1 November 2008 Alerting Partner's Double
Your partner doubles the opponents bid. Now, there are lots of different types of doubles – although they generally boil down to being for either “take-out” or “penalty”. So when do you alert your partner’s double – and when don’t you?
Rules for alerting any bid are set by the EBU and generally follow the principle that, if the action of your partner has a meaning that the opponents would “generally expect”, then alerting is not necessary. If, on the other hand, the action does not have the “generally expected meaning” (as recognised by the EBU), then you have a duty to draw this to the attention of your opponents by alerting it (or in specific cases – announcing it).
Alerting of doubles follows the above principle. It is slightly complicated by the fact that the “generally expected meaning” varies according to what bid by the opponents is being doubled. But there are only a few types of opponent’s bid to worry about – and the “generally expected meaning” is invariably the “common-sense meaning”. So it’s not too difficult.
1. The opponents bid is a natural bid in a suit (indicating that they hold and are prepared to play in that suit). A double of a natural suit bid is not alerted if it is for take-out. But if it has any other meaning under your partnership agreement, it must be alerted.
e.g. 1H, X If for take-out (may indicate holding S’s) - Don’t alert.
But beware. You may have an agreement with your partner that all doubles of suit bids up to and including 2S are for take-out, and are for penalty beyond that level. Your opponent’s are not expected to know that. So, if the bidding has gone ?, ?, ?, 3H, X and the double is now for penalties, you DO need to alert it.
2. The opponent’s bid is in No Trumps. A double of a NT bid is not alerted if it is for penalties. But must be alerted if it has any other meaning.
e.g. 1NT, X If for penalties - Don’t alert.
On the other hand, a lot of people play various defences against 1NT in which a double is not for penalties, but indicates a particular holding (e.g. a long - six-card - suit). Such a double MUST be alerted. If such a double wasn’t alerted, the opponents would justifiably think it was for penalties and would innocently launch themselves into their own defence against 1NTX (and will have a valid cause for complaint to the Director when they discover the truth).
3. The opponents bid is in a suit – but is not a natural bid. (i.e. it doesn’t necessarily show a holding in the suit bid or a willingness to play in that suit – and it may itself have been alerted or announced.) A double of that bid is not alerted if it indicates that your partner has an interest in that suit. But must be alerted if it has any other meaning.
e.g. 1NT, P, 2C (Staymen), X If your partner’s double indicates a holding in C’s (e.g. it may be “lead directing”) – Don’t alert.
4. Phoney (minor) opening bids are also not natural suit bids – but are in fact treated the same as (1) above rather than as (3) above. Thus, a double of such a bid is not alerted if it is for take-out. But must be alerted if it has any other meaning.
e.g. 1C (Alerted), X If simply for take-out - Don't alert.
.
.
3 September 2008 Revoke Penalties
Many Players are probably mystified by the Director’s rulings as to whether 1 trick or 2 tricks are deducted for a revoke. But Players as well as Directors need to understand the Law in this respect – more so with the new Laws.
If you revoke, and the revoke is established, then 1 of the tricks your side make subsequent to the revoke is transferred to your opponents. The 1997 Laws stated two cases where a 2nd trick is also transferred:
a) if you win the trick by your revoke (which you can only do by playing a trump at the revoke trick rather than following suit), or
b) if a card which you could have played at the revoke trick subsequently wins a trick. For example, your opponent leads A©, you have K©in your hand, but you revoke with another suit rather than drop your K under his A. Later, you win a trick with your K©.
The 2007 Laws which came into effect on 1 August 2008 have dropped specific reference to the 2nd of the above cases. But don’t be fooled. It makes no difference to how a revoke should be penalised.
It is still case (Law 64C) that the Director is responsible for “equity” in a revoke situation. If he deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by the Law, he must assign an adjusted score. So in the above case of the K© not being played at the revoke trick, but winning a trick later, the Director should still rule that 2 tricks are transferred – 1 for the “crime” and 1 for the “illicit gain”.
