Join Bridge Winners
Director Ruling

West
K
Q65
KJ10632
K108
North
1054
9874
75
AJ94
East
AQJ96
KJ32
AQ9
Q
South
8732
A10
84
76532
W
N
E
S
 
P
1
P
2
P
2
P
2N
P
3
P
3
P
3N
P
4
P
4
P
6
P
P
P
D
6 East
NS: 0 EW: 0

 

A recent hand at a sectional left me unsettled. East was a client, West was a professional. Before the opening lead, South asked for a review with explanations. West reviewed the auction and gave all explanations. East said nothing. West's review was:

1C  Strong

2C Diamonds, GF

2NT Natural

3D  Natural

3H Cuebid

3NT Signoff

4H  Kickback

4S  0 or 3

6D I hope she has 3.

 

Partner led the heart Ace, North played the nine, udca. South continued hearts, slam made. After the hand was over, East was asked about her bid of 4S. She replied that she did not think 4H was kickback, she thought 4D would have been kickback. The director was called and ruled misbid, not misinformation. I asked for further review, possibly a poll. But was refused, the director came to me and read out the definition of misbid. They director based their ruling on the fact that  was written on the convention card.

Why should the result depend on who gives the explanation. Should I require that the client explain their partner's bids?

Yes, a case could be made that continuing hearts was a failure to play bridge but North might have had KJ9 of hearts.

65 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top