣5 as required by Law 50D1A. If no one notices, the defender will win the trick, but will have revoked. But wait a minute! Assuming someone notices the incorrect play of the ♣A, Law 52B1A says that declarer may accept the play. OK, suppose that happens. The play still seems to meet the definition of "revoke" in Law 61! So does that mean that, even though declarer has accepted the play, it's still a revoke? If so, would it have to be corrected under Law 62A? Would it be subject to restoration of equity under Law 64C? (Per Law 64B3, it wouldn't be subject to rectification.) Notice also that Law 52B1b provides that declarer must accept the illegal play if he has played after it. So suppose declarer calls for a club from dummy, declarer's RHO, who has the ♣5 exposed as a major penalty card, illegally plays the ♣A, declarer follows with the ♣7, and then declarer notices the illegal play and calls the Director. RHO's play clearly meets the definition of "revoke" in Law 61. So how does the Director reconcile Law 52B1b's statement that declarer must accept the play with Law 62A's statement that RHO must correct the revoke?

I think I see the answer, but the hard part is knowing whether I'm supposed to post it!

I would say that the basis for your ruling, with which I agree, is Law 70A: ". . . any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer." Also supporting the ruling is Law 70D2, "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," with "normal" defined as including "play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." It is certainly possible that North could know from the play thus far that South is down to two hearts and a spade. But even an expert sometimes loses concentration and fails to count all the suits. Faced with the choice of discarding two out of three cards, all of which are winners, it would be no worse than "carelesss or inferior" for North to discard the card he should really keep. Therefore, which card North would keep is a "doubtful point," and I would resolve it against the claimer and rule two tricks to N/S, one to E/W. (I would rule differently if South has already shown out in both minor suits.) It is true that, under this ruling, North is deprived of the opportunity to show that he has counted the suits carefully and knows to keep the spade. But that is South's fault. South has failed to keep track of his cards and has also made an improper claim, and N/S must suffer the consequences. Otherwise we are saying that a defender can protect against careless play by his partner by claiming.

Pran, it seems to me that there are two separate issues: (1) At the time I called the Director, was there enough evidence that an irregularity had occurred? (2) Was it appropriate for me to call the Director even though it was not my turn in the auction? As to issue (1), the evidence of an irregularity (however strong or weak it was) was equally available to me and my partner. So if there was enough evidence to justify my partner's calling the Director, there was enough evidence for me too. So I repeat the question, do you think it would have been appropriate for my partner to call the Director? If you say yes, then I think you have to agree that there was enough evidence available to justify my calling the Director too. Now that still leaves issue (2), the issue on which I sought guidance when starting this thread. If you are saying that calling the Director creates unauthorized information, then you are agreeing with the Director who came to the table, which is fine, although, as other posters have suggested, I don't know how anyone could tell that my calling the Director implies anything about my hand. Maybe I just believe in calling the Director as soon as I'm aware that an irregularity has (probably) occurred, so that the Director can sort things out appropriately. But in any event, I don't think issue (2) is related to issue (1).

Sure, at the time I called the Director there was probable cause to believe that the opponents had violated Law 20F by giving misinformation. And in fact, that turned out to be the case. Yes, there were other possibilities too, including misbid or psych. But that seems irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether I was allowed to call the Director even though it was my partner's turn. After all, suppose my partner had called the Director. The evidence for an irregularity would have been the same. Are you suggesting that neither I nor my partner should call the Director at the time I did? If not then, when would be the appropriate time? When East goes down as dummy? But even then, we wouldn't really know whether there was misinformation or a misbid. There's no time when my partner and I would have any more evidence than we had when I called the Director.

This occurred in the ACBL. I was North. The bidding went: [hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1cp2sp3cpp]133|100[/hv] After 2S, which was not alerted, my partner inquired about the meaning of 2S and was told it was a strong jump shift. When East passed at his second turn, it seemed to me that we must have been given misinformation, so I called the Director. After I explained the problem, the first thing the Director said was that it was improper for me to call the Director because it was not my turn to bid. Is this right? Law 9A1 provides, "Unless prohibited by law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call." The Director said that my summoning the Director created unauthorized information for my partner. I called the Director mainly because it seemed to me that there had been an irregularity, so the Director should be summoned, but also because my partner was about to bid, which would screw things up further -- there was still time to wind the auction back to my second pass. If it matters, it turned out that E/W's agreement was that 2S was a weak jump shift, and the explanation was incorrect. If the Director was right, suppose the bidding had gone 1S - P (by me) - 1H. Could I not call attention to the insufficent bid?

