Join Bridge Winners
What if a ruling doesn't take into account an individual player's particular foibles?

We had a ruling against us on a partscore board in a minor pairs event.  I won't give the whole hand because it was a while ago and I can't readily find it and in any event it is probably not relevant, but the salient points were as follows:

- Our side was competing in clubs and the opponents had opened 1 and were competing in spades.  The auction went 1-2-2-3-P-P-3-P-P-4-All pass

- I hesitated over 3.  Partner had passed my forcing 3 bid so I had to decide what my pass of 3 would now mean, if that makes any sense.  I was slightly nervous about making a forcing 3 bid but that bid at least had been made in tempo.  The hesitation over 3 was very slight but it must have been noticeable because the opposition did notice it. 

- Partner then competed to 4 which went one down NV for an average plus.  

- 3 would also have gone one down, so clearly we got the hand wrong EXCEPT the opposition asked for a ruling on the basis that 3 would have made had my partner led A from Ax as declarer held K. 

So we ended up with a mixed ruling of some proportion of 4-1 and some proportion of 3 making ending in an average minus.  Nothing hangs on this ruling and it was weeks ago so I am out of the natural-irritation-for-being-ruled-against period.  

The issue is that my partner is completely allergic to leading unsupported aces even in our suits.  He would just never do it.  He never has done it in the many thousands of boards we have played together.  I am trying to think of a hand where he has done this on a partscore board and I can't think of one - not even if I have opened a weak 2 or pre-empted.  On reflection, it is fair to say that he would absolutely never lead an unsupported ace against a 3 or 4 level contract and it is only with the greatest reluctance that he would do it against a 5-level contract.  It's a personal tic, almost.  It has cost us some, on occasions.  

The director did his job properly I think.  He consulted other international players in the field.  But other international players might not have my partner's particular allergy.  I didn't appeal it because I find that appeals generate a mountain of negative energy (plus I happen to like our opponents and I was delighted as to how well they were doing in this event because they are not tournament regulars and I really didn't want to spoil it for them).  It still struck me that the ruling didn't take into account the fact that my partner would no more lead an unsupported ace than ask for a steak to be cooked anything other than well-done. Although maybe that's another foible.

So should rulings take into account a player's particular foibles?  If so, should we be in a position to demonstrate and prove this to be the case?  Our system file says nothing about this, but perhaps it should? 

Getting Comments... loading...

Bottom Home Top