Spade Heart  Diamond Club
Full Screen Print Page Latest Enhancements Web Administration Help and Guide
Release 2.19m

Beginners Bridge Class, Thursday Evening, starting 2/21. Register now!

Recent Updates
For Directors
Feb 19, 2019 07:52 EST
News Archive
Feb 9, 2019 12:05 EST
Feb 9, 2019 12:05 EST
Home Page
Feb 3, 2019 08:03 EST
0 0 0 0 0 0
Pages viewed in 2019

Click here for our February Newsletter.

Sol Hartman Paintings
Sol Hartman Paintings

Many thanks to Sol Hartman for hanging several of his paintings at the club!

For information, please see Sol’s web site.

The photo above shows Richard Burns sitting next to Sol’s “Richard.”

This page documents some of the more interesting rulings that have come up in our club.
  Thursday Morning, 2017 February 2, board 20, NS14 v. EW7

West’s 3♠ bid showed a good hand and a good suit (Ogust).

North led the ♣3 to the J, Q, and A. Declarer led a trump to dummy’s Q and South’s A. South led the 6, and North made a face. North won the A and returned the deuce. South ruffed and led a club. North ruffed and gave South a second diamond ruff.

Table result: 4W–2, NS 200.

North’s reaction to South’s diamond lead was an “extraneous gesture” violating Law 73B1. South was therefore prohibited by Laws 73C and 16B1 from “choosing from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.” The director ruled that the “extraneous information” “demonstrably suggested” leading a club at trick five, but after polling a few players the director ruled that at trick five South had no “logical alternative” (see Law 16B1b) to returning a club.

(The director notes that two NS pairs set 4W only one trick after the ♣3 opening lead. The director suspects that those South players never got a second diamond ruff because they did return a club when they were in with the A.)

Director’s ruling: The table result stands. North-South penalized for North’s impropriety.

Last updated : Feb 2, 2017 16:46 EST
  Tuesday morning, 2012 October 9, board 7, NS1 v. EW16

At the table, EW scored 170 for 3W+1. There was an acknowledged break in tempo (BIT) before East’s second-round pass.

The director polled several players of comparable skill to West on what they would call with West’s hand when the actual West bid 3. The director then ruled that Pass was a “logical alternative” to 3, that the BIT “demonstrably suggested” bidding rather than passing, and therefore that West was required to pass. (laws 16B and 73C)
The director adjusted NS’s score to –100 for 2♠S–1 (“the most favorable result that was likely”) and adjusted EW’s score to –110 for 2♠S= (“the most unfavorable result that was at all probable”). (law 12C1e)
Last updated : Feb 2, 2017 15:12 EST
  Tuesday morning, 2012 October 9, board 19, NS17 v. EW14

East alerted West’s 2NT bid and explained it as a transfer to diamonds. At the table, East made 3NT for 600.

The director ruled that the EW agreement was in fact four-way transfers and systems on. West had made a “mistaken call.” East had not given a “mistaken explanation.” NS were correctly informed about the EW agreement. (laws 21 and 75)
When West bid 3NT, he did have unauthorized information from his partner’s “unexpected” alert and explanation, but he did not, in the director’s judgment, have a logical alternative, so the director allowed the table result to stand. (laws 16B and 73C)
Last updated : Feb 2, 2017 15:12 EST