Recent director calls

You know your standards are high when 17 points for 6 sessions at a sectional is disappointing. That's what Sean and I did this weekend at the Atlanta sectional and over half of those points were from 2nd in the flight A pairs Friday.

Today's post, however, is about director rulings. I've seen several of them the last 2 days.
The auction goes 1C-P-1H-2H; X-P-P-P. 1C was alerted as bal 12-14 or any 17+. 1H was alerted as natural but canape-style. 2H was not alerted but after the auction it was apparent that it was natural. The director ruled that the auction can only be rolled back to responder over 2HX. Now, taking X as 17+ takeout rather than 3 card heart support (as it would be over a non-natural 2H), I, responder bid 3C. The ruling was correct but one of us should have figured out that defending 2HX was still our best spot. I mean, it is authorized information that opener has a support double so defending when we have 7 trumps and at least half the points couldn't be too bad. Unless I think my partner may have initially treated 2H as natural and actually has a strong takeout.

The second director problem really surprised me because both the director and my lho, a former world champ, didn't understand. P-1NT-P-P-2D-P-3S. 2D was alerted, opener looked at the properly filled out CC (which clearly says H+S), opener then asked and the explanation was look at the card because I wasn't 100% sure of the meaning but it is definitely on the card. After I bid 3S, my p went away so I could tell them that 2D shows the majors. The director then allows opener to take back her pass over 2D and change it to 3C. Why? What new information was gained and why were they entitled to that to begin with? They aren't and the director later admitted that there was noninfraction and the auction should have continued normally with no roll back. Perhaps a relatively new TD was intimidated by Eric's presence at the table?

One more that someone complained about today when I was directing: there are no penalties for revokes at trick 12. Just correct the illegally played card. If there is a revoke, there really isn't any choice of what to play instead or what to lead next and the main point of revoke penalties is to restore equity, which is easy to do at trick 12.

Clarity of Revoke Laws and Offender's Obligations

Since we are on the topic of ethics lately, here's another one. A few months ago I posted about the one and only time I revoked, http://bridgemaniacs.blogspot.com/2010/06/catching-revoke.html. For the few of you who read this but not bridgeblogging.com, I'd like to direct you to an article about the 1983 Bermuda Bowl in which Zia "got away with" a revoke while playing for Pakistan against Sweden. http://cam.bridgeblogging.com/?p=568#comments

Personally, I don't care what the actual rule book says. If a clear error (all 4 players agree the wrong score was awarded) can be corrected, it should be corrected. If I were the director, equity would be restored for the revoke in both my case and Zia's even if it is not quite consistent with the laws. There must be some clause in the bridge laws that says common sense and reasonable morality takes precedence over some silly rules about how much time can pass before changing a score or who can/should bring attention to a revoke. I guess there should technically be some limit, but during the same session or in the break between that session and the next is certainly acceptable - just don't go trying to change a score 3 days later when everyone has left.

I also disagree that a player is not obligated to "draw attention to an infraction by one's own side." This seems rather inconsistent with the law that a player must announce any failures to alert or wrong alerts at the end of an auction (if on is the declaring side). While it is the opponents' fault for not catching the revoke, I don't think they should be obligated to be the ones to point it out. Bridge is kind of like golf and tennis - gentleman's games (at least it should be) where people are expected to conduct themselves with class and play honestly and police themselves for the most part.

Hesitation After a Gambling 3NT

There are some little old ladies who you will never be able to educate about hesitations and the fact that bidding after partner hesitates to clearly show values is unethical. This incident last night is also why bridge games should have non-playing directors. But in a fairly small club with games of normally 6-8 tables such as Warner Robins.

