An appeal - withdrawn

I completed this appeal form but the appeal was withdrawn because it did not affect the result of the competition.

Cross IMPs		A K Q
Teams of 8		K J 10 4
Dealer N		6 4 2
N/S vulnerable		K Q 6
	8 6 4		J 9 7 3
	A 8 5 3		7 6 2
	K 10 9 8 5 3		Q
	—		J 10 9 7 3
		10 5 2
		Q 9
		A J 7
		A 8 5 4 2

W	N	E	S
	1CA	1HA	2H		1C: strong club; 1H: two suits of the same colour
Pass	4H	All Pass			N asked about 1H before bidding 4H

4H made 10 tricks, on a spade lead, N/S +620. TD ruling: table result stands, N/S fined 0.5VP.

TD was first called at the end of trick two.

Director's statement of facts

When West had lead face down, East asked about 2H — told "natural, 9+". After West had won trick two, South said 2H was "9–11 balanced, no heart stop". North disagreed with the explanation, claiming that she had got the system right. The spade lead was won by the ace and, at trick two, a heart was lead to Queen and Ace.

I was recalled at the end of play, N/S making ten tricks. E/W said that with the correct explanation of 2H the lead might be different; and East might duck HQ and declarer may lead a club to dummy (when in with DA) in order to draw the remaining trumps, and would suffer a club ruff.

Adjusted Score/Procedural Penalty Awarded

Score stands (no adjustment). Standard 0.5VP Procedurary Penalty against N/S.

Details of ruling

1. With the correct explanation of 2H, West will lead a spade. Law 47E2(b).
2. On the line:
   • SA,
   • HQ ducked,
   • HA,
   • DxxQA
   South will not play a club.
3. South should have corrected the failure to alert 2H, and the explanation of 2H, before the opening lead. Law 20F5(b)(ii).

Director's comments

I discussed the hand as a lead problem with six players; with South's explanation of 2H they still lead a spade, even when they decided N/S had had a misunderstanding. No one lead a diamond.

The problem only arose because South did not correct partner's explanation of (and apparent failure to alert) 2H. This failure is worthy of a procedural penalty.

Subsequent Issues (not on the form)

1. Should I have set the opening lead problem in the context of both explanation, so that it was clear that N/S were having a misunderstanding? This would have been the position if South had corrected the explanation at the right time.
2. Should I have awarded an adjusted score with a (small) percentage of 4H-1, corresponding to declarer playing a club to dummy at trick five (on the line in 2. above).
3. I should have allowed West to change the HA at trick two, under Law 47E2(a). This would have avoided the second part of the ruling, as the defence would have been able to set declarer this problem in actual play.

No posting in October

Spent two weeks in hospital and the rest of the month at home. Newly diagnosed with diabetes and significant surgery on my foot. No TD or real bridge; but I have been watching BBO and I was consulted on one ruling from the English Premier League. Not clear when I will be back on my feet and back to work. (Bummer!)

Insufficient examples in Brighton

I only had one law 27 ruling in Brighton. The auction was something like 1D-(P)-1H-(2C)-P-(2S)-2H.

• I suggested that 2H and a correction to 3H were probably natural [no disent];
• I gave the next player the option of accepting 2H, if not offender could bid 3H and perhaps some other calls that would not silence partner [not accepted];
• I spoke to offender away from the table: "What did you mean with 2H - had you not seen 2S?", reply: "oh yes, I had seen 2S, I have no idea what I was doing";
• Me: "Well I guess 2H showed hearts, would anything other than 3H show hearts?", reply: "Not really, I think I'll bid 3H";
• We returned to the table, offender bid 3H.

All a bit of a non-event. Throughout all of Brighton there seemed to have been insufficient insufficient bids to really test the new law.

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".

Some Law 27 examples with club TDs

I looked at some examples of Law 27 with some club TDs this weekend. The examples were meant to illustrate ruling on the consequences of insufficient bids, not the choice of corrections under the new laws.

N:1S - E:1H - S:TD!

We weren't sure if East had meant to open 1H or if he was overcalling 1minor with 1H but we imagined that East told us (away from the table) that he meant to open 1H. The 1H insufficient bid and a correction to 2H were both natural, so a correction to 2H would not silence partner (Law 27:B.1.(a)). The only calls that show hearts are overcalls in hearts, so we looked at whether a 3H overcall would not silence partner (under Law 27:B.1.(b)):

• if 3H is weak it is not contained in a 1H opening, so a weak 3H would silence parnter;
• if 3H is intermediate (opening values, 6 card suit) it is more precise that a 1H opening and so would not silence partner;
• if 3H is strong, then it is not contained in a 1H opening, because some strong jump overcalls would be worth an Acol 2H opening, so a strong 3H would silence partner.

E:1NT - S:1C - W:TD!

