June 2008 - 38

Ruling the Game

Mike Flader
Associate National
Tournament Director
rulings@acbl.org

I opened 1 and left-hand opponent bid 2. My partner failed
to notice LHO's overcall and bid
1. The director was called, and
he offered RHO the opportunity
to accept the 1 bid; she declined.
The director then told my partner
he could make any legal bid he
wished, but if it were anything
other than 3, then his partner
(me) would be barred from making
any further call.
LHO (also a director) objected to
the ruling saying that a heart bid
could only be a cuebid and that I
should be barred from any further

bids even if my partner made his
bid sufficient by bidding 3. The
director looked at my partner's
hand and said that it was not a
cuebid. LHO argued that it was a
cuebid by definition, but the director's ruling (that a sufficient bid
of 3 would not bar opener from
further action) stood.
My partner then bid 3 and
I bid 3 NT, making seven. LHO
stated that he felt that the ruling
was incorrect. What should have
happened here?
Law 27 (Insufficient Bid) does say
that if either the insufficient call or
the minimum legal correction could
be artificial that the offender must
make a legal call, and his partner
must pass for the rest of the auction.
So if the facts are as stated in your
letter, it would seem that the director's ruling was not correct.
During the play, I want to try the
procedure of displaying the bidding
card corresponding to the contract.
In other words, if the contract is
4, the 4 card from the bid box
is left out on the table during play.
I think the players will like it, and
the club owner seems to think it is a
very good idea.
Is this legal?
Such a practice is illegal, a violation of the footnote to Law 40E2

Gatlinburg attendance short of record
The annual Gatlinburg Regional, held in Gatlinburg TN Apr. 14-20, drew
an outstanding 10,345 tables this year, but fell slightly short of its own record, set last year, of 10,544 tables.
As the best-attended regional on the calendar for a decade, Gatlinburg
has broken records for attendance several years in a row. It frequently has
a higher table count than many of the North American championships,
earning it the nickname of "the fourth national."

which reads, "A player is not entitled,
during the auction and play periods,
to any aids to his memory, calculation
or technique." Further it is likely to
create unauthorized information for
neighboring tables and roaming players.
Is it lawful to use the Drury convention without a fit to find out if
partner had a full opening? At the
club this week, the bidding went as
follows:
West
North East
South
Pass
Pass
1
Pass
3 (2)
Pass
2 (1) Pass
4
All Pass
(1) Alerted and explained as
Drury.
(2) Alerted as showing a full opener, probably with four clubs.
We misdefended this 4 contract, in large part due to our
assumption that East-West had a
heart fit. When it became evident
that the Drury bidder had no heart
fit with her partner, we called the
director. He ruled, however, that
he thought no infraction had taken
place. Our opponents said they play
this way simply to find out if there
was a full opening bid in third or
fourth seat, but that it did not necessarily promise a fit in the major
opened.
Your opinion, please.
Item #4 in the ACBL General
Convention Chart in the Responses
and Rebids section permits a 2 or
2 response by a passed hand to a
major-suit opening to determine the
quality of the opener's hand. It is not
specified that it has to guarantee a fit.
Thus, this convention is legal in all of
our sanctioned games assuming that
this agreement is fully disclosed to
the opponents on request.
r
Bridge Bulletin

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of June 2008