Chris3875

OK mrdct - this answer could be worth $10 to me. If you play just a normal, simple, basic system and your partner bids 2H after your 1NT and you accept the transfer by bidding 2S - does the 2S have to be alerted?

We know that a transfer bid is alertable but what about when the transfer has been accepted. e.g. 1NT - 2H - 2S. This is a simple acceptance, not showing any particular strength or length in the suit.

Just checking to make sure I am reading Law 26 correctly. A player makes a conventional insufficient bid - say for example 1D by RHO opponent followed by 1C. The 1C bid is showing opening points and no 5 carde major suit could be 4-4-4-1. Insufficient bid not accepted and subsequently withdrawn. When offender's partner is on lead for the first time - declarer may prohibit the lead of any one suit? He cannot demand the lead of any suit ?

Thanks Ed, David and all. I wasn't the Director on the day but was approached by the South player yesterday who told me that he got a bad Director decision while he was playing at an event in Melbourne a few days earlier. When he described the scenario I told him that, in my opinion, the Director got it right but he was adamant that no matter what the law book says, it was entirely unfair to make him give a trick back that he was never going to lose, no matter whether he revoked or followed with a trump.

[hv=pc=n&s=s5hdcq4&w=shdct75&n=sh4dck9&e=shdc]399|300[/hv] Clubs are trumps - East has no cards worth considering The lead is in West and the 5C is led, taken by the 9C, and the 5S thrown off from South. 4H played to the QC, 7C from West. 4C from South, TC and KC. Director rules on the revoke and transfers one trick to E/W Declarer, South, argues that there is no way a trick could have been lost - that on the lead of 5C, 9C by North, 4C by South 5S by South, 7C from West, KC North. 4H from North, QC from South, TC from West. I said the Law is the Law but Declarer has challenged me to put this scenario on the website to get the opinion of Directors in US in particular (over to you Ed)where Declarer asserts he would never have a trick taken off him in this situation.

Oh yes, sorry BunnyGo, I didn't understand your reply.

Hmmmm except his partner MAY have thrown off the Ace of hearts.

North is playing in 1NT and has made 6 tricks. West is on lead and plays the Ace of spades, North follows and East is pondering[hv=pc=n&s=shk6dc&w=sah5dc&n=s5h3dc&e=shadck]399|300[/hv] which card to discard when West (thinking the King of hearts is good) lays down the last card and says "it doesn't matter what you play".

I did question both North and South about they system and their bidding. As explained in an earlier reply they are both very new players and South simply assumed that North had forgotten their system about transferring to spades, so she took the bid as natural. North plays transfers to minors with another partner and simply got confused.

The N/S players are both inexperienced - on the day they finished last ! They play transfers to majors and with another partner, North also transfers to the minors via 2S forcing 3C, leave or correct. They don't play splinters or cue bids. South wondered why North hadn't simply transferred to spades via 2H, but thought he must have forgotten about transfers and took his bid as being 5+ spades and weak. Because the 2S was not alerted, and also because of the 4S response, North realised that his bid had been misinterpreted - but especially after the double by West did he have any LA to the 5C bid? Was the failure to alert UI? On the day I allowed the result to stand, but I had my doubts.

The 2S bid by North was not alerted and was supposed to be a transfer to clubs - which was not their system. North plays that with another partner. The result was 5C making 12 tricks by North.[hv=pc=n&s=st92haqj4dak2ca72&w=sakq74h873dt83cq4&n=s8hk6dq954ckjt953&e=sj653ht952dj76c86&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1np2sp4sd5cppp]399|300[/hv]

yeah, yeah - I know it was pretty "cheesy" of me to be cranky. However, the person making the claim is a Grand Master and I think they should follow the rules and say how they are going to play. "Top spade and clubs" was not correct as I had the King of clubs. I didn't argue with the ruling at all as I knew what she was going to do BUT I think players should state their line of play. Maybe she did forget that the King of clubs was still out - who knows.

No, she didn't give any line of play - just said "top spade and clubs" but later, she asserted because she had mentioned the spade first, that it meant she intended to play the spade first.

We were down to the last 3 cards - Declarer held a small spade and AQ clubs - dummy had a small (top) spade and 2 small clubs. Declarer (E) claimed saying "top spade and 2 top clubs" but I (N) held Kxx clubs. Declarer knew I had the King of clubs and what she intended was to play the small spade to the winner in dummy then play the clubs through me, but she didn't say that. If she had played the clubs first she is down 1 or 2 (depending on which club she plays). The Director said she would have played the spade first (because she mentioned the spades first) - so allowed the claim. I was disgruntled.

Blackshoe - maybe the boards were passed prematurely and pairs 3 and 6 played the first board of the next round - I have seen that happen before ! In that case Pair 9 may not have had the chance to get to the table before 3 and 6 played the board. What then ?

As a new user of Bridgemates, I can see that this sort of situation would cause us some difficulties as the Bridgemate would be assuming that board 22 is being played by 9 and 6. I am thinking that the scoring program (we use Scorebridge) could be manipulated at the completion of play to reflect whatever rectification is decided at the table. I am not sure whether the program would like the fact that Pair 3 plays more boards than anyone else and Pair 9 plays less.

Gordon, I know the LAW but what does b actually MEAN ?

I hate these "grey" areas - a Declarer's card is "played" it is held face up, touching or nearly touching the table - great ! I can understand and rule on that quite easily. But what does "maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played" actually mean. That comes down to MY interpretation surely. Our chief tournament director has written to me - "The card is played if it meets either of two tests: ............ or, it is maintained, kept motionless, in some exposed position that would naturally be interpreted by a defender as intent to play." What does "exposed position" mean ? That people can see the face ?

uh huh that was my impression also - maybe I should take it up with the Director who ran the course - could be the whole lot of them misheard what was said.

No, the card was not held facing the players - simply detached from the hand and held stationary in the air for several seconds. We have had a number of new directors just returned from a course and they all said this is what they were taught - I was surprised - but they said it came under the section "maintained in such a position as to indicate that is has been played".

Darn I don't know how I managed to get that smiley face in OP but I'm sure you know the law I meant. B)

Law 45C2(B) says that Declarer must play a card from his hand if it is "maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played". If Declarer detaches a card from his hand and holds it, vertical and stationary for a few seconds, does that make it "played"? We have a player who, as Declarer, will detach a card from hand and stand it vertically on the table, holding it by a finger resting on the top of the card, before slowly letting it drop face up onto the table - when does that card become "played"? And, on the subject of cards being detached from hand, I can see that a player who detaches a card, replaces it, detaches another, replaces it and finally plays a third card COULD be giving UI to partner - on the other hand they might just be totally confused. I think in most cases at our Club, the partner of such a player would look quite puzzled if you told them to "carefully avoid taking any advantage from that UI" and would have no idea what information they may have received.

After North asks for Aces, South replies 2 aces but North knows this is not correct as he holds 3 aces. West asks how many aces South's bid shows. Does North give their agreed system (2 aces) or is he obliged to pass on all the information available to him ?

Yes, sorry I realise I should have had the hand (and usually do) - but thanks, as you have answered the concerns I had.

OK thanks - that certainly answers some of my questions - except it raises one other point - if South had both hearts and spades, she would have used Stayman - so at any point could North LEGITIMATELY realise that South has forgotten that they play transfers and after the 3H bid say - oh, well obviously that was a genuine heart bid ? That didn't happen, he just passed - I am just wondering.