Sat, 26 May 2012 10:50:57 -0800WeeblySat, 12 May 2012 15:21:15 -0800http://www.unit572.org/1/post/2012/05/opening-lead-out-of-turn-ruling-by-a-playing-director.htmlQuestions from a local director:

"Hello friends.  I think, that I have a good one?

first, In 4th seat,  we get a 1D, opening bid!  This, of course, is before 1st seat could bid.

so, we have a bid out of turn! More to the story!   Partner of first seat, sees that his partner did not see the bid and is getting ready to bid.

This partner, immediately says,  bid out of turn and we do not accept it!   Is it legal for this person to make this announcement?

I believe that it is legal, but a lot of discussion arouse.   Please help.

Question two:  I run a little club,  we get three to five tables, on Thursday evenings.  Of course, I am usually the only director in the room.

I am a playing director!   Is it legal for me to make  director calls at my table?

I do appreciate your input and help.  The situation last night happened at my table and I was the one to say:  we do not accept that bid!"

Here is my response:

1.      Yes, it is legal for the third seat person to call attention to the bid out of turn by the fourth seat person. See Law 9A1: “Unless prohibited by law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.”

2.      No, the third seat person may not decline to accept the call, only the first seat person can do that. See Law 29A, which gives only LHO of the offender the right to accept or not accept the call: “Following a call out of rotation, offender’s LHO may elect to call thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification.”

3.      If LHO of the offender does not accept the call, then the offender’s partner is required to pass throughout the remainder of the auction. See Law 31B: “When the offender has bid at his partner’s turn to call or at LHO’s turn to call, if the offender has not previously called, offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call.” (Note that there may be additional complications in this situation, including possible requirements to apply laws 23 and/or law 26 that could result in lead restrictions or adjusted scores.)

4.      No, it is not legal for a director to make a ruling at his own table. However, when you are a playing director and there is no other director available, you have to do something creative. A lead out of turn when it was LHO’s turn to call happened at my table in a club game earlier this month. I was not directing, but the actual director was less experienced and asked me how to rule because he did not know the answer and couldn’t find the right pages in the rule book. I declined to tell him what the rules were, but found the correct pages in the rule book so that he could read them before ruling. Once he read the rules, he made the correct ruling. You might consider using a similar procedure, by choosing someone else (possibly even your opponents) to read the rules and make the ruling. As happened at my table, you may have to show them which rules to read.

5. Another director familiar with the problems of a playing director when no other director is available suggested that there are circumstances where the playing director has to make a ruling at his own table. I agree that in order to keep the game moving, that may sometimes be necessary. However, in that case you might consider calling together an "appeals" committee after the game to review the ruling. In effect, I would tell the opponents at your table to please appeal the ruling (or you could make it an automatic appeal on your own initiative), so you can create a small committee of their peers to hear the facts and the laws and then confirm or change the ruling. That way you can turn it into a learning experience for all involved and avoid any hard feelings. Explaining to the opponents their right to appeal a director's ruling in accordance with Law 92 may mitigate some of the negative feelings that can arise when you rule at your own table. However, you don't need to wait for the opponents to appeal if you have any doubt about the facts or the laws. Law 81C7 gives the direct the power "to refer any matter to an appropriate committee".

Comments, anyone?

Ed



]]>Sat, 12 May 2012 14:41:11 -0800http://www.unit572.org/1/post/2012/05/simultaneous-lead-or-penalty-card.html Please consider the following situation submitted by a local director:

"In a contested auction N/S have bid diamonds.
North is on lead and tables A D. Simultaneously South announces, " I am
going to lead the K D".

1.  What is the ruling?
2.  Opening leader has UI.
3.  Law 58-Simultaneous Leads...  Is South deemed to have a played a card?
The K D is not a played card in the strict sense of Law 45-Card played.
Remember South only announced.

How would you rule?"

My response:

I would rule that Law 49 (Exposure of a Defender's Cards) applies.

The relevant part of Law 49 says:

"when a defender's card is in a position in which his partner could
possibly see its face, or when a defender names a card as being in his
hand, each such card becomes a penalty card..."

Therefore the king of diamonds becomes a penalty card and must be played
on the first trick. Declarer does not have lead options, as would normally
be the case with penalty cards, because the card becoming a penalty card
did not precede the opening lead.

