|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
International Bridge Laws ForumIf you need help with the Laws or rulings from |
| To ask a question, click HERE and type in your message. Please specify your country in your query where indicated. Right click your mouse button for help on abbreviations. |
| Welcome, Register :: Log in |
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
Hand_Hog  6 posts bridgetalk member  Reply |
Country: Singapore
N E S W 1D P 2C P 2H P 2S P 4NT P 5C P 6D P 6NT At this stage West inquires after the meaning of 2S (there was no alert) and received the answer 'Just forcing, may not be a suit'. West then double 6Nt. East's hand: S: 103 H: 987xx D: K10x C: Jxx East summoned the director and asked if she was allowed to lead a spade. The director answered that there was no infraction at the moment and told East to lead whatever her hand suggested. East led a spade and the contract went down two. The director the ruled that a club lead would be a LA. On a club lead South would be able to run 7 club winners (North was void in clubs) and the contract would be made. West argued that since 2S wasn't alerted she had to ask and if the spade lead is illegal now the director should allow her to remove the double. The director disallowed that on the basis that 4SF is pretty common and although there wasn't an alert most duplicate players would come to expect its meaning. Comments please? |
|
Ed 172 posts Forum Host Reply |
Country: Singapore
A bit difficult, since I don't know Singapore's alert regulations, and they don't appear to be on line. But let's see what we can infer from the post. When West asked about the meaning of 2  , he pinpointed an interest in that suit. This is UI to East. Particularly in conjunction with West's subsequent double of 6NT, it seems to me to suggest a spade lead. That being the case, East is prohibited by Laws 73C and 16A from leading a spade if he has a logical alternative. If the question and double do not suggest any particular lead, then East can lead whatever she likes.Later, the director ruled that a club lead was an LA. If so, why didn't he say so at the time East asked her question? The statement "there is no infraction at this point" is literally true (disregarding the question of the failure to alert 2 ), but not helpful. It seems to me the director led East down the garden path here.Now we get into territory where it would help to know Singapore's alert regulations. Since I don't, there are a couple of possible scenarios. Scenario 1: Here I make the assumption that FSF is alertable, and that regulations require or at least recommend a question be asked if a bid which might be alertable is not alerted. In this case, West's "I had to ask" is exactly correct, but it does not absolve East of the restriction on leading a spade. Scenario 2: If FSF is not alertable, or the regulation does not imply or state one "has to ask", then West's argument is incorrect. East is still prohibited from leading a spade. Either way, East can't lead a spade. Now, is a club lead an LA? I dunno. Personally, I'd lead the  9 before a club, but I'm a notoriously bad leader.  Regardless, the director rules it is, and adjusts on that basis. But... the infraction which is the basis of his ruling (the spade lead) was caused by his handling of East's question. The director is required by Law 81C5 to inform players of their obligations under the laws. Director did not so inform East. This seems to me a clear case of director error. In that case, Law 82C applies. I don't see any way to rectify this and obtain a normal score, so under Law 12 and Law 88, both sides get average plus.Director's comment about FSF being pretty common may be true, but I don't see its relevance. Either the bid (2 in this case) is alertable by regulation, or it's not.If it's alertable, then there was MI in the failure to alert it. If it's not alertable, there wasn't. However, at this point, the question is moot, given director's error in handling the problem.Final ruling: Director error (Laws 81C5 and 82C), adjust score to average plus for both sides (Laws 82C, 12 and 88). Side comment: West might have helped his side a bit by complying with the procedure set forth in Law 20F1 and asking for an explanation of the entire auction, rather than pinpointing a particular bid. |
bluejak  427 posts Forum Host Reply |
I think we can safely assume that 4SF is alertable in Singapore from comments in the original query.
While I very rarely find Ed goes off the rails, I do feel he has here! First of all, the TD MUST NOT tell the player whether leading a club is an LA or not. That is a judgement decision that would involve looking at the hand and is completely forbidden. True, the TD may not have handled it very well, since he should have indicated the contents of Law 73C, ie that the player must avoid taking any possible advantage from the UI, but he must never comment on specific calls or plays before the hand is complete. Secondly, if we had ruled under Director error, an artificial adjusted score is forbidden. Since a result was obtained on the board, then the Director must give assigned adjusted scores. Finally, I think this is a good example why some people's interpretation of Law 20F1 is so unworkable. If a player needs to know what 2 is, and to do so has to find out the meaning of all eight bids in the auction, the board will simply be cancelled for lack of time. It won't gain much, since his interest in the auction will be pretty clear anyway.Having said all that, how would I rule? Well, I have some sympathy for Director error. The TD should have explained the Law. So now it is a question of deciding what difference it would make if he had. Unless the player is pretty inexperienced I doubt I will go down that road. Looking overall at the case we had a situation caused by a failure to alert. The player who led was not the offending side in that case so I would have let the result stand. The UI situation was created by the lack of alert, and I see no reason to give the offending side a benefit from not alerting.
