APR_10_EB_p17 Jeremy:EB_Layout 3 15/03/2010 10:52 Page 17
E-mail your questions to Jeremy Dhondy at firstname.lastname@example.org
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
• 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
www.ebu.co.uk April 2010 English Bridge 17