In theory, the unauthorized information rules would apply, but unless the
partnership had unusual lead or signaling agreements, they are unlikely to
make a difference. Opening leader is not authorized to know that partner
would have led the king, had he been on lead. Therefore he should act as
if the play of the king under the ace is a signal indicating control of the
next round of the suit (queen or now void). (If the player with the king
had previously bid diamonds, then a void would be highly unlikely.) Since
the opening lead of the king normally says about the same thing, it would
be hard to find that opener had taken advantage of unauthorized information,
absent unusual carding agreements.

Do any of you have different ideas or interpretations?

Ed]]>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 11:20:36 -0800http://www.unit572.org/1/post/2012/01/concession-of-a-winning-trick.htmlThe following was submitted by a club director:

"In a notrump contract, Dummy had left the CAK and DK7 (the DK was good). Declarer played a club and said, “I’ll take the three top tricks and give you a diamond.” As everyone was folding up their hands Dummy said, “But if the last two diamonds fall under the king then the D7 is good.”  
(The last two diamonds do indeed fall under the king, establishing the D7 as a good trick.)

The questions are:

1.   Is dummy allowed to speak? (Law 42 B.3 says “Dummy may draw attention to any irregularity, but only after play of the hand is concluded.”)

2.   Should the concession of the last diamond trick be cancelled by the director? (Laws 68, 69 and 70 are a bit fuzzy but Law 71 Concession Cancelled 1. seems to say yes, and Law 79 B.2 adds a bit too.)

What do you think?"

My response is as follows:

1.       Yes, dummy may speak. You correctly cited Law 42B3. Law 68D makes it clear that play has ceased. Law 68D also makes it clear that dummy can question (“doubt”) the claim.

2.       Since the claim was not agreed, Law 69 does not apply. Director must follow Law 70A and award the last trick to the declaring side if the opponents’ remaining diamonds fell under dummy’s honor because that trick cannot be won by a defender.

Note that even if everyone at the table agreed to the claim, the claim may still be withdrawn within the “correction period” which is 30 minutes after the official scores are available for inspection, unless the tournament organizer specifies otherwise (see Law 79C). In accordance with Law 69B2 the last trick must be awarded to the declaring side. Law 69B2 says, the claim may be withdrawn “if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued.” Law 69B2 further says “The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.”


]]>Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:23:54 -0800http://www.unit572.org/1/post/2012/01/more-alert-information.html_     Question from a participant:    Does a 4H/4S pre-empt need to be alerted if the partnership also plays Namyats? 

The ACBL alert chart doesn't directly answer the question. However, it does say that natural calls not specifically noted must be alerted if they have "unusual strength, shape, etc." Therefore I conclude that four of a major pre-empts as part of the Namyats convention must be alerted. (Players using the Namyats convention, which is Stayman spelled backwards, also use 4 clubs and 4 diamonds as major suit pre-empts, usually with the minor suit opening showing more strength than the direct bid of four of a major.) Alerting, even when not absolutely required, is good practice whenever it is possible that the opponents may not understand the bid. There is no penalty for alerting to meet the general goal of full disclosure, even when not strictly required. However, in this case, I believe it is strictly required. 

]]>Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:16:56 -0800http://www.unit572.org/1/post/2011/12/new-alert-rules-effective-january-1-2012.htmlAt the 2011 Toronto National Tournament the ACBL board of directors approved two changes to the Alert chart, as follows:

"Item 112-49: Alert Chart

A. Conventions and Competitions Committee Suggestions – Alert Chart

Remove the requirement to Alert a cheapest club bid response over a NT opener or overcall, regardless of response structure. Rebids by notrump bidder which are different from standard (such as “Puppet Stayman”) would still be Alertable.

B. Amend the definitions of natural openers to include a 1C opener on specifically 4432 with 2 clubs and 4-4 in the majors.

Effective January 1, 2012."



]]>Mon, 23 May 2011 17:06:29 -0800http://www.unit572.org/1/post/2011/05/exposed-cards-during-auction.htmlHere is a comment from John Weatherwax:

"his actually happened in a club game (not Florence!). N bid one spade - E overcalled 3 hearts - S promptly placed the Kxx of hearts on the table! Law 24 applies, but there is a problem. At the start 24 says that if "one or more" cards are exposed then the auction continues to its conclusion with the caveat that N may not use the unauthorized information of S's exposed cards (e.g. N may not bid a close game because they know the placement of the heart K), If NS becomes the declarxer, then S picks up the cards. If EW is declarer, then they stay on the table as major penalty cards.