Last night, I picked up xx, xx, AKQJxxxx, x and opened 3NT, alerted and later explained, in 2nd seat both vul. I know this alert might require a little extra time for a beginner and this lady was probably only slightly past the novice stage, but she took close to 1 minute.. much too long. Partner passed and, whether you know the Gambling 3NT convention or not, based on the alert that I have a solid suit with no A or K outside the suit, common sense should tell you that my partner has a decent hand, else he would "correct" to 4 of my minor. Anyway, passed hand RHO chimed in with 4S. Her hand: xxxxx, AKxx, x, Jxx.

Now, a director should have been called after the tank pass over 3NT to protect our side from RHO making a borderline bid, which would likely be based on the fact that the hesitation indicates LHO has a good hand. But I was the only director at the club that night and my partner and I were probably the only 2 people that have any significant knowledge about hesitations and the ramifications thereof. Anyway, dummy wasn't as good as it should have been for the tank but did include 3 spades. Fortunately the contract went down 3 doubled against our non-making 3NT (we could lose 4 hearts and a spade if they lead them immediately).

Full Disclosure of Agreements When You Know Partner Has Forgotten?

This past weekend, I came across two bridge laws that may need some change. This first one I guess is more of an ethical question than a bridge law question. I mean, the law that ace asking bids should be announced at the end of the auction, especially if 4NT was not the asking bid, makes sense, but the way it is used sometimes seems unethical. Our opponents had the uncontested auction: 1S-2C-2H-4C-4H-6C-P. Before I lead, the declarer announces that 4C asks for specific aces and 4H shows the ace of hearts but not the ace of diamonds. The play and defense to the hand was irrelevant. He had 12 tricks no matter what, but dummy had QJxxx of hearts and declarer had the ace!

Was it unethical for him to volunteer that information, knowing his partner had not bid correctly or not follwed the agreement, or perhaps the declarer thought they had that agreement but they did not. It's hard to tell whether this is the actual partnership agreement because it's not something that's normally on the cc somewhere and most people don't carry around detailed system notes. You're only supposed to announce or alert or announce failures to alert when you are sure you and your partner have an agreement about what it means, otherwise you say nothing. Anyway, assuming that is their actual agreement, should he say anything at all or should he state their agreement with a little caveat that his partner may have forgotten, or a caveat that maybe he forgot? I'm not sure, and the directors and other top players had very mixed views on this. I know he is well within the ACBL laws to announce the ace-asking bid. In fact, I kind of applaud him for trying to fully disclose their agreements, but in this situation I tend to think nothing should have been said at any point as any explanation given in this situation is likely more misleading than saying nothing or it's giving away too much information about declarer's hand. Fortunately, nothing we did on defense made any difference.

My other little gripe is about the revoke laws. We were defending 5DX and had taken two tricks already and partner still had the boss trump but he ruffed in too early he still had 1 club in hand when he trumped a club. I think any honest player would concede down 1 regardless of what the law is. He doesn't deserve to make 5 with 3 top losers after we our two not big trump winners right away. And isn't the main point of the revoke laws to restore equity, giving the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt and not so much to punish the revoker? Regardless, I think the rule should be changed to disallow someone to lose the top trump. You should not be able to make 7 off the A of trumps just because of a revoke. In this hand, making 4 would be the most that could ever be made, even with revoke trick penaltied. It is kind of similar to the rule that you can't revoke at trick 12. Yes, a player pulled the wrong card or had a card hidden or was thinking ahead, but when there is no line of normal play that could allow declarer to take all the tricks, a revoke should not allow that to happen.

Tip of the Day: Know Your System

Okay, even if you forget your system, still lead your good 6 card suit against 3NT.

Kx, Qxxx, KJTxxx, x. both vul, I opened a 3rd seat 2D, alerted as mini-roman. the auction proceeded 3C-3H-3NT-P-P-P. And I led a heart, obviously. And now declarer has 9 top tricks. Partner has Ax of diamonds and declarer Qxx. Perhaps they would have been entitled to some redress if I led a diamond but I doubt it. Perhaps they have a valid argument that I have to lead a heart on this sequence or that partner has to shift at trick 2, "knowing" that declarer has 5 diamonds but I really doubt it. The only redress I can possibly see is being required to bid 4H, but only if partner was not a passed hand. eh.

