July 2012 - 38

Ruling the Game
hand, and with a singleton diamond, he was perfectly within his
rights to bid 3.
His partner's hand was:
Q 9 8 6 8 4 10 9 5 4 2 6 5.
I'd like to know what the correct
ruling is on this.

Mike Flader

Associate National
Tournament Director
rulings@acbl.org

Q

My partner opened 1NT.
Right-hand opponent
overcalled 2 which was
Alerted. When I asked,
LHO said it showed diamonds or
two touching suits.
I passed and LHO bid 2. Partner passed and RHO bid 2. I
asked if this then showed hearts
and spades, but LHO said no,
they have another convention for
showing the majors. I passed and
LHO bid 3, assuming his partner
had hearts and diamonds, the two
touching suits. Partner passed
again and RHO bid 3 which was
passed out. He then corrected his
partner's explanation of the Alert,
saying that 2 showed two nontouching suits, in this case, clubs
and hearts. His hand was:
K 10 2 A Q J 6 3 3 A K 10 4
I questioned whether because
of the unauthorized information
from the incorrect explanation, he
should have passed 3. He stated
that regardless of the misinformation, he was entitled to bid his

38 Bridge Bulletin July 2012

A

The primary issue with your
problem is that the information arising from the Alert
and response to the question
you asked is unauthorized for the
overcaller who must continue the auction as though his partner had given
the correct explanation regarding the
hand he held. While the 2 continuation is probably forced, 3 would be
a natural and passable call. The director might choose to poll a number of
the offender's peers and see what they
would do without the UI. Given the
facts as stated in the letter, it would
seem that 3 must show a lot of
diamonds and no interest in the suits
held by the overcaller. If some number of the overcaller's peers would
pass given this, the director should
adjust the score if there is damage to
the non-offending side.

Q

In a recent club game,
partner (North) was
declarer in a poor 5
contract due to a bidding
misunderstanding. East-West had
cashed two tricks and declarer
won the next six including all
the outstanding trumps. With
five cards to play, North had the
two remaining trumps and three
low diamonds. Dummy had five
diamonds headed by the Q-J-10.
Neither the A nor the K had
yet been played.

Declarer led a low diamond and
East played the king, dummy following low, as West discarded a
low heart. At that point, declarer
said that she had one more trick
to lose, but when West tabled his
hand, he had several diamonds. I
announced that West had revoked
on the trick just played, so the director was called. East maintained
that since there was no further
play after the erroneous heart discard, that West should be allowed
to replace it as the revoke had
"not been established by further
play."
I insisted that a claim was the
same as further play and the
revoke was established. I also
felt that since the revoking side
won the trick and had one more
trick coming, that it should be a
two-trick penalty. East felt there
should be no penalty at all. The
director ruled a one-trick penalty.
What is right?

A

The revoke is established
when the opponents accept
the claim. If either defender
agreed with declarer's claim,
then the revoke is established (Law
63A3; Establishment of a Revoke).
Based solely on the information you
provide, the claim has been accepted
when East showed his hand.
Law 64 (Procedure After Establishment of a Revoke) deals with the
rectification of a revoke. Because the
revoking player did not win the trick
on which the revoke occurred, one
trick is transferred at the conclusion
of play (64A2). Again, based solely on
your description, the contract should
be scored down one.
r
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of July 2012
