Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 25A2

2. If the player’s original intent was to make the call selected or voiced, that call stands. A change of call may be allowed because of a mechanical error or a slip of the tongue, but not because of a loss of concentration regarding the intent of the action.

Law 25B1

B. Call Intended
1. A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the offender’s LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first call is then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues (Law 26 may apply).

So quite clear: Call should not be permitted to be changed unless LHO accepts it.

That is the legal position. Whether it is right or not is discussed above.
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 68

C. Clarification Required

A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed, including the order in which the cards will be played. The player making the claim or concession faces his hand.

(The last sentence was added in the most recent laws)

If the defence do not agree with the declarer they do NOT ask him to state his line of play. This is to their advantage since an astute declarer may have spotted the problem and then states a line of play to circumvent it.

Assuming you do not ask him to play on (and everyone agrees) - which is not usually the optimum course of action. Law 68D applies

2. If it is doubted by any player (dummy included); either
(a) the Director may immediately be summoned and no action should be taken pending his arrival, Law 70 applies

Law 70 states

B. Clarification Statement Repeated
1. The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim.
2. Next, the Director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim (but the Director’s considerations are not limited only to the opponents’ objections).
3. The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table.

D. Director’s Considerations
1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal21 line of play that would be less successful.

Again there is no requirement to ask declarer his line of play.


So once you have made your claim statement then that is that. The director will adjudicate on your claim statement and any doubtful points will be adjudicated in favour of the other side.
Oct. 19
John Portwood edited this comment Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He didn't know how many clubs he had at trick one. Why should he realise at trick 2,3,4,5… by then he will have thrown away the ‘losing’ diamond since obviously the small diamonds and hearts are of no use to him
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think it is a double shot per se: however I did feel that knowledge of the results of a double shot should be known.
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes - 12C1e

(e) If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non‐offending side has contributed to its own damage by an extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a gambling
action, which if unsuccessful it might have hoped to recover through rectification, then:
(i) The offending side is awarded the score it would have been allotted as the consequence of rectifying its infraction.
(ii) The non‐offending side does not receive relief for such part of its damage as is selfinflicted.

I think this means that you work out the difference in matchpoints between -450 and -500 and deduct them from the matchpoints that would have been awarded for -200.
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North was obviously wondering whether he could raise to 3 on his weak hand. Stet.

(Even going by losers this is a raise to 4)
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 6D2

2. Unless the purpose of the tournament is the replay of past deals no result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck1 or if the deal has been imported from a different session. (These provisions shall not prevent arrangements, where desired, for exchange of boards between tables.)
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unless the 7 card suit will be trumps . . .
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If playing precision North seems to need South to hold ‘perfect cards’.

Although I understand the pass after the double of 4, maybe North should bid 4 to emphasise a minimum hand for making a slam effort. (He has six losers and the King of clubs is obviously not pulling full weight.)

I don't see any blame on South's part - assuming you agree to open 1D on ‘Aces and Spaces’ then pretty much all his bids are forced since North is unlimited.

North MIGHT have bid 5 over the X of 5 - indicating worries about the heart suit. - Something to think about. He knows that he is going to get a heart lead, quite possibly through South's tenace (if he holds it) so that defence will set up a trick at trick one and if another trick has to be lost …
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
the hand can't have no control in hearts (3 points) and no control in clubs (7 points) as that makes 10 points and only 7 are missing.

I suspect partner is bidding 4 Spades to protect his King of clubs - nothing else makes sense.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Revoke.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not knowing everything is difficult for an accurate decision. My gut instinct is that West MIGHT have bid 3 Spades - in which case we award a weighted verdict.

It all comes down to:

Did the partnership have an agreement what the 2 call meant? If not we rule on the basis that the opponents know that there is no agreement.

If there was an agreement, was it correctly explained? If so then there is no adjustment.

if the agreement was not explained correctly (and the presumption is that there was a misexplanation) then we move on to decide whether West would have bid 3. 20-20 hindsight is wonderful “If I have no Aces, no Kings, no voids and no singletons then I have nothing”.

(Director also has to consider whether NS would bid 4 or 4 over the 3 bid)
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This comment has been marked as inappropriate by the moderator(s).
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Which is probably why some RAs ensure the call is made once drawn from the bidding box with apparant intent.

(Mind you it still doesn't stop people moving their hands from one call to another. If that is the case, just ask their partner if they agree that they have possible unauthorised information from the actions. (Unless the RA insist that the director is called - to be pedantic).)
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Legally the situation is: (in two parts)

1) Does the pause demonstrably suggest a club lead over another?
2) Is the other lead a logical alternative?

We know (AI) that East has some values. We know (UI) that he has some distribution.

There seems two options for the defence.

1) Play for diamond ruffs (low diamond indicating entry)
2) Cash out Clubs (Play K and see what to do if it holds)

Neither of these is demonstrably suggested over the other by partner's pause.

So the question is: is leading a heart (or spade) a logical alternative? Personally, I don't think so.

So, unless polling establishes anything to the contrary, I am inclined to allow the lead.

I also would not regard a ‘close decision’ as being unethical. If a player tries to find a logical alternative and fails then he is not being unethical if it is subsquently agreed that a LA does exist (for that class of player).
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5. (a) When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him
through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players. (Law 40B)

Unless the spade response has a potentially unexpected meaning there is no need to alert it. You have shown clubs, you have shown spades anything else is by inference and thus readily deducible from ‘matters generally known to bridge players’.

If the 1 Spade bid, for instance specifically denied or agreed a heart suit then that would be alertable. (You may be patterning out intending to bid hearts next time to show a 4=3=1=5 for instance)
Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem with the law is that (suppose someone was ignorant of what to do)

“Oh - declarer has led from the wrong hand”
“That is an irregularity” (Law 44G)

G. Lead to Tricks Subsequent to First Trick
The lead to the next trick is from the hand in which the last trick was won.


Law 9 says

B. After Attention Is Drawn to an Irregularity
1. (a) The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.

The law (Law 10) also says

A. Right to Determine Rectification

The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive – see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative.

Thus Michael (and every other bridge player in the World) has committed an irregularity ‘by determining rectification’

Thus Law 72C has to be considered.

C. Awareness of Potential Damage

If the Director determines that an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that it could well damage the non‐offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). At the conclusion of play the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

The sequence above is perfectly logical (but not sensible) and I am sure has never been called upon, although the alternative scenario (declarer deliberately leads from the wrong hand to see which defender objects) no doubt happens more often.
Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here are a couple of ways to go down.

1) Not ducking exactly one round of hearts **
2) Finesse the King of Clubs, Cash the Ace and play another.

I suspect that the 2nd way will be more common. Avoidance plays don't come up as often as hold-ups (especially at the table and not in a book)

** If you don't duck then South has a heart left - if you duck two rounds then South throws k on the third - it's in all the textbooks.
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hmm - so you noticed an irregularity and instead of calling the director (as you should), you decided on your own rectification (which you shouldn't even though you are right) - which seems to be an irregularity or two.

Since you could have known that your action might well damage the non-offending side (the one that did not break the above rules) then maybe the score should have been adjusted under 72C.
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or just put down your hand = that automatically accepts the LOOT.
Oct. 9
.

Bottom Home Top