Join Bridge Winners
Memphis Natl Fast Pairs win taken away by Directors

This is Bd 3 in the finals.

S  985  K2  109  QJ6532

W  AJ  AJ107643  J  K108

N  K103  8  AQ87653  A9

E  Q7642  Q95  K42  74


S     W     N     E

P     1H    3H*  X     *bid 3NT with H stop; otherwise bid 4C - pard will pass, correct, or raise or bid 5D

3NT  4H    P     P

X*     P    5D    X     *break in tempo - 6-8 seconds

all pass

The director was called; noted the break in tempo with no disagreement, and said play on.  Result, down 2

Director called back, and Ed Schulte, W, commented that he didn't know if he could make 4H if he couldn't get to dummy, so we scored it up and went on to the next board.

At the end of the session, we were 3rd by 4 matchpoints and we asked the head director if there had been a ruling on our director call.  He and the other directors were unaware of one and we learned that Charley McCracken, the table director had been allowed to leave early.

Now we were put in the position of having to explain what had happened.

The hand record shows that 4H is cold - N cannot keep declarer from dummy - he is endplayed at trick 1 and cannot get off lead without putting declarer in dummy.  Deep Finesse agrees.

Apparently the first director never consulted the hand record or anyone else, nor did he quiz other players about the BIT and the ethics of pulling the double with the N hand...whch has a lot of defense for this type of auction.

We were ruled against because the panel deemed that a break of 6-8 seconds "in that auction" was NOT a BIT.  The TDs were very clear on that point.  I got this information through a series of emails with Paul Linxwiler who is only the messenger here, not a participant.  Paul went on to say that the directors were not going to revisit this topic.

After the decision, Ed Schulte got a text from Jenny Carmichael saying that if we would have claimed a BIT of 7-9 seconds, they would have decided in our favor.  I learned this just this Saturday.  The text is still on his phone.

Paul forwarded our email chain to Nancy Boyd who is the director of bridge operations at HQ.  Obviously this is going nowhere.

The distribution of contracts on the hand was:  4H 13  5DX  13  4HX 2  5H 4 3H 1  5CX 1 4D 4 (3 sections)

I don't know how to set up a poll, but if your reaction to this situation is that the ACBL failed in their treatment of this BIT, let me know and also email  cc me at

Thanks to all who took the time to read and think about this.

Getting Comments... loading...

Bottom Home Top