relpar

My partner responds 2NT (Jacoby) to my 1 Spade opening bid. I rebid 3 Clubs with my singleton. Partner now bids 3 Hearts, showing first round control. I know he must have a void because I have the Heart Ace. I now bid 4 Diamonds showing first round control. Partner now bids 4NT, RKC in relation to Spades. This is my hand: S. ATxxx, H.AJxx, D. Axx, C.Q. Knowing my partner has a void in Hearts should I show 3 Keycards or 2?

Partner, first in hand opens 1D, my RHO makes a pre-emptive bid of 2S. What should I bid with S.ATxx, H.ATxxx, D.J, and C.Jxx? If I bid 3H is it forcing?

Good Morning, For many weeks I have enjoyed the opportunity to review the hands, on Hand Records, that I have just played in a tournament. Yesterday I played an afternoon game in a Virtual Club and an evening ACBL pairs game. The Hand Records for neither of those games, played on May 15, are yet available. Is there some change in BBO policy about making the Hand Records available?

As a Club Manager and Director of a small bridge Club I would appreciate information about how to set up and run either a free tournament or a Virtual Club game for our Club members. BBO Support seems to be overwhelmed at this moment and are currently unable to assist. Thank you for your help

As a teacher occupying a seat at a Table with three students, how can I use the Voice function so that all four of us can communicate verbally? If there are four students at the Table how can I use the Voice option so that the 5 of us can communicate verbally?

Yesterday I posted a question about how I, as a teacher with 4 students at a teaching table, can talk/message them during bidding and/or play. The question seems to have disappeared? Can somebody please help me either with the original question or tell me where/why the question has disappeared. Would greatly appreciate it.

With 4 students at the table and the teacher kibitzing, how can the teacher communicate with the students at the table?

Am I missing something here? It seems to me that the revoke happened on Trick 3 and the offending side has played to the Trick 4. Therefore the revoke has been established. Let us wait until the end of the hand to assess the penalty. Certainly one trick - but may be more

Apologies - North was the Dealer. :) :

A friend reported this hand from a social game and wondered if there is a 'scientific' way to bid the Grand Slam? North. ♠65, ♥K7, ♦AQ64, ♣AKQ98 South. ♠AJ2, ♥AQJT9, ♦KJ9, ♣73 Suggestions would be appreciated.

"Certainly WE do not know, because (if OP gave a complete account of events) the director did not ask any of the relevant questions. When initially called to the table, he could have taken each player aside to ask what each bid meant (including whether 2NT was the wrong card pulled) to at least get an impression as whether anyone made use of UI." [bbradley62] Yes YOU do know. When I made the original posting I pointed out that the TD was not called until the bidding had finished. In a second posting I pointed out that at no stage did the 2NT bidder indicate that she had pulled the incorrect card. At the time the TD was called I think it is a harsh judgment to conclude that "the director did not ask any of the relevant questions". Given the information that was provided in the original posting I wonder how it is possible not to conclude that somebody made use of UI. North made a Jacoby 2NT bid and then made it clear that she had misbid! Now when North re-bid 3NT South passed with her 4522 hand DESPITE the fact that they had a "known" 9 card fit. Surely a Pass is not a Logical Alternative in this sequence. Probably little else needs to be explored in this topic.(??) I believe an adjusted score for 4♥ down 1 or 2 would have been appropriate. I suspect a number of other posters have s similar view.

"If a call is unintended it may be changed per Law 25A if it is within the time limits in that Law." I was not present, but I believe that at no stage did the 2NT bidder claim she had intended to bid 1NT. Given that there was no such statement, and that 3NT made and 4♥ has no chance, do you rule that Pass of the 3NT is not an LA for the opening bidder, and award an adjusted score of 4♥ - whatever the most likely result is ? It is interesting to note that if the opening bidder responded 3NT (showing no singleton or void and 15-16 points) to the supposed Jacoby 2NT, the 2NT bidder could now pass!

In a recent ACBL Teams match the following situation came up. All 8 players are "C" level players. At Table 1 East/West are silent throughout the auction. North opens 1♥ and South responds 2NT. North alerts and upon request states that it is a Jacoby 2NT bid. South's reaction makes it abundantly clear that she has misbid. North now states that she is responding as if it was Jacoby 2NT!! North now rebids 3♦ with a 2542 15 point hand!! South now re-bids 3NT with her 3244 9 point hand and that becomes the final contract. The TD is called and tells the players to play the hand out and then call him back. 3NT made and it needs excellent defense to stop it making. TD is called back and rules that the result stands and a 3 IMP PP will be allocated against N/S. Do you agree with this ruling? Could/should the TD cancel the board at both tables, or make some other ruling? At Table 2 N/S did NOT play in 3NT.

In a recent ACBL game the following arose: West opened 1♦, and North overcalled 1NT which was alerted by South. East requested an explanation which was given -10-15 points with a 4 card major and a longer minor. East then passed and before South could bid, West strongly insisted in knowing what explanation had been given to East - presumably because she did not hear it. South informed her that she would explain again when it was West's turn to bid. This was not satisfactory to West who called the Director. The Director conformed that West had a right to know the explanation that had been given even though it was not her turn to bid. Correct ruling? This issue would not have arisen if South and West were on amicable terms with each other!!! Apparently South's explanation to East was clearly spoken but West claimed not to have heard it.

