David Stevenson
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This is not a simple question. For a start in many events but not the normal EBU duplicates your partner could have asked for an Undo. But the real problem comes from people who misclick often tell the table which is an error. They can tell their opponents if they like, although there is no need to do so. But once they say it to the table the partner has unauthorised information and may not act on it.
In the actual case if your partner had said nothing (at least nothing that you knew about) then you are liberty to guess what she has done when she bids 5D and if you guess, perhaps from the auction, that 5D cannot be a slam try or a control and pass it that is acceptable. But if she had told the table that her original bid was a misclick then because of the unauthorised information you may not pass 5D.
As far as she is concerned if she has given no indication of what is wrong to Partner it is perfectly ethical and acceptable to do anything she can to recover from her mistake.
Law 71 allows for cancelling a concession on its own. The reference to law 79C is solely for the purpose of the time period during which various things are allowed. It does not define everything that is allowed (or not allowed) during that time period. There is no doubt that the law book could be written in a less confusing way.
Actually Brian, from the technical aspect, yours is not the best example. The law talks about the director dealing with an “irregularity or error” of which he becomes aware and there was some discussion over this. A mis-score at another table is clearly an error. But claiming the wrong number of tricks is not a scoring error and there was some doubt as to whether it counts as an irregularity or error. The fact that a trick cannot be lost by normal play is not clearly either of these. Anyway, the consensus was that it should be dealt with.
I delayed my answer while I checked up on this and asked a top class international group of directors. It appears there is some doubt as to the letter and intent of the law since nowhere in the laws does it give you a right to ask for a ruling at another table. Despite that it was agreed that if you do ask for a ruling at another table within the time limits the director has to act on your request.
While it is not directly relevant to the question the laws make it clear that if a ruling is given at another table you have no right to appeal it even if it affects you. But rulings are different.
Bridge Club Live (BCL) has very different alerting rules from most events that people in England or Wales play. One of their strangest rules is that natural opening two bids are not alerted whatever their strength. So your opponent was correct: your 2S opening bid should not have been alerted. That means that if your opponent opens 2S without an alert then it is natural, but it could be Very Weak, Weak, Weak to Intermediate, Strong but not forcing, Acol (strong and forcing) or even Culbertson (strong and game forcing) and you have to ask which!
My advice is to follow what Brian says in response to 1NT: 2C if weak, transfer then new suit with game force. With a game try 1N-2D-2H-2S works fine, but with 5Ss and 4Hs you either transfer then bid 2NT which might miss a 4-4 H fit or Stayman then 2NT which might miss a 5-3 S fit.
Over 2NT Stayman then a 5 card major works, but suppose you want to play a 5 card major ask, like Puppet or Muppet Stayman? Then 2NT-3D-3H-3S works with 5Hs and you can play 2NT-3S as 5Ss plus 4Hs.I would certainly pass, and am surprised we only defeated it by one trick. I presume that means the opening lead was an unfortunate HT, not the Cx I would lead.
Do you play double to show 4Ss? If so I would rebid at least 3S on the second round with some temptation to go all the way and bid 4D as a splinter. That way you will reach a normal but unlucky 4S.
Perhaps we should remember that other people bid differently to us. If a player doubles and his partner understands that he is meant to pass then it is a penalty double even if the hand does not look like it to you or me. All that matters is the pair’s agreement over these doubles.
It depends on where this was played, but one or other player should certainly have alerted the double as penalties. For a very long time now people have not followed the rules on alerting doubles. They used to be quite complicated and there was some reason to be sympathetic. As a result of this about 15 years ago the rules were changed to make them absurdly simple and yet people still get them wrong. Below 3NT any double of a natural suit bid is either for takeout or requires an alert. What could be simpler? But despite it being so simple people just do not get it right and my impression is they do not really try to get it right and this is not just medium players, better players are just as bad.
If this was in an event and you were damaged, possibly by misplaying the hand, the director would adjust in your favour.
You are always entitled to ask about the meaning of a bid. That is one of the absolutes of bridge, the only exception being that dummy should not be asking.
But there is the question of how you ask. If you meant that you clicked on the bid then that is fine and they have no right not to answer. Of course a 2C bid with no explanation nor alert should be natural but my impression is that players online are more casual about these rules. Also if you ask further by private chat to the player then that is also fine and they must answer.The one thing you must not do is to ask by chat to the table. That provides some unauthorised information to partner.
When you open 1NT the agreed range is always explained to the opponents, by the person bidding it on BBO and in some RealBridge games, and by the partner in live games and some RealBridge games. Players have a right to play different ranges in different positions but this must not be a secret. If a player and his partner agree they can open light in third seat they must make the announcement as “ten to fourteen” or whatever they are playing. From what this player told you this sounds like something his partner will expect so they have an agreement to be lighter in third and they should have announced it.
Of course you might have missed your contract even if they had announced it because neither of you might feel you can bid over 1NT. But that is what bridge is all about, taking certain risks which can gain or lose. But they must not gain through secret agreements.
Having discussed this with my regular partner we have decided that in this sequence 3S is natural and non-forcing.
Many years ago the EBU decided that it was permitted to have an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton but that it should be part of the announcement. So the first question is whether this pair have such an agreement. If so then he should have explained his 1NT by saying 12-14, may have a singleton. Of course he did not explain it at all which is wrong. You need to ask this pair questions, the simplest one being “Why did you open 1NT with a singleton?”If you decide that they have such an agreement then the opposition have been misinformed and you can look at the hand and decide whether they were damaged, presumably in the play, and if you think they have then you adjust, possibly by giving them one trick.
if you decide they have no such agreement then there is no misinformation probably. As I said, the important thing is to find out why he bid 1NT. Perhaps he thought his hand was different or perhaps he thought he would just try it as a semi-psyche. If that is the case then there is nothing wrong: players do not have to follow their agreed system. If this is what you decide then the result stands.
The general agreement that a jump in the opponent’s suit shows void or singleton ace, or for some people a splinter, ie singleton or void, applies in many situations where partner has bid a suit, so it agrees that suit. This sequence is exceptional in that partner has not bid a suit so really that general agreement does not apply.
The more I think about this sequence, the more I think it is natural and non-forcing, but a game try. I think the actual hand is too strong and should have bid 4S which should be a reasonable contract if Partner had his double. While it is rare to have a suit good enough to play in despite the opponents’ bidding it first it does occasionally happen as here as you have got length, strength and the intermediates to make sure you have very few losers in the suit. On the given hand playing in spades you have five spade tricks however badly the spades split.
