Chris3875

Hmmm she wasn't calling the Director about the revoke though. jdonn, maybe the word you are seeking is "shitstirring"

Well, I guess she was right in one way that Declarer does have the right to request or forbid a spade to be led by your partner - however, I thought dummy could only try to prevent an irregularity by Declarer. I am SHOCKED that you would decide to have a penalty card on the table without calling the TD :P

:( Maybe it has something to do with the type of players I mostly direct - they seem to get themselves into all sorts of interesting situations.

Olegru - my other thought was 1NT X. A 3C bid after a normal 1NT opening would be invitational to 3NT and certainly showing a lot more points than East actually had. Reading this site has shown me that bridge directing is a pretty complicated job when you can see such a varied range of opinions on one incident. Is there any doubt that there was mistaken explanation? Certainly by West when she described the 2S bid. According to Law 75 this is an infraction of Law and in my opinion resulted in damage to N/S who could have made 3S. If systems were "off" after the 1NT re-opening bid, East may have just bid 2C to show the weak clubs and South may have bid 2S to show 5 spades in his hand. East can only presume that partner has 11 points after initially passing, and East has only 7 - what do you need for a 3-level contract - about 20? I thought the whole auction became a bit of a farce after West's comment about her hand - which should have restrained East

If my partner ever bid 1NT after initially passing in this sequence, I would probably think she had the bid suits covered (spades and diamonds), but certainly no more than 11 pts. Although I might be concerned about the hearts with my hand (East) I would have been more inclined to pass as I would not consider systems to be "on" regarding a transfer to the minors (clubs). However, in this instance, West made it abundantly clear to the whole table that she had a full 1NT opening hand. After East has bid 2S, if West had alerted that as a transfer to the minors (forcing 3C, leave or correct) and then bid 2NT, does East still take the contract out to 3C or does she then think partner knows I have a weak hand, long in clubs, but still wants to bid 2NT so I leave it there? That was my thinking anyway. Christine

West certainly DID get a stern warning about speaking out during the auction - the fact that she had "made a mistake" with her opening pass ! I was working on the theory of 1. Was there misinformation? YES and plenty of it 2. Was there damage to N/S? I felt there was because they could have made 3S I also was thinking that from East's point of view, West had decided to bid 2NT despite the attempted transfer to clubs. Maybe West has clubs too, as well as the stoppers in the other suits and believes that 2NT will play and score better than 3C. I also discussed this situation with 2 other senior players. It would be so much easier if all 12 replies to this thread all said "Chris you are an idiot - you should have left the contract in 3C making !"

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=saq5h754dq763caq8&w=s8764hak3dakjcj76&e=stht96dt82ckt9543&s=skj932hqj82d954c2&a=p1dp1s1NTx2sp2ntx3cppp ]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] Bidding went - W N E S p 1D P 1S 1NT* X 2S* P 2NT X 3C P P P Director called at the end of auction. When West bid the 1NT after initially passing, ops asked East what the re-opening 1NT point count was. WEST replied "I made a mistake when I passed". :rolleyes: After East bid 2S, South asked West what it meant and was told, "she is showing a stopper in spades". West then bid 2NT, North doubled, and East bid 3C. After three passes, the director was called and East said that her partner had made a mistake (another one !) giving information about the 2S bid, which was actually a transfer to the minors - forcing 3C, leave or correct. They played the hand and made 9 tricks in clubs. This is the area of directing I find the most difficult (because I am not that good a player) - but I took the bid back to 2NT X and making 5 tricks. My feeling was that after East bid 2S and West went to 2NT, that East should not have bid again. A secondary question that I was asked was what, if anything, could the director do if West had called as soon as she realised that she should have made an opening bid. I asked her when she woke up, and she said not until it came back to her after the 1S bid by South. I felt that if she had realised before her partner had called, that there MAY have been a case for unintentional pass - however, I feel that she always meant to pass, just hadn't counted her cards properly. Help !

I don't understand the full ramifications of what you are saying - it seems pretty simple to me that Law 27A1 would apply - any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO. It is accepted if that player calls.

Merry Christmas to everyone who contributes to this website. Blackshoe knows my situation - living 100's of kms from the nearest senior Director and trying hard to improve my own skills as well as people directing at the 4 clubs in this area - he has been my "directing mentor" for over 12 months now (on another directing website) and I'm sure he knows how much I have appreciated his assistance (and patience). I value your help too and I'm sure there are many people like me who need the input from experts like yourselves. Chris

OK thanks - so what you are saying is that Declarer could have chosen the King to be played ? because my partner was certainly putting her hand down as dummy B)

Here is a strange one that happened today - N/S were bidding hearts, E/W diamonds and the contract ended up 5D by East. South (me) led the Ace of Hearts and West started to put dummy down on the table - at the same time my partner (North) started to put her hand down as dummy (yes, it is the Christmas season !) - she got as far as putting the King and Jack of hearts down before I shrieked loudly enough for her to wake up. Fortunately, I wasn't the Director called to the table. A. Does the Ace of heart lead still stand? B. Does North (my partner) decide which of the two penalty cards is played? C. When I lead again, and a heart lead is forbidden, am I authorised to know my partner has the King?

