Chris3875

So, my question again is, WHEN should I have looked at this hand? I thought the facts were pretty cut and dried when I went to the table, but of course with hindsight I see that if I had looked at South's hand I would have had more questions to ask. David S has always been pretty strong on not looking at hands at the table which I have tried to follow - should I have gone and checked the hand record? He doesn't like that much either. Are there certain TYPES of situations when checking the hands is advised?

OK - this is sort of related to this topic - but at what stage do you look at the hands. I didn't look at all so really had no idea that South held more hearts than diamonds so didn't ask the question about why he didn't bid his hearts. I agree now that it looks like a field of a misbid.

eeeek my bidding disappeared in the edit too .... it went West 1C, North 2NT, East Double, South 3D, West 4C, all pass

Sorry RMB I think you saw this post before I edited it.

This is my week for having to make pretty mean decisions at the table. East asked the meaning of the 2NT overcall and South said that it showed 5+ hearts and 5+ of the other minor (diamonds). South bid 3♦, West bid 4 and all passed. North came to me away from the table and said that she had made a mistake and that her bid had actually shown 5/5 in the minor suits. Their agreement, according to their system card, was as described by South. E/W went well off in 4♣ and were upset. I showed them Law 75C - Mistaken Call "Here there is no infraction of Law since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North=South agreement, they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands. Regardless of damage, the director shall allow the result to stand". This seems to be a tough law in this instance - was I correct? I did tell East-West that I would send it to this website for a second opinion. [hv=pc=n&s=s87432hqj83d642cq&w=sqt9hkt76dkq7cj76&n=sak5hdat985cat852&e=sj6ha9542dj3ck943]399|300[/hv]

North opened the bidding 1S and South responded 4NT (Blackwood) - all passed, North having seen partner's bid as 1NT. Standing behind North it certainly looked like 1NT but I could see nothing in the Law Book that would allow North's pass to be changed. I did see that the ABF Regulations on written bidding say "The director is the sole judge and final arbiter in respect to the legibility of any written call. A player has no redress if he has made a call based on his own misunderstanding. If however, in the opinion of the director, a player has made a mistaken call as a result of an opponent's illegible handwriting, then Law 21B may be applied". I ruled that the auction would stand and the contract was 4NT by South. I did feel pretty mean about it though. Was the ruling correct?

Bidding goes 1S - 1H Director called. You ask LHO if they accept the 1H bid but before they can say anything their partner says YES (or maybe they say NO). Apart from telling the partner that they shouldn't comment, what other action could be taken?

Bugger ! South didn't open - he overcalled !

[hv=pc=n&s=sq8hq752dcakt9854&w=st764hk64djt3c763&n=sj532hajt98dak65c&e=sak9h3dq98742cqj2&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1d1np2d3d3h]399|300[/hv] South opened 1NT showing 9-14 HCP, 4 of a Major and 5+ clubs. It was not alerted, but West asked about it at his turn to bid and was told by North 16-18 HCP, balanced. North then bid 2D which was alerted as a transfer to hearts, East inserted 3D and South bid 3H. I'm not sure what happened after that - I think they ended up in 5H making. I was just asked the question about the legality of the 3H bid after the session was over. Their system is that the 1NT overcall is as South bid it, North just forgot. The reply to the enquiry by North should have been UI to South - did he take advantage of it? A 2D response by North is impossible in their system apparently.

This was a quirky one that happened yesterday. During the course of the play Declarer called for a club which was situated 2nd last in the row of clubs (eg. Q873 - called for the 7) - that left a space between the 8 and the 3. Later Declarer played a small club from hand intending to play the Queen in dummy, LHO played a small club and before she could call for the Queen, RHO played the Jack and then became quite agitated because she felt the 3 of clubs was in the "played" position. I did explain Law 45B, saying that Declarer had not named any card, but it did make me realise how people can get caught if they let their attention wander.

When I inspected our Howell movement cards they just say (under the Go To column) 7NS or 3EW, etc. - not very helpful for this question really.