When is it too late to catch a revoke

So, if you've revoke but no one else notices, and you start the next hand, the previous result can no longer be changed. That is all.

I had: xx, KQT9, xx, AKxx. Against a good pair at the Atlanta club, Sean opened a canape 1D, I bid 1H, he bid 2H, I bid 4H. Dummy: Qx, Axxxx, QJTx, xx. LHO leads a high diamond spot. It goes A, K , 3rd diamond. I ruff with the K, draw trumps in 2 rounds, pitch a spade on the good diamond, lose a spade, ruff a spade, claim making 4. We played the next hand, after that hand, RHO begins wondering where the 13th diamond was. Apparently I had it the whole time and didn't even realize it, so we change the score to -100, which seems appropriate to me. Some discussion, not involving Sean or I takes place, rule books were consulted, and was determined that once they had bid the the following board, the previous one couldn't be adjusted.

Do You Know When Gerber is Alertable?

Last time out at the bridge club, my partner and I were defending and one of the top 3 pairs in the room had the uncontested auction: 1C*-1S; 2D-3S; 4C-4D; 4D-5S; P. My partner was on lead with something like: xx, xxxx, xxx, Axxx. What would you lead? 1C was alerted as and 16+hcp and there were no other alerts. I guess most of you would ask some questions about the bidding but we didn’t. I think that without any alerts, it’s safe to assume that 3S indicated a self-sufficient suit, 4C, 4D, and 5D are cue bids, in which case, this bidding clearly calls for a heart lead, to get partner’s trick in the suit before it goes away on diamonds. Another possibility is that 4C is natural, 4D a preference, and/or a bidding misunderstanding. Regardless, that auction also indicates that a heart lead is best because you don’t want to set up dummy’s second suit. In both cases, the club trick(s) may go away if you don’t take them now because they are quite likely to have two running 6 or 7 card suits.

Anyway, dummy came down with 20 hcp including Qxx of clubs and on the heart lead there were 13 top tricks. Had we been properly informed that 4C was Gerber, and 5D to play, I’m fairly certain my partner would have lead the ace of clubs and another club to hold it to 5. It turned out -450 and -510 would both have been worth 5 out of 6 matchpoints because most were letting 3NT make 7.

So, 4C as Gerber in that situation, as long as they do in fact have an agreement that it is Gerber, definitely should be alerted. Actually, it should be a delayed alert, which you announce at the end of the auction. According to the ACBL alert procedures: Any variety of 4NT Blackwood over a suit bid and 4C over a NT bid are not alertable. All other ace-asking bids (which would include Gerber over something other than NT) are alertable. Beginning with opener’s second call, an alertable bid above 3NT is a delayed alert, and all ace-asking bids at 3NT or below require an immediate alert. With that said, I think the score should have been adjusted to making 5 instead of making 7 because the failure to alert clearly steered my partner away from the winning club lead.

Ethical Drury Dilemma

Here is another hand from the Reno tournament that posed a potential ethical problem. This one actually came up immediately after I played 2 spades in our 2-2 fit, not that that is really relevant. It's just a bit ironic. I picked up KJTxx, Ax, Kx, xxxx and it's pass-pass to me so I open 1S. Partner bids 2D, which I properly alert as a limit raise with 4 spades. I duly bid 2S showing no interest in game. The ethical dilemma for me would be what to do if partner then bid 3C. Am I obliged to go back to spades or is it reasonable and ethical to assume partner forgot drury and just pass? I am thinking I would be permitted to pass and assume partner forot drury if that's what I choose to believe.

I am never one to believe that my partner has forgotten a convention but what would 3C mean here if 2D was Drury? I've already said I don't have a real opener so you're not supposed to bid again. That's part of the convention - it allows us to open really weak hands in 3rd seat and still not get too high when responder has a maximum pass with 4 trumps (a hand that normally would force to at least 3 but we can confidently stop in two). So maybe in these circumstances, when his bid does not exist if had been following our conventional agreements, I might believe that partner has forgotten our convention and I think that is totally ethical.

