Ruling the Game

This month's ACBL Bulletin has arrived (i.e. February's) and I was pleased to see photos of several players that we know well: Pat McDevitt/Rich DeMartino and the McNamaras.  Congratulations to them for their outstanding WBF results in Philadelphia last year.  And while I can hardly claim to "know" Brad Moss, it was interesting to see him as 2010 player of the year after facing him (and Gitelman) for two boards in the Reisinger.

I generally take a look at Mike Flader's column fairly soon after receiving a new bulletin.  But I think he's a little off his game this month.  In the third question, the opponents have the auction 2NT—4♥; 4♠—4NT.  Opener now picks up his bidding cards and starts to put them back in the box.  The questioner asked if it was appropriate for either his partner or himself to point out that the auction wasn't over.  Maybe space was limited but Mike's answer addressed the simple fact that no call had been made (no card was placed on or near the table) so the director (none had been called) should allow the auction to continue and that was about that.  I think he missed the point entirely.

First, the most obvious point.  The writer (who has already passed in this round) should not be saying anything at all since it is not his turn to bid.  Second, writer's partner should, in my opinion, wait a reasonable time and then call the director (or writer could call the director).  Otherwise they'd logically still be sitting there.  Clearly an infraction has occurred (it is incumbent on opener to make a call and he has not).  And if I was that hypothetical director, I would rule, notwithstanding the laws, that opener had made the physical equivalent of a pass (removing his cards rather than placing one on the table amounts to the same thing).  I would allow play to continue in 4NT (assuming that writer's partner also passes as any sane person would) and let the result stand if it was favorable for the defenders.  If it was not favorable to the defenders, I would probably assign an adjusted score: give the defenders the table result and assess a procedural penalty against declarer, awarding his side an average minus.

If I were Flader, I'd point out that the laws were not well written in this case [to quote from The Mikado: That's the slovenly way in which these Acts are always drawn. However, cheer up, it'll be all right. I'll have it altered next session. Now, let's see about your execution — will after luncheon suit you].  Actually, this issue is not covered in the "Laws of Duplicate Bridge" because it is up to the regulating authority, the ACBL in our case.

But most of all, I'd criticize all those players who, not being the last to call in an auction, simply pick up the cards to indicate that the auction is over.  It ain't over until the third pass in rotation is made!  This particular behavior drives me potty.  One of these days, I'm going to be the last to call over, say, 1NT—2NT—3NT and I'll be thinking of a lead-directing double when partner makes the opening lead.  I certainly hope that partner will be allowed to replace his/her face-down lead if I do make that double.

The first question is more of a judgment call and maybe Mike Flader is correct for a table ruling, but in practice this would likely be referred to a committee (of players, rather than directors).  Holding ♠9875 ♥A862 ♦KQ74 ♣T, our hero hears his partner open 1♠ (at favorable vulnerability) and RHO bid 2♣.  Being an old-fashioned sort of player (but having, in a moment of weakness perhaps, agreed to play weak jump raises), he bids 3♠ meaning it as a limit raise.  After ascertaining from opener that the jump is "weak", LHO bids 4♣ and partner passes as does RHO.  The question is this: is said hero allowed to bid 4♠?  Flader points out that pass is a logical alternative and that he may not choose another logical alternative that could have been demonstrably suggested by partner's explanation—he must decline the invitation that he thought he was making.  But wait a moment!  The situation is now quite different.  Is it really a logical alternative to pass when our side is known to hold at least half the deck, nine spades and we have a singleton in the opponents' suit?  I think not.  Surely, we're still allowed to bid our cards!  After all, the original 3♠ supposedly said "I think that, if you have a minimum hand, we have a better shot at making nine tricks than ten".  But now, we're not even going to declare the hand.  Surely our hero is allowed to try for -100 rather than suffer the likely -130!

This is one of those very tricky areas of bridge that unfortunately end up making somebody upset when the director rules a certain way.  I'm not sure that I have a solution, other than screens, or electronic bidding with pre-loaded convention cards.

Director!

I finally got around to taking the bridge director's test earlier this week.  Not that I'm planning on performing any directorial duties any time soon -- I just started an all-consuming new job this week.  My bridge playing, and writing, is going to be seriously curtailed for a while.

I'm not sure if I passed the test.  I wasn't as well-prepared as I would have liked (I was better prepared a few months ago).  There were a few questions where it seemed that more than one answer might have been right.  But taking the test reminded me of some bad decisions that have been made against me over the years.

Many years ago, before bidding boxes, before I/N games (or even stratification), before zero tolerance, I was at the Nationals in Detroit (1980).  My partner and I were neophytes but we had something of a clue.  I was declarer in 7S (possibly 7H) and I had plenty trumps in my hand, as well as a void in diamonds.  LHO led a diamond and dummy went down.  It was immediately apparent that I had 13 tricks and I hastened things along with a claim.  Director!  RHO also had a void and when the director arrived he ruled that because I did not include in my statement any specific plan if RHO ruffed the opening lead (as in "I will overruff"), the contract was ruled down 1.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that that ruling kept me away from bridge for the next 18 years or so.  In fact, the ubiquitous smoking and the people literally yelling at each other were far more problematic.  Having a new job and a new baby pretty much concluded the decision.  But the ruling didn't help.  I now know that, when declarer makes a claim and insufficient detail is given in the statement and there are trumps out, the opponents of the claimant are presumed to have won a trump trick if a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play (law 70C3).  A clarification in the rules states that "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.  Under-ruffing (or discarding) on this trick would not be careless, in my opinion.  It would be bizarre.  But the director thought otherwise.  I have no idea if there were appeals in those days but the director certainly didn't mention it [it's not clear to me if there is any redress for this sort of thing anyway - the facts were not in question].

The next ruling occurred at my next NABC (Long Beach in 2003).  I was playing in a I/N event limited to 300 mps.  Neither of us had more than 100.  We were winning the event until the last board.  At trick 12, I was on lead and contrived to accidentally drop one of my cards on the table face up.  Not very smart.  The ruling was that I was deemed to have played the card.  Down 1.  2nd place.  That operative word here is accidentally in which case law 48A applies (declarer is not required to play any card dropped accidentally).  Otherwise law 45C2a applies which states that the card is played if it is held face up touching or nearly touching the table.  There was no disagreement that it had been dropped.  Regardless, I think that a little slack could have been allowed in a I/N event.

The most recent bad ruling was a couple of years ago.  It might have been at the Boston NABC or a local regional -- I just don't remember, but the director involved is a National Director (in the sense of directing at most of the NABCs around the country).  While we were sorting our cards, my partner, the dealer, dropped the DK on the table.  This situation is covered under Law 24B.  There were two passes to me.  The remedy for this situation is that I must pass at my first opportunity.  However, the ruling was that I had to pass throughout.  Quite a difference, especially as in this case I would have opened 2NT (20-21 hcp).  LHO decided to make a very marginal opening bid (1C) and all passed.  The fates had already determined partner's lead of course: the DK, which ran around to declarer's AQ.  I think we ended up -110 for a bottom while most pairs our way made +400 or so.

That last ruling was just a plain error and quite understandable.  In fact, we had to smile about it.  The others were much more judgment-related and I found them to be quite upsetting at the time.

I will say this however.  The general standard of behavior, ruling, and general comfort of all involved has increased markedly in the last thirty years!  Bridge really can be fun these days!