1C was (necessarily) a natural opening bid. (1NT)-2C would be Landy [both majors], so 2C is artificial, and Law 27:B.1.(a) does not apply. (1NT)-3C was poorly defined in NS system, but would be a different hand from a 1C opening and was not contained in a 1C opening. No call would not silence partner under Law 27:B.1.

S:1NT - W:Pass - N:1S - E:TD!

North told us that he intended to open 1S and NS responses to 1NT are stayman and transfers, with 2S meaning some artificial (not spades). Law 27:B.1.(a) did not apply. Law 27:B.1.(b) did apply to 3S which was natural with spades (but we failed to consider that an Acol two opening would exclude some hands from a 1S opening). The club TDs had to be prompted to consider a correction to 2H (transfer), this shows spades, but not opening values, so is not contained in the 1S opening bid and would silence partner under Law 27:B.1.(b). I wondered if North had said that 1S was a response to 1C (say), whether we would allow a 2H transfer to not silence partner.

We concluded that there was much to find out about the offending pair's system, even in apparently simple cases: do they play strong two openings, what hands are shown by a jump overcall. There are harder questions when the offending pair may not have clear agreements about what a rarely used call would actually show.

EBL recommended TD Law 27 procedure

The European Bridge Laws [EBL] held a seminar on the new laws and Max Bavin gave the presentation on Law 27. The presentation was posted to the Internet on Bridge Laws Mailing List [BLML], attached to http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2008-June/040747.html [www.amsterdamned.org is no longer working, see comment - RMB 2010-08-26].

This is the section on the recommended procedure for TD to adopt in ruling on Law 27.

Recommended Tournament Director procedure

1. Advise the offender to say nothing at the table which might indicate what it was he thought he was doing, as to do so may create Unauthorised Information [UI] for his partner (Law 16B refers).
2. Advise the left hand opponent [LHO] that he may accept or reject the insufficient bid [IB], explaining that if he rejects it the offender will have the following options:-
   • if the offender makes the lowest legal bid in the same denomination, and if neither call is artificial, then the auction will continue without any further rectification
   • if the offender makes a call (any legal call) which has either an identical meaning as the IB or has a more precise meaning (such meaning being already fully contained within the scope of the IB), then the auction will continue without any further rectification
   • otherwise, the offender can make any legal call he wishes other than a double or redouble, but his partner will be silenced throughout.
3. The LHO is not entitled to know what the offender was trying to do when he made the IB (though he is entitled to guess!). However, he is entitled to know full details of his opponents system (e.g. he can ask supplementary questions) and he is entitled to know the Law (e.g. he can seek clarification of the Law from the Tournament Director [TD]).
4. If the IB is rejected, the TD will need to establish what the offender was trying to do when he made it. He will almost inevitably need to do this away from the table in order that the other three players remain unaware of the reason. The TD then advises the player of his options (still away from the table) i.e. which calls, if any, will allow the auction to proceed without further rectification. If the correction is to be allowed under 27B1(b), this may well involve quite a detailed (and possibly skilled) discussion and analysis of the player’s system. The offender then selects his call at the table, and the TD advises the table as a whole whether or not partner is silenced throughout.
5. There may be Law 26 type lead penalties if the offending side become defenders. Please see this Law even in 27B1(a) and 27B1(b) cases.
6. At the end of play, the TD may need to examine whether there is any reason to adjust the score. In general terms (e.g. in the absence of Law 16B type UI), if the IB has been accepted then all should be well. Also, in general terms (e.g. in the absence of Law 23), if partner has been silenced throughout then all should be well. Note that ‘rub of the green’ or ‘just being lucky’ is perfectly acceptable when partner has been silenced throughout - Law 27D does not apply, do not even think about going there!

Now I understand the reasons for decisions in this procedure: that a practical approach is needed to ruling under Law 27. But I don't like that the meaning of the insufficient bid is to be determined by asking the offender; the law doesn't refer to the intended meaning of insufficient bid but to "possible meanings of the insufficient bid".

I also don't like that left hand opponent [LHO] does not know which replacement calls by offender will not silence offender's partner, when LHO has to choose whether or not to accept the insufficient bid. Previously, I used to determine whether the insufficient bid and the sufficient correction were conventional or not, before explaining the consequences of accepting or rejecting the insufficient bid. Now LHO has to work this out for themselves [I use "they" etc. as a gender neutral pronoun], based on questions about the opponents' system.

But this is all new territory and it is good to have a procedure that may be uniformly adopted across Europe for ruling on insufficient bids. I think we are all keen to see some real rulings and see how the law and the recommended procedure work in practice.

Introduction

The purpose of this blog is comment on the new laws of bridge (2007) and to describe my experiences in operating the laws. I intend the comments on the laws to be based on practical hands, not theoretical discussion, so there will not be many postings until August 2008, when the laws become effective in England. In the meantime I may try to say something about Law 27; I may also look at how rulings I give under the current laws would be different under the new laws.