The real ethical dilemma might be for partner who held: void, xxx, AQTxx, ATxxx. Clearly he forgot that 2D was Drury. He is not allowed to be "woken up" by my alert so he is required to bid as though he didn't hear the alert. Does this mean he should bid 3C or is passing 2S now an acceptable and ethical call? Without an alert, passing 2S is a reasonable action - it's a misfit, if we bid again we may just get into more trouble so let's just keep it low and hope partner has a really good suit. With the alert, 2S looks like a less attractive spot to play because opener is not showing any extra spade length that might have been shown with a normal 2S bid. So, does the unauthorized information that responder has (that partner is expecting 4 card spade support instead of a diamond suit) prohibit him from bidding 3C or require him to bid 3C? Amongst people who do not play Drury, I expect many will bid 3C but some will pass so both are logical alternatives. I'm not sure what the UI suggests here. On one hand, it suggests biddind 3C because the hand will play better in a minor because opener does not have 6 spades that were supposedly "promised" from responder's unbiased point of view. On the other hand, it suggests passing to get out before getting into more trouble.

At the table, the director was never called and I played 2S down 2. This would be a difficult one to rule on but I think if I was the director called to this one, I would just let the result stand.

What does a Hesitation Suggest

I was involved in more director calls about hesitations last week than I think I ever have been. I was never the hesitator. According to the director's handbook, there should only be an adjusted score due to a hesitation when: 1) a call was made with undue hesitation (typically more than 10 seconds), 2) could the innocent side have suffered damage? 3) were there logical alternatives to the call chosen by hesitator's partner, AND 4) could the hesitation demonstrably suggest the call chosen would be more successful than the logical alternatives?

I seem to have not brought back hand records but in one case, my LHO held: x, AKQxxx, Kx, AQxx at unfavorable vulnerability. I opened 3S, he bid 4H, partner bid 4S, long hesitation-pass by RHO, and then this guy bids 5H. I think the hesitation certainly suggests that he has values. Is pass a logical alternative in this case? If so, he should be required to pass. I would say pass is a logical alternative, despite the huge hand. 4S could easily be making 5 on this auction (sans hesitation) with the DK and CQ finessable and bidding again opposite an partner with virtually nothing could garner -800 or -1100. Anyway, the director ruled that pass was not a logical alternative and the hesitation did not suggest 5H instead of double or 5C. Eh. They made 5 and we got a really bad score. But then again, partner should have bid 5S with 4 spades and a stiff and only the A of diamonds for defense.

One or two other hesitation calls turned out to be nothing and then this one in the final session of the Red Ribbons, which was possibly the most miserable session of bridge followed by the most miserable night I've had in a long long time. I held approximately xxxxxx, xx, Qxx, xx. None vul., partner opens a strong NT, RHO bids 2NT, I pass, LHO bids 3C, partner checks the CC finding a slew of other information about their defense against NT openings but no information about the 2NT bid, then asks and is told it shows the minors. For some reason, she then takes another 15 seconds to pass. What could the NT opener have to think about in this situation? Bidding a 5 card major, doubling (which I guess would be penalty), or just general confusion? Anyway, director is called on the hesitation and when 3C gets back to me, I bid 3S anyway. I think it is a normal action. Maybe if we were vulnerable this wouldn't be a good bid but white, it seems normal to compete to 3S. However, I wouldn't argue much about pass being a logical alternative. I did argue that the hesitation suggested bidding 3S would be better than the logical alternative of pass. If anything, I think the hesitation might suggest good clubs and therefore indicate that bidding again would not be better than passing. The director said that it doesn't matter what the hesitation suggests as long as it could suggest something, so he supposedly polled 3 peers (yeah, nice sample size), two of whom passed and 1 bid 3S. Therefore he decided both are logical alternatives that could have been suggested by the hesitation and the result we get should be the worse of the two. So, he adjusted it from 3S down 1 to 3C making 5, which was still a good score because they were cold for 5H, but I don't like the ruling.