|
|
AlanW Reply |
David's ruling of allowing the result to stand (assuming FSF is alertable) seems pretty sensible. Look at it another way. Suppose the director had told East he could lead anything he wanted, but that the question about the meaning of 2S was UI and that he must not choose a lead suggested by UI if he has a LA. Suppose East then led something other than a spade and the contract made. If EW then asked for a ruling on the basis that they had been damaged by the failure to alert 2S, wouldn't you feel pretty sympathetic towards this claim?
|
|
Ed 172 posts Forum Host Reply |
D'oh! My bad.
(1) I meant to say, and should have said, that TD should have explained to East his obligations under 73C. (2) Okay, on this one, please shoot me. I was fixated on 88, which speaks to artificial adjusted scores, but 81C just says "adjusted score". David is absolutely right, it should be an assigned adjusted score, which means Law 88 doesn't apply. (3) I'm not sure I see how asking for an explanation of the auction (a) should take all that long to respond or (b) makes clear an interest in 2 , but David has far more experience at this than I, so I'll shut up about it.Thinking about the overall case, as David suggests, I have to agree with his ruling. |
|
Hand_Hog 6 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
Thank you all for the replies.
Just some clarification, E-W were every experienced players, so there should be no question about them understanding their legal obligation. It seems to me both parties are partially to be blamed and if we let the table result stands as that seems to reward EW for the abusing UI. Similarly if we adjust the score to 6NT making it would seem to reward NS for failure to alert. Would a split score be a fairer solution? Can the director award a split-score here? |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
The UI was created by E/W's infraction: if they had alerted it South might easily have doubled without asking since he would have assumed Fourth Suit Forcing. Furthermore North took the trouble to ask his responsibilities under UI and got the wrong answer from the TD.
No, I think a split score would be most unsuitable. Why should N/S be blamed for a situation brought about by their opponents and the TD?
|
|
Joost_Boswijk 7 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
I'm afraid you mixed things up a bit: the infraction (non-alerting) was N/S's and east was asking the TD. But what did the TD wrong? As far as I can see he didn't look in East's hand before the game was over, just answered that she could lead 'whatever her hand suggested'. It was when the game was over that the TD decided that the spades lead might have been suggested by the question, that a club lead was a LA, and that the score was adjusted to 6NTx made. Also, given the circumstances which the TD knew and we don't, he decided that the failure to alert was a minor infraction which didn't deserve a penalty. As said, I don't know what the circumstances were or what is usual in Singapore, but it looks quite normal to me.
What I would like to know is wether wests double was only possible if the 2S bid was FSF and not if it was a natural bid? That would be a good reason to ask the meaning of the bid, otherwise he (or she) had either to keep silent or ask for an explanation of the auction (that would have been the best anyway). IMHO the question is leading. E has a couple of alternatives, spades being one since W must have at least four. What the result would have been if E leads another suit, we can't decide (a club lead I consider the least logical). But S deserves to be reprimanded for not alerting the 2S and W for asking a leading question. And I wonder wether he explained to W that it was no use asking to remove the double. |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
You are correct: I do get confused in the absence of a diagram, and I have got N/S and E/W the wrong way round.
It is very normal for experienced players not to know their rights in UI situations. Perhaps they should, but in this case, they asked, and were misinformed by the TD.
This is not correct in Law, so constitutes TD error. The TD should have explained the ramifications of UI, at least reading Law 73C to the players. Once the TD did not do this then it is not unreasonable that the player misunderstood the position and to be penalised is not fair. When you have UI from partner your actions are constrained: it is not good enough to "lead whatever your hand suggests". A player who asks the TD {even if he asks the wrong question} should have this explained to him.
|
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
6 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 5 guest(s). (The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003) bluejak |
|
Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm. | Register :: Log in The time is now 00:28:02 Wed Aug 27 2003 |
© 2001-2003 BbBoy.net
|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
Legend :: 
Read Topic :: 
Unread Topic
Read Topic :: Unread Topic
Help | Full Format: ON :: OFF | Text: ON :: OFF | Email Status