Am I reading this Law correctly ? West has 2 penalty cards - Diamond and Spade. East is on lead. Can declarer forbid East from leading diamonds AND spades, and both penalty cards get picked up ?

OK - thanks all for your input. The reason I asked the question was because I was unsure about the decision I made at the time .. and it seems I was right to question what I did. I did, in fact, speak to 2 other senior players before making my final decision - neither of them were aware of South's claim that 2♣ over the opponent's 1♣ (short) was natural and from North's reaction, I suspect that this must be something very new in their repertoire. I also think I need to ask more questions at the table (or away from it) to get the FULL picture. Cheers

They do play a short club, yes.

Probably because 90% of players in this area are taught and continue to play short club opening - and while we encourage players to have system cards and to alert a short club opening - it doesn't always happen. South just ASSUMED it was a short club opening because that is the norm here.

The 1♣ bid was NOT alerted. None of the players had a system card at the table. The 2♠ bidder thought she was showing a stopper in spades in case her partner wanted to consider NT (she didn't like it because of her lousy diamond holding). After her partner went to 3♣ she left it there not knowing that South had such a strong club holding (it had been alerted as MICHAELS without the apostrophe) and she only had 8HCP. Her explanation made sense to me - but then I am only a poor Australian player.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=st876hq3dkj963cj7&w=sqj542ha9862dt7c3&e=sa9h754da85cakt82&s=sk3hkjtdq42cq9654]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] Auction went - S W N E P P P 1C 2C* 2S P 3C P P P 2C is alerted and described as Michael's cue bid showing 5+ of both majors. 3C makes 6 tricks = 150 N/S There is disagreement between N/S as to their system - North says she alerted and advised their correct system (Michael's cue bid) - South says that 2C over a short club opening bid shows genuine clubs. I rule misinformation - opponents were damaged - and readjust the score to 2S making 8 tricks = +110 E/W.

I had scored a session on my computer recently for another club when their system went haywire - so I just went into it and made 3 boards "not played" by pairs 3 and 5 - it didn't alter the results. We are talking here about a club event - green points only ?

SMACK !

Knowing that I will incur the wrath you spoke of, but also being aware that people will take pity on me because I am so new - in scenario 1 I would certainly make the boards "not played" - in my opinion it's the only honest answer ! In scenario 2 - I try to be as gentle as possible with people who are enjoying their game of bridge despite physical restrictions. I think Mrs Personality's decision to stomp off to the washroom because "she" decided there was no time to play the last board deserves an Av-. Maybe the opposition should have notified the director but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt assuming that they were probably intimidated and give them an Av.

Ok - that's pretty clear ! Thanks. What sort of scenario would be covered by the "incontrovertible" clause in Law 46?

[hv=n=sh5d8cj5&s=shdc9876]133|200|[/hv] South was declarer in 3NT and with 4 cards left and in dummy, she called "Club". East/West had no clubs. Dummy, correctly, played the 5, and Declarer immediately said "No, I meant the Jack!". Director was called. By playing the 5, Declarer makes only 2 tricks as she then gets stuck in dummy when she plays the club back to the Jack. I felt that this was a case of "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible" - albeit extremely sloppy, careless play. I ran this scenario past 4 very experienced directors at a National event last week and only one would have allowed Declarer to change from the 5 to the Jack.

Darn - you need to crack the whip a bit harder Ed

I am totally guessing here, but I am thinking that the player who passed the 4C ace ask probably thought her partner had bid 4S, so at the time she passed, she MEANT to pass - then horror of horrors, she probably noticed the S was in fact a C. I would have been totally tuff and ruled that the pass was intended - no change allowed - keep your eyes open in future.

Here is an interesting situation reported to me as having occurred at a local Congress. Opposition bidding went 1S - 3S - 4C (Gerber) - all pass. THEN the director was called and he took the player who passed the Gerber ace ask away from the table - when they came back he allowed her to change her call and they ultimately ended up in 6S making. TD said that the auction period had not ended because defenders had not made the opening lead and that the pass was unintended and could be changed during the clarification period. I was amazed but the TD is very experienced and I cannot believe he would have made a mistake (no, that was not tongue in cheek). I would have made them play it in 4C and suggested that they be a little more alert to the bidding in future - what is your ruling pls.