Page 0021

Ask Jeremy by Jeremy Dhondy

A Miscellany of Errors

Email your questions to Jeremy Dhondy at jeremy@ebu.co.uk (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

1 12-14

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

North-South. r

www.ebu.co.uk December 2012 English Bridge 21

Index

  1. Issue 244
  2. Page 0002
  3. Page 0003
  4. Page 0004
  5. Page 0005
  6. Page 0005
  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