April 2009 - 38

Ruling the Game

A

Mike Flader
Associate National
Tournament Director
rulings@acbl.org

Q

My partner was dealer
and produced the Double
card from the bid box.
Then she looked down
and said, "Oh, I didn't mean to put
this down. I meant to use the Stop
card." After picking up the Double
card, she opened 3. (She had an
obvious preemptive bid of 3: a
chunky seven‑card club suit and a
weak hand.)
My opponent was the director of
the game and said that the ruling
was this: I was barred and partner
could bid whatever she wanted. I
protested, saying that a slip of the
fingers doesn't require a severe rul‑
ing like that. The two cards (Double
and Stop) are both red, and it was
an obvious mechanical error.
I find it difficult to believe that
the director seemed to think that
my partner really meant to open
the bidding with a double and then
changed her mind to 3. I find
this illogical.

38

It is not an uncommon
situation for a player to inadvertently use the Double card
in place of the Stop card. In
this case, no call has occurred. Based
solely on your version of the facts, I
believe the director missed this one.
The Stop card, then 3, should be
allowed without penalty.
Playing directors put themselves in
a difficult position. In this case, the
director should have bent over backwards to use Law 25A (Legal and
Illegal Changes of Call; Unintended
Call) rather than appear to make a
ruling clearly favorable to his side.
The director apparently ruled per Law
36 (Inadmissible Double). This would
not have been my choice.

Q

I opened 2NT with a
balanced hand contain‑
ing 21 points and all suits
stopped. My left‑hand op‑
ponent bid 3. My partner asked
the overcaller's partner what that
bid meant. The response was that
it was natural, and that it showed
long clubs. Partner then passed.
After the next player passed, I per‑
sisted with 3NT because I had the
A K J 5. This ended the auction
and there were no more comments
from our opponents.
LHO led the K. (I held A-x
in spades; dummy had two low
spades.) When dummy appeared,
I saw that it contained five clubs.
I knew then that my LHO had not
corrected his partner's explanation
of the 3 bid at the conclusion of
the auction. I then called the direc‑
tor who told us to proceed with the
play and that he would rule later.
He finally ruled to allow the result
as it stood (down two).
I thought we were harmed by the
3 bid as explained. The bid was
actually conventional, showing a
long, unspecified suit.

I have several questions:
Did my opponent have an ob‑
ligation to correct his partner's
incorrect explanation? If so, when
must this happen? And what is the
remedy if he fails to correct it?
At the table, LHO argued to the
director that defenders should not
correct the explanation before the
play because it would give the other
defender unauthorized informa‑
tion. An experienced player I talked
to subsequently echoed this view.

A

If his partner has given
your side misinformation,
then the bidder has a legal
obligation to disclose this to
the opponents at his first legal opportunity. In this case, since his side
defended, he must wait until the end
of play, per Law 75B (Mistaken Explanation), and the director must be
called. The director should award an
adjusted score if he believes that the
misinformation was the direct cause
of damage to your side.
If he has such an obligation and
does not follow thru with a correc‑
tion, can the director offer a remedy
by reverting the bidding back to my
partner's first turn to bid?
It is too late to back up the auction,
per Law 20 (Review and Explanations of Calls). The director may
choose to assign an adjusted score if
he believes that your side has been
damaged because of the misinformation. Without seeing a copy of the
hand record, I can't say whether the
director ruled correctly, but there
is some indication from the facts
stated above that the problem may
not have been entirely caused by the
misinformation. If partner had some
values and five clubs, it would seem
he could double with or without the
explanation. Likewise, you might
have chosen to pass or to double. r
Bridge Bulletin
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of April 2009
