|
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 ] [ > ] |
cuebid  10 posts bridgetalk member   Reply |
I read about this happening just the other day:
A grand slam was bid in spades with 9 total trumps, missing the queen. One of the opponents hesitated for a long time before passing the final 7S bid. Declarer played him for the spade queen, finessed and went down. The spades were 2-2. When asked by the director why he'd paused so long, LHO said that he was thinking of bidding 7NT and trying to calculate whether that would give a lesser minus to his side! The director ruled 7S made! The AC reversed the decision, saying that the declarer was entitled to draw inferences, but at his own risk. This is fair enough, but it does seem as though there was some gamesmanship afoot here. In a case like this, can a procedural penalty be given to the "offending" side, whilst still allowing the result (7S-1) to stand? I put this in the same category (almost) as hesitating with a singleton and wonder what you think. |
bluejak  428 posts Forum Host Reply |
Certainly you can penalise a player for breaches of ettiquette, ethics, and the like, but in this case the director was completely wrong and declarer was very silly. There is no hint of gamesmanship here.
When a player reaches 7  and his opponent hesitates it means that his opponent is wondering whether to bid 7NT as a save, and he is extremely unlikely to have the queen of s.I am sure the Appeals Committee was right on this occasion.
|
|
cuebid 10 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
Yes, I know the AC was right in reversing the diector's ruling, but (and I didn't put in all of the background here) I think it's possible that the defender in question WAS trying to put one across and that so, should have been penalised in some way.
That defender was a very experienced player - it's inconceivable that he could not know that going down 13 (or even 9 for that matter) would exceed the grand slam score. It was thought that he was deliberately pausing in order to cause confusion.
I thought possibly the given situation might be covered by the above rule. If so, how could/would it be dealt with? |
|
bluejak 428 posts Forum Host Reply |
I agree with your reading of the Laws, but I do not believe it can possibly apply in this situation.
The defender would never be trying to mislead declarer in this position since he could surely not believe that declarer was so tortally naive as to play him for the SQ. In fact his hesitation woudl give the position of the SQ away as being in his partner's hand if declarer had really thought about it. Whatever he was thinking about, it was not an attempt to mislead declarer, since he had exactly what the hesitaiton showed: no defence!
|
| 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 00:49:08 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