That's very true - thanks ! Didn't think of that.

Here's a weird question I was asked by one of our neighbouring clubs. When they play a Howell movement and there is a table where North/South are stationary, except for a few rounds when they move to E/W at the same table they have agreed to not physically move players, but to simply move the board around. The reason for this is because they generally put players who have mobility issues at this table or tables. Is there a rule about which way the board should be moved in these instances e.g. North moves to East or West ?

I have sympathy with the Director suggesting it could have been pre-alerted. In the ABF alerting regulations it says under 3.1.2 Pre-Alerts "This is the stage where you should draw the opponents' attention to any unusual agreements you have which might surprise them, or to which they may need to arrange a defence". I think if an opponent used 4NT to ask for aces, then pulled out at 5NT with no response from partner, I might be surprised.

What do you think of this strange query I received from one of our local clubs ? "We have an inexperienced pair who have decided that when they ask 4NT for aces then they bid 5NT they are signing off not asking for Ks. They did this against Jack and he wasn't impressed. When she told me what they have decided to do with 5nt I said they needed to alert it when they sat at the table and on their system card. I told Jack and he said they can't do that - when they start on blackwood they have to continue etc cos you can't only use a part of a convention."

How much sympathy would you have as a director with the following scenario which I heard about today? With 4 cards remaining to be played one of the defenders conceded the rest of the tricks - his partner immediately objected and asked that play continue. No-one called the director. Play proceeded and the defenders took 2 of the last 4 tricks. At the completion of the hand the declaring side called the director and said that they had become "confused" with the concession/objection.

Sorry - being Down Under I got my Easts and Wests mixed up - it was WEST who had the singleton 3. After reading all the posts I am wondering if "Our agreement is that the 3 of hearts (an ODD card) is normally encouraging for that suit" would be the simplest answer to the query ?

Doesn't that make a bit of a nonsense of having signals in the first place? :unsure:

I thought the director of the day was being a bit pedantic .... North was playing a 3NT contract and had a long run of diamonds - part way through East threw off the 3 of hearts. North asked West about their signals and West replied that it was an encouraging card for hearts. North had in dummy the JTx of hearts and in hand the AQxx and played the J of hearts from dummy intending to finesse East for the King - East played a club (the 3 of hearts had been a singleton) - North called the director saying that she had based her play on the information given by West. West had correctly explained their system - the 3 of hearts should have been an encouraging card, but East was caught in a squeeze wanting hang on to her Qxx of spades and a club to return to partner (the opening lead). The heart finesse was never going to work as West held Kxxxx. After the game was over the director came to our table where I was sitting with West and told him that he must never say "It is an encouraging card" but must always preface the statement by saying "Our agreement is ..... that it is an encouraging card".

One of the directors here has made a point that the small spade "prematurely led during the auction period" should be a minor penalty card should the offender become a defender. Law 24 relates to the auction period, so a card led or exposed during this time is not a lead in the real sense of the word. A lead can only be made after the auction period finishes, so any card exposed before this cannot become a major penalty card if below the rank of honour. I would have thought it was a major penalty card by virtue of the fact that it was exposed deliberately.

This is a bizarre situation that was reported to me by a neighbouring club. East was the dealer and opened the bidding 1C. North then LED a small spade. I looked at Law 24 (card exposed or led prior to play period) and noted that card be left face up on the table until the auction period ends, etc. I am a little confused with Law 24B - does that mean that in this situation South must now pass at his first turn to call ?

..... and congratulations on your great score in the exam Fluffy :D

Law 20F5b uses very strong language "the player MUST call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous ..... etc." Obviously for a Declarer not to do so before the opening lead is faced would be an infraction. Would the director always apply a penalty in this instance, or only if the infraction actually resulted in damage to the opponents?

The possible contracts for E/W were 3H, 4C, 4S or 3NT - is a weighted score a combination of those results versus 3D by N/S going 3 off. How do you score that in a teams' event?