66 English Bridge February 2016 www.ebu.co.uk
Ask Gordon - more from page 43
Ask Gordon - more from page 43
IAN DEAN WONDERED
I was playing in our club's regular duplicate session.
The bidding - only by our side - was 1´-2t-2´pass;
so I was declarer in 2´. After about two
uneventful rounds there was a bit of a distraction
on an adjacent table, which held us up for a
Having won the previous trick it was my turn to
lead but I could not remember for sure whether we
were in two spades or three spades so I looked at my
score card to check. One of our opponents objected
strongly to this and called the director who, to my
surprise, agreed with the complainer that I was not
allowed to look at my card for any reason. I feel that
such a prohibition is illogical. Could you please
confirm whether or not it does exist (the Rulebook
is unclear on this) and if so, why? On this occasion
the director imposed no penalty other than to say
that I should not do so again.
As noted in my reply to another question on page
43, you are allowed to ask what the contract is at
any time, but not what the auction was once you
have played to the first trick from dummy.
However there is also the following in the Laws:
L40C3. (a) Unless permitted by the Regulating
Authority a player is not entitled during the
auction and play periods to any aids to his
memory, calculation or technique.
So I think you would be safer to ask what the
contract is, rather than risk having your opponents
imagine that you might be looking at your
scorecard for any other reason!
Additionally it's worth noting that the club itself
is the Regulating Authority for its games, so it
could if it wished make a regulation to allow this.
JERRY ANSTEAD ASKED
What should the director rule here?
Declarer was in 5t. A heart was led and dummy
went down with a 5-0-2-5 distribution. No one
noticed that this was 12 cards. Declarer discarded
allowing RHO's ™A to win trick one, thus
promoting her own ™K. She took the diamond
return and ruffed a heart in dummy. After eight
tricks had been played dummy straightened his
cards and out popped the queen of hearts.
Neither I - a basic level club director - nor a
county director I later consulted, could find
anything in the rulebook which appeared to cover
this situation. What should the TD's ruling be?
Here's the relevant law:
14B. Hand Found Deficient Afterwards
When one or more hand(s) is/are found to
contain fewer than 13 cards, with no hand having
more than 13, at any time after the opening lead is
faced (until the end of the Correction Period), the
Director makes a search for any missing card, and:
1. if the card is found among the played cards,
Law 67 applies.
2. if the card is found elsewhere, it is restored to
the deficient hand. Rectification and/or penalties
may apply (see 4 following).
3. if the card cannot be found, the deal is
reconstructed using another pack. Rectification
and/or penalties may apply (see 4 following).
4. a card restored to a hand under the provisions
of Section B of this Law is deemed to have belonged
continuously to the deficient hand. It may become
a penalty card (Law 50), and failure to have played
it may constitute a revoke.
So dummy revoked on the first trick. However,
Law 64B3 tells us there is no rectification for such
a revoke and we go to Law 64C to see if we need to
adjust in equity.
From your description, it doesn't seem as though
the number of tricks would have been any different
if dummy had played the ™Q on the first round, so
there would be no adjustment. If in fact declarer
would have made fewer tricks without the revoke,
then you would adjust accordingly. r