I doubt that there is a case for an adjustment on the basis you state. The skill level of the E/W pair would be relevant. The ACBL general conditions of contest provide that "Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." The fact that 3♦ was alerted as showing a singleton would strongly suggest to most experienced ACBL players that 2NT was Jacoby. If 2NT were an old-fashioned balanced 13-15 point raise, 3♦ would show a second suit, not a singleton. Moreover, by the time West led his second diamond, E/W could see the dummy and could see that 2NT was Jacoby. So assuming that E/W were experienced players who were familiar with Jacoby 2NT and its common continuations, they should have known tht 2NT was Jacoby. Therefore the argument that "if only we had known that 2NT was Jacoby, we would have suspected that declarer had forgotten 2NT was Jacoby and therefore wasn't really showing a singleton we 3♦," probably wouldn't fly.

The story is excellent, but unfortunately I think the construction is flawed. If South just takes the first trick with the SK, doesn't he have nine tricks? The diamonds are not blocked. South cashes the Ace, discovers the 0-3 split, crosses to the HA, and leads a diamond. If East covers, South wins with the King, takes the next trick with a diamond in dummy, and then crosses back to the DQ to cash the remaining diamonds. The CA is his ninth trick. And if East refuses to cover the second diamond, South plays low in hand and then simply cashes the remaining diamonds, as the KQ take care of dummy's two diamonds. To address what I take to be the point of the post, let's imagine that the diamonds were blocked and that South, if he took the first trick with the SK, would have only seven tricks. In that case I think the ruling is clearly that South is down two. The Director is required to restore equity, as the revoke penalty doesn't adequately compensate E/W for South's first revoke. Even under the Beijing minute, whatever happens as a result of the second and third revokes (and again, the whole thing is somewhat counterfactual given that the diamonds aren't really blocked), South can't improve the result by revoking again.

Hmmm . . . . the chief problem is that the hand appears to be fictional. West's miraculous ♣J109 tripleton is suspicious enough, as well as the 7-1 heart split that makes it impossible for South to make the slam by ruffing a heart before drawing trumps, but what really seems like a setup are East's ♥J1098765 and ♣76543. Not to mention the trump layout -- ♠AKQJ10, ♠9876, ♠5432! Oh, and the diamond layout looks setup too. I'm guessing that this hand is a setup hypothetical. (Or at least the spots have been altered.)

Great case. I rule against declarer. Let's start with the following variation: in fact, West has the ♠K, and, after trick two, declarer says, "I've got two tricks in, and now I'll take five club tricks, three diamonds, and one more heart for eleven, and then since I won't need to repeat the spade finesse to make the contract and this is IMPs, I'll just take the ♠A and not repeat the spade finesse; you can have the last trick." When the defenders point out the unfavorable club split, we all know that declarer would say that "of course" after the ♣A revealed the bad break he would reconsider and take the spade finesse after all. And I think many directors would allow it, on the ground that declarer would reconsider when his stated line proved impossible to follow. So I don't think we can say that declarer is totally bound by his decision not to repeat the spade finesse. Now go back to the real case. Declarer didn't say in what order he would take his tricks, so I think we have to assume that his next play would be to start the clubs, at which point he would realize that he didn't have five club tricks (as his claim assumed), and that his best play by far is to repeat the spade finesse (the bad club split only makes it more likely to be on). If we would allow declarer to depart from his stated line of play in favor of something better when the stated line becomes impossible due to a surprising bad break, I think we have to assume that declarer would make the same departure in the face of impossibility when it cuts against him. So while I'm not against claimers getting unaccountably lucky (and this case does have a wonderful Mollovian taste to it), I think this declarer has to go down.

I don't see how this can possibly be lawful. You say that ACBL has told you that you can use 1♦ to show "any hand with 0+ Diamonds." But you're not using it to show "any hand" with 0+ diamonds, you're using it to show hands with 4+ Spades, which ACBL has told you is not permitted.

Thank you.