Your thoughts, please?

Ethical Blackwood bidding

... several times in a row. Going into the 5th round of the round robin yesterday, we had 43 on a 40 average and seemed to be playign a competent pair. On the first 3 hands, they stopped in 4D making exactly and bid 2 making minor suit games, only one of which did 3NT have a chance. On the 4th board, they have the uncontested auction: 1H-3H-4NT-5D-6H. Seems fairly straighforward. No major breaks in tempo. Partner asks about the bidding. 3H was a limit raise and 5D, after about a 30 second hesitation, was 0 or 3 keycards. Partner leads a spade from 4 small and I play the queen, taken with the ace. Declarer draws trumps and leads the king of diamonds, with QJTx showing in dummy, along with Kx of clubs and a few small spades. So, she takes the A and leads another spade. I didn't have a chance to make an encouraging signal for clubs, so, from my partner's point of view, logically, the only way we're beating this hand is if I had started with KQ of spades, still an unlikely holding. And I wind up going to bed with my ace of clubs.

I should have called the director. I know there is nothing the director can do about the declarer being an idiot and bidding a slam knowing he is off 2 cashing aces or about him forgetting his partnership agreement. In this case, I am much more likely to believe it is the ladder. If I were playing against a novice, I could/should shrug it off and think, well, he didn't know any better. I can accept losing 11 imps like that once in awhile.

The guy wouldn't respond when I asked about what he was thinking or why he gave misinformation. He never looked at his card during or immediately after the auction so he wasn't reminded by that. I actually didn't look at the card either. So, my problem with this is that he seems to have bid thinking that 5D showed 1 or 4 keycards because no reasonable bridge player (which I assumed he was) would have gone on to slam with only 3 of the 5 keycards. And I know he isn't obliged to tell us that he forgot their agreement, but is it ethical or proper to bid the hand one way and then after the bidding remember what your actual agreement is and tell the opponents that actual agreement? Personally, I think he should have just said "I'm not sure whether we are playing 0314 or 1430 blackwood but you may check our convention card." There is no guarantee we would have found the defense to beat 6H if we are not convinced that declarer holds 4 keycards, but we certainly would have a better chance.

On the other hand, at the end of such an auction the guy should be able to tell what 5D is immediately without pause for thought. I mean, he was just thinking about this 15 seconds ago and now he needs another 30 seconds to think before telling us. That seems fishy. Perhaps at that point we should have called the director. If there are eny experienced directors reading this, I'd like your opinion.

1H-3H: invitational vs. preemptive? How much does that change your call as the opponent?

In the swiss team game at the Macon sectional with both sides vulnerable, I picked up:
AKTxx
X
X
AQTxxx

It was 1H-P-3H to me. Your call. I bid 4C. I asked and the opener said 3H was a limit raise. So I thought they probably would bid 4H and then I can bid 4S and give a very good description of this hand. It goes all pass and dummy hits with soome 10 or 11 count and 4 spades to the Q, making 5C or 5S easily. After the hand, the 3H bidder said it was a preemptive bid, and their card agreed. So, I told the director that I would have made a stronger bid had I known rho was showing a weak hand. Making game is much more likely with a preempt instead of a limit raise on my right. So, what do you bid over 3H: 3S, 4C, 4H, or X? The director allowed me to bid 3S and partner raise to 4S, making 5 for a push instead of -10 imps. Fair adjustment, I think, and so did everyone else at the table, but I was beginning to reconsider it. Does the knowledge of rho's strength really change the way I bid this hand that much? What do you think? I actually think 4H is the right bid, whatever 3H means. This hand is strong and distributional enough to force to 4S or 5C.