WBF LC documents on the 2007 laws

The World Bridge Federation Laws Committee has recently produced two documents with interpretation of the new laws (or advice on interpreting the laws).

• Minutes of a meeting of the WBF Laws Committee in Beijing on Friday, 10th October, 2008.
• Commentary to the 2007 edition of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge by Ton Kooijman, Chairman of the WBF Laws Committee.

In particular, the Committee favour a liberal approach to Law 27B, noting that there is an inclination to allow artificial correction of some insufficient bids even in cases where the set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of hands consistent with the insufficient bid. This "mildly liberal interpretation" will allow play to continue; with Law 27D being used at the end of the hand, if the offending side have gained through the insufficient bid.

This appears to mean that TDs will ignore negative inferences from potential meanings of the insufficient bid, inferences which would exclude hands from the set of hands consistent with the insufficient bid, and so exclude some hands shown by a potential correction. So in the auction 1D-(1S)-1H, we would allow a correction to a double under Law 27B1(b), although some hands would not respond 1H (because they would bid a longer club, or spade, suit) but would nevertheless make a take-out double. If these negative inferences become relevant, the TD will adjust under Law 27D. As ever, we need to see more examples to see whether this liberalism will be for the best.

P.S. I have returned to work (see No posting in October), still with some medical issues to be played out. Hopefully, more bridge and directing in the coming months.

An appeal - withdrawn

I completed this appeal form but the appeal was withdrawn because it did not affect the result of the competition.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