Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search
David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF
bridgetalk.com forums :: Laws & Rulings :: Doubling partners bid

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union

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 ] [ > ]

[]Peter

Reply
Doubling partners bid ( 23:20:14 FriOct 11 2002 )

N 1H E P S X
South explains to TD that she thought E was going to bid.
We are not using bidding boxes The bids are written on a bidding pad in the middle of the table.
How do you rule on this problem?

  
JimO

175 posts
Forum Host

Reply
Re: Doubling partners bid ( 04:53:31 SatOct 12 2002 )

South should wait until East actually bids something.

Law 36 deals with inadmissible doubles and redoubles.

South must substitue a legal call - pass or any bid of 1S or higher. North must pass for the remainder of the auction.
In addition, if NS become defenders, Law 26 applies - declarer will have the option of forbidding the lead of any one particular suit the first time North is on lead, for as long as he remains on lead. (If West ends up declarer, he will have this option on opening lead; if East ends up declarer, he will have the option the first time North gets on lead. If North never gets on lead, he never gets this option).
Furthermore, Law 23 may apply if E-W are damaged North's enforced passes.

Note that unlike an insufficient bid or bid out of rotation, an inadmissible double or redouble may never be accepted by LHO.



---
-Jim O'Neil
Oak Park, IL
 
 
bluejak

428 posts
Forum Host

Reply
Re: Doubling partners bid ( 22:49:31 SunOct 13 2002 )

While Jiim is 100% correct, I would suggest that you ignore the reference to Law 23 unless it really looks as though the non-offenders have gained from their offence. Then you might have a quick look at it, but it is a very rare occurrence. :sad:

However, the main thing I wanted to mention was that you said

Quote:

South explains to TD that she thought E was going to bid.


I trust the TD made every effort to stop South explaining. It does not affect the ruling at all, and gives unauthorised information to partner. Players do try to tell the TD why they did something wrong, and part of the skill of the TD is silencing them when they do! :biggrin:



---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm
 
 

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 00:45:15 Wed Aug 27 2003

Powered By BbBoard V1.4.2
© 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

Email Help | Full Format: ON :: OFF | Text: ON :: OFF | Email Status