Join Bridge Winners
Ruling at the local club.

West
73
9832
AQ109842
North
AKJ10
KQ764
432
3
East
98
J
AK9876
K765
South
Q6542
A105
QJ105
J
W
N
E
S
P
2
P
2
3
3
P
4
?
D

At about this point (exactly when is not clear), N announced that there had been a failure to alert 2 as Flannery (4 spades, 5 hearts, 11-15 HCP). The Director interviewed East, and learned that he would have bid 3 if 2 had been alerted. The Director unwound the auction and let E bid 3. The second auction was: (P) 2 (3) 3 (P) 4. The Director allowed South to play the hand in 4, making 4 which scored all the match points. All players involved were Flight C.

I was not involved in this hand but was at the club (initially as a director in training but drafted to fill in when someone's partner did not show up). After the game, the director told me about this ruling and asked what I thought. I'm interest in what the Bridge Winners community thinks. I'm almost positive that unwinding the auction and allowing East to bid 3 was improper under Law 21 B. 1. (a) because partner had subsequently called. The only call that East could change at that point was his final pass (It's not clear whether he had passed before the failure to alert was announced). I also believe that North's 3 bid was "demonstrably suggested" by South's failure to alert and pass is a logical alternative, but I'm not 100% on this.

I'm lost on what the ruling should have been the ruling after disallowing North's 3 bid. I'm also interested in advice on how to make a ruling like this without running off some of the newer players.

101 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top