Law 27: untested spiel

Law 27 seems more complicated that any other law including an opening lead out of turn, so perhaps I need a spiel as formulaic as the spiel for an opening lead out of turn ("you have five options, ..."). This is my first attempt, to be tested this weekend at Brighton.

To offender: don't say anything about why you made the insufficient bid, it may only make things worse.

To LHO: you will have the option of accepting the insufficient bid but first you should hear what happens if you do not accept.

To offender:

• You have as many as three options: the first two, if applicable, will not silence partner, the third option will. We can discuss these options away from the table.
• Firstly, if the insufficient bid and lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination are not artificial, then you have the option of making that sufficient bid and partner will not be silenced.
• Secondly, if there is a sufficient bid, pass, double or redouble which means the same as, or is more precise than, the insufficint bid, then you have option of making any such call and partner will notbe silenced.
• Finally, you can make any other sufficient bid or pass and partner must pass for the rest of the auction.

To LHO: Do you wish to accept the insufficient bid? You can ask the opponents about their system, but you are not entitled to ask the intended meaning of the insufficient bid.

Take offender away from the table, determine which calls will or will not silence partner. Return to the table, allow offender to call, and announce whether partner is silenced. Wait for the end of the auction and asked to be called back if there is a problem.

John Armstrong and a curious end-play

John Armstrong died last month: he was a great player and a true gentleman. This is a hand John played which I saw on BBO; at John's table a curious end-play was possible.

Camrose 2008	J 10 8 2
England v Wales	7 6 3
Dealer South	A 6 2
	K J 7
A 9 7		5
A 8 5		Q J 9 4 2
10 8 5 3		Q J 9 7
Q 10 9		6 4 3
	K Q 6 4 3
	K 10
	K 4
	A 8 5 2

Closed Room

Rees(N) & Kurbalija(S) v Rosen(E) & Jones(W). N/S bid 1NT-2C-2S-4S. West lead a spade and won the spade return. Now, West lead a heart to the King, and declarer drew the remaining trump, finessed CJ and claimed 11 tricks.

Open Room

Holland(N) & Armstrong(S) v Salisbury(E) & Tedd(W). N/S bid 1S-2S-3C-3D-3S-4S. West lead a club to the Jack, won the spade return, and played a diamond to the Jack and King. Declarer drew trumps, cashed CK, CA, DA, and lead a heart to the King and Ace; claiming 10 tricks.

If at trick eight, South continues to cash black cards, he reaches this position.

	-
	7 6
	A 6
	-
-		-
A 8		Q J
10 5		Q 9
-		-
	-
	K 10
	4
	8 (lead)

If West throws a small heart, declarer throws a small diamond from dummy and ducks H10 to West; dummy wins the next diamond and has a heart to play to HK. If West throws a diamond, declarer discards a heart from dummy, and East must throw a heart honour; declarer cashes DA and leads a heart to the King and Ace, winning the last trick with H10.

This ending has elements of a double squeeze, a guard squeeze, and a strip squeeze: I don't think I've seen anything similar before.

Law 55: the player next in turn shall prevail

Law 55 A includes a new stipulation that where defenders disagree about whether to accept or reject a lead out of turn by declarer "the player next in turn shall prevail"; previously we ruled that the defeneder who spoke first "spoke for the partnership".

The most common situation for a declarer to lead out of turn is when they lead from the wrong hand, and then the question arises: what does "next in turn" mean, does it mean next in turn to the lead out of turn or next in turn to where the propoer lead should be? This has already been asked on the internet, and was asked at my Club TD training course.

We think the answer is obviously next in turn to the lead out of turn, because

1. the player next in turn to the lead out of turn could accept the lead by playing; and
2. the whole of Law 55 covers a lead out of turn by declarer at both defenders' and declarer's turn to play, and the alternative interpretation does not work if it is a defender's turn to play.

Even if the correct interpretation is reasonably obvious, the law could say:

"the player next in turn to the lead out of turn shall prevail".