Help
Hi,
Can you help. I was directing tonight. W opens 1C, announced as could be short as two. N/S end up in 2D. W plays his SINGLETON club. E playing the A and another for.a ruff! N/S cry foul. My ruling was that the bid was explained properly and matched the convention they play. W May have bid incorrectly but has misled P too. Unfair though it sounds no redress. Am I right or wrong?
Page 1 of 1
Misbid?
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,718
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2019-September-12, 17:10
Having not seen the hands, I would have asked East why he led back a low club. That said, unless there are pertinent facts not reported here, your ruling was correct.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#3
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 21,613
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2019-September-13, 09:28
blackshoe, on 2019-September-12, 17:10, said:
Having not seen the hands, I would have asked East why he led back a low club.
Since it's unthinkable to continue the suit partner bid and led.
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,718
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2019-September-13, 09:31
Heh. No, because I want to understand his thinking.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#5
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 801
- Joined: 2012-April-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:North-east England
- Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet
Posted 2019-September-14, 02:29
I think we would need to see the hands - but if dummy, for instance, came down with KQT in clubs and a club was returned into the QT then I would be wondering why the player went for a singleton club rather than a doubleton (when holding up is usually the correct play). Maybe the correct announcement is "could be two, but partner has been known to call 1♣ with one". That is just one avenue of investigation.
Otherwise I agree with the ruling - an agreement is between two players in partnership, not an undertaking to the opponents.
Otherwise I agree with the ruling - an agreement is between two players in partnership, not an undertaking to the opponents.
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
#6
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 218
- Joined: 2006-February-05
- Gender:Male
- Location:Chevy Chase, MD, USA
Posted 2019-September-14, 05:21
You need to establish West's understanding of their agreement. If he thought that his hand was suitable for a 1C opening bid, and had not mis-sorted his cards, did he think that their agreement was actually "could be as short as one", having not really read the written agreement but merely assented to playing a "short club"? Did he think that no agreed systemic bid applied, and that he needed to find the least lie? In either of these cases, the opponents were entitled to know, though nobody was in a position to tell them legally before the end of the hand.
So in those cases we would rule misinformation, and give them redress if damage resulted, though not if the correct and complete information would have arrived at the same outcome.
So in those cases we would rule misinformation, and give them redress if damage resulted, though not if the correct and complete information would have arrived at the same outcome.
#7
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,068
- Joined: 2014-February-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Italy
Posted 2019-September-14, 06:19
To help determine whether there was misinformation, in absence of a system card I would also ask some specific questions about their agreements, in particular "when would you open 1♣ with 2 cards in the suit?"
Page 1 of 1