December 2007 - 38

Ruling the Game

Mike Flader
Associate National
Tournament Director
rulings@acbl.org
We play natural responses for
notrump overcalls, not the "front
of card" which we use for notrump
openings.
In the following auction, 1-
1NT-Pass-2 (natural, to play), is
2 Alertable?
According to the ACBL Alert
Pamphlet, a 2 response to a natural
notrump opening or overcall requires
no Alert if it asks for a four-card
major. Other meanings, including it
being natural, require an Alert.
This auction occurred at a club
game where I was directing:
West

North

East
South
Pass
Pass
2
2
4
Pass (1)
Pass
4
All Pass
(1) A very slow pass.
I was called to the table. I asked
South if he felt he had taken an
unusually long time to bid. He said
he had. I looked at North's hand:
A K J 8 7 3 9 K Q 7 J 8 2.
North-South were not vulner38

able against vulnerable opponents.
I didn't have a clear-cut feeling
on this. My instincts told me that
it was a good sacrifice against a
vulnerable game. I told the table to
play it out, and I took a quick look
at the traveler. Most East-West
pairs were in 5 or 6 making.
There were three other North-
South pairs in some level of spades.
I went back to enter scores and
asked a co-director to look at it for
me. When I got back to the table,
North said he was always bidding
4 with that hand.
Here's what I and my co-director
want to know: With the break
in tempo, does North need more
to bid 4 than what he would
without the break in tempo? If one
player out of every four would not
make that 4 bid, does that make
"pass" a logical alternative? Should
I have rolled the contract back to
4?
While bidding lessons are beyond
the scope of this column, it's hard
for me to believe that North would
always bid 4 with the hand you
gave me. Partner's break clearly
indicates that he has the values to
take some kind of action and suggests
that bidding will work out better than
passing. The decision to bid 4 or to
double 4 was made by South, who
passed. North has already shown his
values. If 4 worked out for North-
South, I would adjust the score.
When determining whether a logical alternative exists for the partner of
the tempo-breaker, it is a good idea to
consult with other directors or peers
of the player if you're in doubt. (If
there is no one to consult, the director
has to make the ruling based on his
judgment.) Please note, however, that
if just one out of three or four players
who are peers of the bidder would
choose another option, the minority

choice is a logical alternative and a
possible basis for adjusting the score.
At a recent club game, declarer
was deciding what to do toward the
end of play, and an opponent stated
they had the rest of the tricks.
Dummy stated that the defender
could not claim because he was not
on lead. A disagreement occurred,
and I was called to the table.
I tried to find something about
claiming being restricted to the
player on lead in both the Laws
book and Duplicate Decisions, but
there was no reference in either
source. Is there such a rule?
No. Law 68 (Claim or Concession
of Tricks) places no such restriction
on the contestant making a claim.
My partner was declarer in 4.
After partner took the first seven
tricks, the opponents folded their
cards and conceded the rest. As I
was about to enter the score for
making seven (plus 510), the opponents objected, saying they were
entitled to one trick. We called the
director.
When the opponents concede, do
they forfeit the right to take any
more tricks?
Law 71 (Concession Canceled)
says, in part, that, " ...the director
shall cancel a concession if a player
has conceded a trick (that) his side
could not have lost by any legal play
of the remaining cards ... (or) if a
player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the
remaining cards."
(The term "normal" includes play
that would be careless for the level of
player involved, but not irrational.)
Without seeing the actual layout, I
can't say what should happen, but the
opponents may indeed be entitled to
a trick.
r
Bridge Bulletin
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of December 2007