Playing in an ACBL regional tournament this evening, my partner was the dealer and the bidding went: P - (P) - P - (1S) 1NT - (2S) - 3C - (3S) P - At this point, opponents inquired about the meaning of my partner's 1NT. I explained that because partner was a passed hand, 1NT was unusual and showed the minor suits. Opponents suggested that such a 1NT bid is alertable. They bid on to 4S and then, after the auction was concluded, suggested again that 1NT should have been alerted. I summoned the Director, who, to my considerable surprise, agreed with the opponents. He even went and checked with another Director and then returned and confirmed his ruling. After play was completed, opponents did not claim any damage, so nothing came of the ruling. Now, the "Notrump Overcalls" section of the ACBL alert chart states that no alert is required for "Conventional overcalls by a passed hand." Isn't that exactly what this is? I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable about the ACBL alert rules could comment on whether this call was alertable.

I agree. Declarer is completely out to lunch -- even if the contract were in diamonds, he doesn't have the rest because he has to lose the ♦K. So declarer doesn't know what the contract is and doesn't know what the result would be even if the contract were what he thought. Obviously he has had a major lapse of attention and is not in a good position to complain about what line of play he might adopt. Cashing the high winners and then cross-ruffing is reasonable and leads to down two, as others have stated. Declarer is lucky to have the ♣JT, otherwise I think there's a case for down three (if declarer cashes the ♣A and tries to "ruff" a club in hand after clearing the spades but before cashing the ♥Q). Not knowing what the contract is always works out for the Rueful Rabbit, but in real life, if you don't know what the contract is, you should expect to suffer the consequences

I was defending once in a similar situation, and after a couple of rounds of the suit declarer just said "diamond," and dummy played its highest diamond. I called the Director -- declarer was quite indignant -- and the Director ruled that the play of the high diamond would be allowed. I pointed out that Law 46B2 provides that "If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated." But the Director pointed out that the rules of Law 46 apply "except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible." So returning to the OP, the question is whether declarer's intention to play the DJ from dummy was "incontrovertible." It sounds like the Director I called would say yes, but not the Director who was called in this case. My feeling is that declarer in both cases surely *would have* intended to play the high diamond if he had thought about it, but probably had a lapse of concentration. If through a lapse of concentration declarer plays the wrong card from his hand, the play stands and there is no way out. I don't see why a lapse of concentration in calling cards from dummy should be treated more leniently. Concentration is part of bridge and if you have a lapse, something bad can happen to you. So I would interpret the exception in Law 46 to apply to cases where, for example, declarer says "diamond" but points upwards with his finger. If declarer just says "diamond" and there is nothing else, then I don't think we can know incontrovertibly whether declarer meant "high diamond" but didn't say it or whether declarer dropped his concentration and called for the wrong card thoughtlessly. But I can see the argument the other way and I would be interested to hear what experienced Directors think about this one.

Sorry, I was away for a couple of days. McB., you raise a good distinction between the actual case and my hypothetical. So maybe things are not as easy as I thought. But I am still somewhat uncomfortable with your ruling -- I just can't get away from feeling that the offending side is benefitting from its infraction. Law 12B says that "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." Applying that statement to the infraction of the revoke, it seems that damage exists and that an adjustment is therefore appropriate. It is puzzling that the offending side should be rescued from the adjustment because its infraction resulted from another infraction by the same side.

Hmmm . . . . let's consider this hypothetical case: 732 63 6532 A52 AK4 A54 A8 J10987 The contract is 3NT and the opening lead is the SQ. Declarer wins in hand, despairs of making the contract, and runs the CJ, losing to East's Queen. East returns a spade, which declarer wins in hand. Now declarer holds his breath as he runs the C10 successfully. Declarer plays to the CA, comes back to the DA, and runs the remaining clubs, discarding two diamonds from dummy. On the second diamond discard, however, the CK is discovered under dummy's diamonds! Now what? Without the original infraction, declarer would have cashed the CAK, successfully dropping the CQ (opponent's clubs were 2-2), and would have made the contract, with 5 clubs, 2 spades, and the red Aces. I don't see how we can award declarer 9 tricks. Law 12B provides: "Objectives of Score Adjustment 1. The objective of a score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction." Even though hiding the CK was an infraction, the damage was suffered by the offending side, not the non-offending side. I don't think we adjust to take away the damage suffered by the offending side. There's no law against running the CJ at trick two, and that's what declarer did. We don't give him back that trick. So I say declarer is down one.