Page 0054

54 English Bridge October 2019


My partner and I sat down to

play the first two boards of the

Summer Seniors Championship

Pairs against two well known

English International players.

Unfortunately one of the players

had not arrived. Little or no

effort seemed to be made to

establish his whereabouts until a

few minutes before the 2.00pm

start. The other player, therefore,

played the boards with a stand-in

partner. We achieved two near

tops and appeared to be off to a

flying start.

However, shortly after, one of

the TDs came to our table and

said the boards would be

cancelled as the missing player

had not turned up and his

partner had participated no

further in the session. This was a

huge disappointment.

The TDs felt it was the 'rub of

the green'. On a procedural level

there must be a better way of

handling these situations. I

remain unclear as to why the

international was, or felt, unable

to continue after it was

established that his intended

partner would not be

participating on the day. The TD

informed me the stand-in was

only available for one hour. In

my opinion if a player without a

partner accepts a stand-in, this

should be on the basis that he

must complete the session . . .

either with the stand-in or with

his partner when he arrives.

I would have reacted

differently if I had two bottoms

instead of two tops on the boards

- but would the player who

walked away have done so quite

so readily if he had achieved two

tops? If the stand-in was truly

available for only one hour, then

he should not have been

permitted to play unless the

missing player was definitely able

to arrive within that period.

There should be no opportunity

for anyone to play both ends

against the middle and stand-ins

should be available for the whole

session. Hugh Thomson

It would always be better if

players were to contact their

partners as soon as possible when

there is any doubt about their

arrival, but the reality is that they

sometimes do not. In this instance,

they appear to have made a lastminute entry

which made it even

less likely that the player expected

his partner not to arrive.

Yes, it would have been better if

you had been told of the possibility

of the results not standing, and I

imagine that would have

happened had anyone thought

this to be a likely eventuality. As it

was, I expect the primary

consideration of the TDs was to

get the game under way with all

tables playing if at all possible.

It's always good to have

suggestions on how to improve

protocols. However, if we were to

make demands on substitute

players of the type you suggest, we

would have far fewer members

willing to help us out in this way,

and therefore more disruption to

our events. Gordon Rainsford

EBU Chief Executive Officer


I read Neil Rosen's article on the

Helvic wriggle with interest

(June 2019/p19), but noted it did

not address what happens if the

double comes from the 4th


1NT Pass Pass Dble

Pass Pass ?

Here, a 'Forcing Pass' by

responder ends the auction.

I've looked at many options on

the market and they nearly all

assume the double comes from

the left hand opponent to the

1NT opener. However, I did

come across the Elvington

Wriggle: regardless of which side

the double comes from,

responder bids a five card suit, if

he has one, as an old-fashioned

weakness take-out. This has the

disadvantage that the hand is

played by responder, but no

option is perfect. If responder

does not have a five card suit, he

redoubles. This is alertable and

asks opener to bid his lowest

four-card suit. With tolerance

(three or more cards) he passes.

If not, he bids his lowest four

card suit looking for at least a 4:3

fit. If responder has a decent

hand and is confident that 1NT

will make, he can pass.

Bryan Boulter


After seeing the notification that

bridge was going to be played in

the Coronation Street soap I felt

this was something I just had to

watch as I know it is extremely

hard to get across what a great

game it is.

Send your, Lou Hobhouse

Raggett House, Bowdens, TA10 0DD, or e-mail

The editor reserves the right to condense letters. Publication does not mean the

EBU agrees with the views expressed or that the comments are factually correct.




  1. Page 0001
  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
  49. Page 0049
  50. Page 0050
  51. Page 0051
  52. Page 0052
  53. Page 0053
  54. Page 0054
  55. Page 0055
  56. Page 0056
  57. Page 0057
  58. Page 0058
  59. Page 0059
  60. Page 0060
  61. Page 0061
  62. Page 0062
  63. Page 0063
  64. Page 0064
  65. Page 0065
  66. Page 0066
  67. Page 0067
  68. Page 0068
  69. Page 0069
  70. Page 0070
  71. Page 0071
  72. Page 0072
  73. Page 0073
  74. Page 0074
  75. Page 0075
  76. Page 0076