And he may go further. For example, in a No-Trump contract, your opponents have already won tricks with A¨, K¨ and Q¨; you then win with your the K© having revoked a © lead earlier; and you are then able to take 3 further tricks with the remaining small ¨’s. If the Director determines that you could not have made the three ¨ tricks without revoking to retain your K©, then he may award 5 of the tricks that your side made subsequent to the revoke to your opponents. And he may take into account any other factors.
Whilst the Director is responsible to determine this situation, it is difficult for him to appreciate the overall play of cards throughout the hand when he arrives at a table. Players should therefore be equally aware of the “Equity” ruling, and if necessary should be prepared to explain and plead their case to the Director.
.
29 July 2008 Having none Partner?
As pointed out in a previous note on this page (see 26 June entry below), defenders can now (from 1 August) question whether their partner is really out of a suit when he/she fails to follow suit. But a lot of players appear to do this incorrectly - so let's try to get it correct from the start.
What often happens (even now - even before 1 August) is: Spade is led by declarer. You don't have any so you throw away a club and say (very apologetically), "Sorry, I don't have any." WRONG!!! Declarer should immediately call the director. WHY? Because what you are judged to be saying is "Wake up partner. I'm out of spades. So lead a spade when you can, and I'll trump it. And also notice that I've discarded a club" You are breaking the Law by giving unauthorised information to your partner.
What should happen (after 1 August) is: Spade is led by declarer. You don't have any so you play a club AND SAY NOTHING. At this point your partner can question whether you are really out of spades by saying something like "Having none partner?" (Those are the traditional words - but any similar will do - within reason.) Your partner doesn't have to ask thisw question - but should do so if he/she has reason to think you may have revoked. If you really didn't have any spades, say nothing when your partner asks, and play continues. But if you did have a spade - "Oh Dear" - "Sorry" - play the spade - and leave the club on the table face up. The club becomes a penalty card, but at least your partner has helped you to avoided a revoke becoming established.
Dummy can similarly question declarer when declarer doesn't follow suit. (This is one of the few instances where dummy is allowed to speak during a hand.)
Declarer can also raise the same question when either defender fails to follow suit. But is it in declarer's interest to do so? If the defenders are daft enough to revoke and not question it between themselves, it's in declarer's interest to keep quiet and let the revoke become established. The declarer then gets one or two extra tricks. That's perfectly legal and expected behaviour.
Note: A revoke becomes established when the offender or his partner leads or plays or designates a card to be played to the next trick. Up to that point it can be corrected.
26 June 2008
Changes in the Laws effective from 1 August 2008
Every 10 years or so, the WBF (World Bridge Federation) updates the “Laws of Duplicate Bridge” to reflect developments in the game, and so will be introducing a new “Laws Book” which will be adopted by the EBU to apply from 1 August 2008.
There are very few changes to the Laws that affect players – and most players won’t notice the difference. There are other changes that affect the way that Directors rule on particular matters - designed to make these aspects fairer for players - and again, most players won't notice the difference.
A summary of the changes can be easily found on the EBU website.
The significant changes affecting players are:
1. It will now be a requirement to shuffle hands before returning them to the board. Most players already do at least a cut. Now you must do a respectable shuffle. Don't wait until 1 August - start doing this now.
2. On seeing declarer play a card of a different suit to the led suit, dummy has always had the option to ask declarer the rhetorical question “Having no clubs partner?” in order to make sure that the declarer hasn’t revoked. This allows the declarer to correct the situation. But defenders couldn’t do the same thing to each other. Under the new Laws, they can. And, unless it is obvious that partner had to play a different suit, they should get into the habit of doing this to prevent possible revokes becoming established. Dummy can still ask declarer, but still can’t ask a defender. Declarer can ask a defender – but is silly to do so. Declarer can correct the situation if necessary and put the revoke card back in his hand. Defenders must also correct the situation – the revoke card stays down on the table as a penalty card - but the revoke has been caught before playing to the next trick - so there is no revoke penalty.
3. The old Laws didn’t actually say what the object of the game was. The new Laws now state that the chief object while playing is to obtain a higher score than other contestants! So now you know what it’s all about!