January 2013 - 38

Ruling the Game
ously stated partnership agreements
as long as those agreements are disclosed per ACBL regulations.
Thus, as long as the preempter's
partner is as surprised as you are,
there is no basis for an adjustment.

Mike Flader

Associate National
Tournament Director
rulings@acbl.org

My opponent opened
the auction with a weak
2 bid that contained a
total of 3 HCP in her entire hand and six diamonds. This
bid had the effect of keeping us
from our game contract, resulting
in a poor score.
I called the director for protection, stating that the minimum requirement for a weak two-bid is 5
HCP, and I thought that anything
less is illegal. The director, however, ruled that a deviation of up to
the value of a queen is acceptable.
Therefore our request for protection was rejected and our score
stood. The director showed me a
page from one of his manuals that
explained this.
Was the director's ruling correct? Would the deviation rule
apply, say, to a 1NT opening also?

The director's ruling is correct, although I would cite
Law 40 as the reason. Law 40
(Partnership Understandings)
permits players to deviate from previ-

38 Bridge Bulletin January 2013

Dummy may not point
out an irregularity during the play but may
summon the director if
someone else points out an irregularity. Even though dummy
may call the director at the appropriate time, however, should
he then be the one to explain the
situation? In claim or concession
situations (and possibly at other
times), it seems that dummy might
say things that declarer had not
considered and that it would be
more appropriate for declarer or
a defender to do the explaining
than dummy.

While I recognize the
problem, Law 42A1 (Dummy's
Rights; Absolute Rights) gives
the dummy the right to give
information, in the director's presence, as to fact or law. Dummy may
not, however, offer his bridge opinion
or analysis.

At a club game, South
dealt and bid 1. My
partner bid 2 and North
bid 3. I then bid 3.
South picked up a pass card from
the bid box and was getting ready
to put it on the table when North
said, "You can't do that, it's an
insufficient bid." South stopped in

midstream. We called the director
who told me that I had to make
the bid sufficient, and if I passed,
my partner would not be allowed
to bid again. I passed and they
played the deal in 3.
I feel the director made the
wrong call on this because South
was going to pass and would have
if her partner had not said anything. Did North have the right to
do this and did the director make
the right call on this? I always
thought if the insufficient bid is
accepted then that is it. I didn't
think her partner had the right to
stop her partner from passing.

Law 9 (Procedure Following an Irregularity) gives any
player the right to point out
an irregularity that occurs
during the auction. It need not be his
turn to call. The directors ruling is
correct.

Q
A

Are low-level "S.O.S."
redoubles Alertable?

The regulations do not require an Alert for a double or
redouble that is for business,
takeout, or cooperative unless the meaning is highly unexpected
or unusual. Thus the answer to your
question is that the redouble in this
case does not require an Alert.
r

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of January 2013