An interesting situation, and an interesting ruling, came up in an ACBL Club game. With E/W vulnerable, West opened 1NT with ♠AJx, ♥Qxx, ♦AT8x, ♣KQT. North bid 2♣, which was allegedly alerted by South, in a very soft voice and with no use of a Stop card. East, after a break in tempo, in which he was waiting to hear an alert, Passed with ♠xx, ♥AJx, ♦J9, ♣A9xxxx. South now bid 2♦ (the partnership were playing Hamilton with the 2♣ showing a single-suited hand). North and West are very experienced players, East marginally less experienced and South is a relative novice. After South's 2♦ bid, West asked North the meaning of that bid, and received the answer that South was required to make that bid so that North could Pass or correct. West then asked South whether the the 2♣ bid was natural and was told "No". No other explanation was given, and none was sought. West now doubled the 2♦ bid and North called the Director, raising the possibility that West's Double could have taken into account East's break in tempo after the 2♣ bid. The Director let the double stand. North passed and East now bid 3NT. Contract making. The Director let the result stand, advised South of the necessity to ensure that the opponents hear the Alert, and cautioned West about letting a break in tempo influence his bidding. Subsequently the Director allocated a Procedural Penalty against West for the Double. The Director reasoned that if West did not Double East would NOT stop short of game, probably now bidding 3♦. Were the Director's actions appropriate in the circumstances detailed above?

With all due respect the 'other' cards are of little concern in relation to the question asked. If Declarer did not play either the♦ Ace or King from Dummy on the second lead of that suit, he was never going to take more than one ♦ trick. Declarer can only take 8 tricks in a NT contract, UNLESS East is required to discard one of his top ♥ cards on the third ♦.

An interesting situation was reported to me recently about an incident from an ACBL club game. South is the Declarer in a 3NT game.He has 5♦s to the AKxxx in Dummy and Qx in his hand. He has no other entry to Dummy, and the remaining cards in Dummy are 3 small ♥s. He plays the Q and then the x, overtaking it in Dummy, with both Defenders following. Before he can call a card from Dummy, East says "I will take the AK ♥s and will give you the rest of the tricks." As he makes that statement he detaches 2 cards from his hand (presumably the 2 top ♥s) and places them face-down on the table. At this juncture West says "Just a minute, I have a ♦ trick". The TD was called and ascertained the facts and then gave the obviously incorrect instruction to "continue play". South goes down in his contract! Clearly the TD has to allocate an "adjusted" score. Everybody at the table knows that the two additional cards East has laid down on the table are the AK ♥s - even though they are turned facedown! If the winning ♦ was played from Dummy and East was required to play one of his unexposed, but announced, ♥ cards on the table, South would make his contract. It calculating an adjusted score can the TD, consider those two cards as exposed cards and take that action?

"With that given, I think south should get protection from the director when the explanation turns out to be wrong, even though he suspected the explanation was wrong in the first place. "

In a recent ACBL Club game the following bidding occurred. With everybody Vulnerable South was the dealer. 1♣ - 2♦ - Pass - 2♥, 3♣ - X - P - 3♥, 4♣, X - All Pass. West's first Double was explained(!) as a Support Double. No other explanations were requested or given. North, South and West are experienced players and East is a relative novice. Undoubtedly East was the ONLY player who believed West's Double was a Support Double!!! South's hand was ♠A743, ♥ ---, ♦ A6, ♣KQJ9432. The result of the contract was -1X. After the completion of the play West called the Director and explained that an incorrect explanation had been given. The Director decided to give an adjusted score of E/W -200 (3♥ -2), on the basis that South possibly/probably would not bid 4C, if she had not received the explanation from West. Should the Director take into account that South was well experienced and almost certainly knew that the explanation was incorrect? Is there a direct link between the false explanation and the final result? Is there a case for any adjustment in this matter? :lol:

The original posting asked the question about whether or not a player can decline to provide information to the Director because it MAY be to his advantage to so do. In the case in question the 3♣ card was pulled from the Bidding Box by mistake. The player intended to pull out the 4♣ card. He thought he had indeed pulled out the 4♣ card. When the Director came to the table he declined to inform the Director that he had "pulled the wrong card". Is it ethical/legal to decline to provide this information to the Director BECAUSE it might be to his advantage to be able to play 3♣ rather than 4♣?

I am not sure where the idea that there was "substantial pause for thought" came from. It certainly was not mentioned in the original posting. At the Table apparently West made a call after South had bid 3♣. At that stage the TD was called, before North had bid. I do not know who called the TD. It was the call of the TD that awakened South to the fact that he had not bid 4♣, which was the bid he thought he had made. Law 10A "The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications where applicable. Players do not have the right to determine ( or waive- see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative"

In a recent ACBL Club event South, intending to pull out the 4♣ bidding card pulled out the 'Insufficient" 3♣ card by mistake. The Director was called and, apparently not considering the possibility of it being a mechanical error, instructed that the auction continue as the insufficient bid had been 'condoned' by the subsequent Pass by West. South, aware that he had made a mechanical error, decided not to tell the Director this, and made no further comment, deciding that things might work out in his favor! Does not the combination of 10A and 81C5 give the TD the sole right to assess or waive rectification? Can a player consciously decline to provide the TD with information because it might work out to his advantage. I struggle with the ethical aspects of this one.