Page 0017

APR_10_EB_p17 Jeremy:EB_Layout 3 15/03/2010 10:52 Page 17

Infractions and


dealing machines

E-mail your questions to Jeremy Dhondy at

or write to the editor, Elena Jeronimidis, at 23 Erleigh Road, Reading RG1 5LR.

Please include your name and address even if writing by e-mail.

tion was to call the director as soon as any

A READER from Banstead asks: We infraction occurs. Jeremy Dhondy

had a rather odd bidding sequence

recently and wondered how you would

have ruled had you been the director. CLIVE Ringrose via e-mail says: Thank

My right-hand opponent was dealer you for your two articles in English MARTIN Edwards via e-mail says: At

and the auction started as follows: Bridge on doubling and alerting. They our club we are having a debate at

have helped to clarify this area. present about computer-dealt boards.

West North East South The bidding sequence below occur- It would be helpful if you could set out

1® Pass 1´ 2™ red at our club last week: the benefits and drawbacks compared

Pass 2®1 to shuffling and dealing at the table at


I was intending to make a high-card West North East South the beginning of each session.

raise bid of 3® 1™

2´ Dble 3® Pass

My right-hand opponent said that Pass Dble All Pass I would list the benefits as:

this was an insufficient bid. My left- • No more dealing and shuffling.

hand opponent said nothing. I then

changed it to 2´ (ridiculous, I know).

North’s first double was negative. The

second double was for penalties, but I

• Easy to have two or more sets of

boards if needed.

At that point the director was called.

What would your ruling have been?

as South did not alert it, as clearly it

was for penalties. Your articles indicate

• Hand records available for those lovely

post-mortem arguments. (‘You should

that I was wrong. Should I have alerted have played the ´9.’ ‘I didn’t have it.’

the call? If my opponents had called ‘Yes, you did.’ ‘No, I didn’t.’)

I hope the director arrived with a law book

because this is covered by Law 27 and it is

the TD, how would he have ruled? • Hands that are ‘properly’ shuffled.

(People will say they are wild but for

changed in the 2007 laws. It makes no the last twenty years or more the pro-

difference whether RHO, LHO, or both The second double should be alerted. The grams have been fine and the accusa-

indicated a problem. It is the duty of all opponents have bid a suit naturally below tions are based on perceptions gleaned

players to call the TD as soon as any the level of 3NT, so double is assumed to from poorly shuffled hands. Why else

infraction comes to light. Not to do so is an be for take-out unless alerted. If your do people play for the queen over the

offence. First the TD must allow your LHO opponents had called the director there jack? Why do they think a 3-3 break

the option to accept the 2® bid. If he does, would be two issues: is nearly 50% instead of about 36%?)

then the auction continues without penalty.

If he does not, then, if the TD had been

1. Have they been damaged because of

the failure to alert? Probably not and

• Easy for directors to see the deal if

called to the table and also if they need

called in time, you could have replaced it the negative double had likely shown to consult on a judgement ruling.

with whatever you wished. If you had re-

placed it with 3®, then the auction could

some clubs already. The director could

award an adjusted score but if, for

• Easy to couple with other bits of tech-

nology i.e. personal score-cards and

have proceeded without penalty but if any- example, West claimed he would have hand records on the web site using

thing else, your partner would have been removed, then the TD would quite something like Scorebridge.

silenced as below. The bit about allowing likely express the view that he could There aren’t that many drawbacks but:

3® (because both 2® and 3® are artificial

and carry the same meaning) is new to the

have asked without jeopardising his

side’s interests.

• Significant capital investment (some

clubs share these facilities, some have

2007 laws and the effect is that it allows 2. Should there be a procedural penalty obtained lottery grants to help).

more auctions to continue so that a real

bridge result can be obtained.

for the failure to alert? There could be

but I would be surprised if any direc-

• Managing the unhappiness of some

players for a while.

As the TD was called late then, if the 2®

bid is not accepted, the 2´ bid stands and

tor imposed one, unless it was either

the fourth time in the session or you

• The need for some security, i.e. having

made-up sets of boards lying around.

your partner must pass whenever it is his stated you were not going to alert be- If you can afford it, then go right ahead.

turn to call. I hope your new year’s resolu- cause you didn’t agree with the rules! You won’t regret it. r April 2010 English Bridge 17


  1. Number 228
  2. Page 0002
  3. Page 0003
  4. Page 0004
  5. Page 0005
  6. Page 0006
  7. Page 0007
  8. Page 0008
  9. Page 0009
  10. Page 0010
  11. Page 0011
  12. Page 0012
  13. Page 0013
  14. Page 0014
  15. Page 0015
  16. Page 0016
  17. Page 0017
  18. Page 0018
  19. Page 0019
  20. Page 0020
  21. Page 0021
  22. Page 0022
  23. Page 0023
  24. Page 0024
  25. Page 0025
  26. Page 0026
  27. Page 0027
  28. Page 0028
  29. Page 0029
  30. Page 0030
  31. Page 0031
  32. Page 0032
  33. Page 0033
  34. Page 0034
  35. Page 0035
  36. Page 0036
  37. Page 0037
  38. Page 0038
  39. Page 0039
  40. Page 0040
  41. Page 0041
  42. Page 0042
  43. Page 0043
  44. Page 0044
  45. Page 0045
  46. Page 0046
  47. Page 0047
  48. Page 0048