bali 2

Are the laws so complex that one obtains as many opinions as directors asked ...? Why can we not be able to have a total agreement on the technical rulings ? Don't you think that it may irritate players who cannot have the same rulings in front of the same cases...? Best ragards Al. Ohana

[hv=n=sxhajxdakxxckqxxx&s=skqjxxxxhxxdxxcxx]133|200|[/hv]

South opens 3♥ , which is transfer for Spades, not alerted by North who bids 4 ♥( forgot the agreement ) Now South bids 4♠,which ends the auction, and West calls the TD. What should be the ruling 1) without screens 2) with screens ( 3 ♥alerted by S and not by N ) Many thanks in advance Al. Ohana

David I have been very pleased to learn that you where the best, ...a thing that I suppose you already knew... :huh: Receive my sincere congratulations ! It was far from easy ( I learned that to my misery ) and you really deserve felicitations. :D I hope you nethertheless continue to answer my questions...? :( Sincerely, Al Ohana

Suppose in a competitive auction North has a BIT and then Pass, and South makes a bid. It is determined that the break in tempo does not absolutely suggest that bid, but it is also determined that Pass by South was a L. A . Do we rule that as there was a LA South must Pass, or that as the BIT do not suggest bidding, S is allowed to bid ? Many thanks in advance Best regards, and Merry Christmas to you all !! :) :)

[hv=n=sxhxdxxc&w=shxxdxxc&e=shkqdkqc&s=sxhaxxdc]399|300|[/hv] Sorry, forgot to give the example Al. Ohana

I don't understand why it is not allowed to give split scores in claim cases. There are a lot of situations where it would be logical , and fair, to rule split scores in claims. For example : S is playing 4S and after trick 9, E shows his hand and says " one trick for me ". All players agree, looking at all remaining cards. Later, S realises that if he simply have ruffed a card in dummy, he would have made the 4 tricks instead of only three; He calls TD and explain, but naturally TD judges that if he has not seen the play with all cards in front of him, he would not if play had been continued, so he don't give him the trick . But is it a reason to give this trick to E/W, who are gaining a trick from nothing, a trick that all players in the tournament have not gained ? In my opinion, TD should rule three tricks to N/S and zero trick to E/W, which is not allowed ( where is it inscribed on the laws or on the regulations ? ). This case in one in one hundred other cases , similar, where a split score should give what is right to each side. Many thanks in advance Al. Ohana

I observe a lot of errors in the N/S side : - South opens with 9 HCP and nothing in the majors - North bids 2S without asking what means 2 C - South do not know what means 2S - North doubles 3H with nothing for defense ( they can make 4H ) - South believes his hand is worth eleven tricks and bid the game in the absolute darkness For all these reasons I would have made the result stand. What for the bad "joke" of West, who probably wanted to have a nice word, thinking that everyone will understand what was his bid ? A reprimand and some P.P. to learn him to be more cautious in the future.

N/S play 2/1 game forcing and the answer 1NT forcing on 1 Major opening. N opens 1S, E pass, S 1NT ( alerted ), and West have a good hand but wants to wait and see the opener rebid's before deciding what to do. But N pass , E pass and leads a small club. West calls TD, but of course it's too late to reopen the auction, and N/S get a very good score. What is the ruling ? Is N allowed to pass on a forcing bid ? Many thanks, Best regards Al. Ohana

" If a player whose pass will conclude the auction removes..." Sorry, I wished to write it in red, but do not succeded ...

WBF. COC 2009 ( ¤ 24 . Bidding boxes ) : " If a player whose pass auction removes his bidding cards from the table, he is deemed to have passed." For example : N opens 1NT, East 2♥, South 3NT, W pass, N pass, and when East removes his 2♥ card he is deemed to have passed. So, apparently, we are not here in the same situation, and we may be inclined to say that as the North player has not called over 2♣, the auction is not closed, and East has not the option to remove his card "Pass" ( from the first round ) to close the auction. So we go back to the tha auction, North's turn to call : N do not see the 2♣ card and do not bid ( he removes his 1NT card ) , East removes his "Pass" card, concluding the auction, and now we have 3 Pass over the 2♣ bid. We still arrive at the same result : 2♣ is the final contract. If the TD allows the auction to be reopened and gives North the opportunity to call again, he is canceling the mistake and favoring N/S side against E/W, and also ruling on contrary to the law 17( or may be 22 ...) :P Al. Ohana

Suppose the auction is illegal ( for example containing an inadmissible double ), the players do not notice and arrive to 3NT. The contract is played and made, but at the end one of them realises what happened and calls the TD. Are the contract and score obtained canceled or maintained ? In each case, what is the law applied ? Many thanks in advance, AL. Ohana

The action of removing your bidding cards may sometimes mean "pass", but it didn't mean that here. Does Pass means sometimes something and sometimes something else ? :)

Playing with screens. North opens 1NT, East Pass, S 2♣,West Pass. The tray is pushed back to the NE side, but the players don't notice the 2♣ bid, assume the auction closed, take their bidding cards back and push the tray to SW side. But South asks what is happening and wants to bid again. What is the ruling ? Does TD consider the auction not closed ? But W, N and E have passed : doesn't the law 22A2 apply ? Many thanks in advance Al. Ohana

S is declarer in 3NT, West to lead. West is subject to lead restrictions under law 26B and East has a Heart as M.P.C. on the table. Is South allowed to ignore the lead restrictions and select one option from the MPC, demanding a Heart lead ? If the answer is Yes and West leads the H Ace making the trick, are the options of 26 B still available to declarer or not ? :lol: Many thanks in advance Al. Ohana