February 2016 English Bridge
CHRIS FROST ASKED
Law 6B recommends a normal sequential deal i.e.
1234, 1234. But recommends does not necessarily
forbid other approaches such as 1234, 4321 etc or
even 111, 222, 333, 444 and whatever subsequently.
However, a goulash approach would I'm sure cross
Do you have any advice? Or, is it for the club to
prescribe what it takes to be acceptable and
unacceptable approaches to the method of dealing?
My view is that any method is legal that ensures
that two consecutive cards are never dealt into the
So, 12345, 4321, 2345 (with piles 1 & 5 being
combined at the end) is legal, but 1234, 4321 is not.
GODFREY CHASMER WONDERED
Could you help me with the following:
1 Are any players (except dummy) allowed to ask
for a review of the bidding throughout the play of
the hand i.e. after the first card to the first trick has
been played face up?
2 If a conventional call, say 2® Stayman, is
doubled for lead direction should it be alerted?
Players may ask about the meaning of any bids in
the auction at any time during the play (if they
know what the auction was) but they can only ask
for a review of the auction until they have played
to the first trick. For declarer that means until he
has played from dummy.
Doubles of conventional bids are assumed to
show the suit doubled and do not need an alert if
that is the case. Many play that the double of 2®
Deviations & firstname.lastname@example.org Rainsford
Email your questions to Gordon Rainsford at email@example.com
Gordon, English Bridge and the EBU are not responsible if the information provided is incorrect or incomplete.
Stayman shows a strong hand and says nothing
about clubs - for them the double is alertable.
JAMES ROGERS WROTE
I CAME across a situation at my local club last night
which I would be grateful if you could clarify in
your excellent column in the EBU magazine.
One of our players was playing with a new
partner and opened 1NT with a singleton. I wasn't
at the table but I believe he held ´Txxx ™Axxx
tAJxx ®A. He and his partner had not agreed that
1NT could contain a singleton so it was just
announced as '12-14'.
When it became evident during the play that he
had done this, the director was called. He ruled that
no adjustment was necessary as the partner of the
1NT opener was not aware that it could contain a
singleton. However, the opponents did not think
this was correct, commenting that opening 1NT
with a singleton is illegal unless by partnership
agreement and announced as such, and that a
procedural penalty should have been imposed.
I had always understood that the situation here is
as the director had ruled, effectively 'psyching' 1NT
on this sort of hand. Please could you provide
The short answer is that you are right - although
in my opinion it's not a psyche, it's a 'deviation'.
However, since it has happened, unless they have
agreed not to do it again, I would say that they do
now have an implicit agreement and should
announce it in future. r
Ask GordonAsk Gordon
More questions answered
online, page 66
powered by PageTiger