Para C of Law 24, however, says that if two or more cards are exposed, then the offenders partner (N) is barred from bidding for one round.

I think that equity is better served by the first instance, but EW would have a valid complaint. What to do?"

My response:

Law 24C doesn't give the director any option. Because two or more cards are exposed, North must pass at the next opportunity. If North gets another chance to bid later in the auction, the unauthorized information rule applies as specified in the first paragraph of Law 24. In other words, North cannot take advantage of the information about the heart placement when choosing a later bid, but must pass at the first opportunity.

If the enforced pass damages East-West, for example, by keeping North-South from bidding a contract that is destined to fail, then Law 23 may apply. In accordance with Law 23, the director is required to award an adjusted score when two conditions are met, 1. the offender could have been aware that the irregularity could damage the non-offending side, and 2. the director considers that the offending side in fact gained an advantage. The second part could easily be met if the forced pass kept the offending side out of a contract that was destined to fail. The first part is a can of worms. I suppose that if the cards were put down by an inexperienced player in a "senior moment" then the director would let the table result stand. Otherwise, I suppose the "could have been aware" test would almost automatically be met because it doesn't require actual awareness.

Comments anyone?


]]>Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:12:36 -0800http://www.unit572.org/1/post/2011/04/point-count-lower-limit-for-a-takeout-double.htmlSue Kroning has sent a question for the group. Who would like to answer or comment?


"Is there any lower HCP limit on a first round takeout double? If so, when should it be alertable?"

Ed

]]>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:50:30 -0800http://www.unit572.org/1/post/2011/04/no-trump-overcall-range.html Ray Lowe had a good question:

"The second column of the convention card has a section called "NOTRUMP OVERCALLS". The question is can one put any range under "direct". Such as 12 to 20? or must it be a restricted range say 4 points?"

Karol Monroe had a good answer:

" I don't seen any restriction on point range for 1NT openings or overcalls, but there are restrictions on responder's/advancer's bids --

From the ACBL General Convention Chart

DISALLOWS use of any conventional responses after natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have two non-consecutive ranges)"

I typically play a standard 15-17 opening no trump, but for no trump overcalls my card typically says 14-18 with systems on. That stretches the range to the limit allowed by ACBL while still permitting conventional responses.As Karol indicated, ACBL permits a 12-20 range for no trump overcalls. However, not being able to use Stayman, transfers or other conventional calls after the "out-of-range no trump overcall is too much of a disadvantage, in my opinion.

]]>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:57:32 -0800http://www.unit572.org/1/post/2011/04/a-revoke-is-a-revoke-is-a-revoke.htmlIn future I will try to enter new questions as a separate posting, so responses can be more easily connected with the original question. I'll start with Don's revoke question:

" Declarer is in dummy and the last five or six tricks in dummy are good. Declarer spaces out or gets careless and revokes in her hand while playing the remaining good tricks in dummy. Does this constitute a revoke or is this no harm/no foul?"

I agree with the response that "a revoke is a revoke", however, I would be happier if I had more facts to be able to confirm that what occurred was in fact a revoke. If declarer is in dummy and all the tricks are good, then it appears that a claim or concession is in order. Did declarer play it out trick by trick without claiming or without an opponent conceding? Or did declarer start playing and discarding quickly as if to demonstrate a claim?  Was there truly no way to get out of dummy or was it essential for declarer to unblock or to play cards from the top to make sure s/he didn't get back to hand? Did someone call the director to report the revoke? (If dummy was indeed good then some opponents might take the 'no harm, no foul' position and not call the director to enforce a revoke penalty, in effect making a concession.).

Assuming that there was no claim or concession and the defenders called the director to report a revoke other than a trick 12 revoke, then director has a responsibility to check all of the relevant facts to make sure that what happened wasn't the equivalent of a claim. If the director determines after reviewing all the facts that what happened was an established revoke and not an implied claim, then, in my opinion, the revoke penalty would be appropriate.

]]>Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:41:25 -0800http://www.unit572.org/1/post/2011/04/welcome-to-the-unit-572-directors-forum-blog.htmlWelcome to the Unit 572 directors' forum blog. Please post your director questions and comments.
Ed Parker

]]>