Ask Jeremy by Jeremy Dhondy
A Miscellany of Errors
Email your questions to Jeremy Dhondy at firstname.lastname@example.org (NOTE NEW ADDRESS),
or write to the editor, Elena Jeronimidis, at 23 Erleigh Road, Reading RG1 5LR.
Jeremy, English Bridge and the EBU are not responsible if the information in the letters is incorrect or incomplete.
North’s explanation certainly gives South
LAWRENCE HAYNES was West on this deal and has a number of questions: unauthorised information. South thought
2t was natural when he bid it. You can’t
Dealer East. prevent the UI occurring. It comes from
´ KQ5 the alert as well as the question. If you
™ 96543 were thinking of taking action you are
t Q quite entitled to ask a question. If not, it is
® AQ92 best to wait until later.
´ 10 9 6 4 3 2 ´ AJ8
I think North’s bid of 2™ is a serious
™ A 10 7 N ™ KQJ
W E underbid. One would need to know
t 52 S t 8763
® 74 ® J63 whether his partner had a history of for-
´ 7 getting in order to decide whether he was
™ 82 ‘fielding’ but on the surface it might seem
t A K J 10 9 4 so. When South continued with 3t, why
® K 10 8 5 didn’t this show a game try with diamond
values as well as the majors? As director I
West North East South would have asked why North (i) only bid
1NT1 2t2 2™ and (ii) didn’t compete further.
Pass 2™ Pass 3t I don’t agree with the director’s actions.
? The question you asked was legitimate
2 Alerted. West asked and was told 2t was for the majors.
and it was the answer that provided UI,
not the question.
I do not have a good sense of smell, but at this point I detected the presence of a large It must be said, though, that you should
rodent. I should have called the director, but instead asked South if his partner’s not have asked South as to whether his
explanation of his 2t bid was correct. (North-South were an inexperienced pair and partner’s explanation was correct and he
no convention cards were in view). South said North wasn’t correct and an argument should not answer this question. From that
ensued between North and South as to what they were playing. I then called the point of view you too were to blame;
director. The director was informed of the full facts (and had just played the hand). however, the director should examine the
He found against me for not calling him earlier and said my question to South (not likely results on the board giving you the
my earlier question to North) had caused them to have unauthorised information. I balance of any doubt. He should establish
pointed out I had a valid reason to ask, but he waved this argument away and ordered what the agree ment North-South had
us to continue the hand (clearly expecting 3t to be passed out). actually was (if any). If he views that the
As he turned to walk away, I put a 3´ bid down on the table, which was quickly agreement was that 2t was natural, then a
passed out. The director now returned and ruled we could not play the hand as possible result would be your side playing
North-South were defending and had unauthorised information. He told us we in 2´ probably making eight tricks (he
would all get averages (because both sides were to blame) but he would look at the might assign some percentage of eight
hand again after play had finished. My questions are: tricks and some percentage of seven tricks).
• Does North’s explanation of South’s bid give South unauthorised information? The director might also consider that if
• If so, how do I prevent this if there is no convention card to consult and I need to comments had not been made, the con-
know what 2t means (e.g. both majors, diamonds + hearts pinpoint, single major tract might have been some number of
suit etc.) in order to decide whether to bid 2´? hearts by North-South.
• Was North, by bidding only 2™, guilty of ‘fielding’ or just hedging his bets or If North or South communicated unhap-
simply bidding badly? piness at any point during the auction and
• Have you any comments on the director’s subsequent actions? this was acted upon, then the director
• What should the adjusted score be, if any, for East-West? might also consider a penalty against
www.ebu.co.uk December 2012 English Bridge 21