August 2013 - 8

Letters to the Editor
wrote in a Bridge World article many
years ago (quoted on my just barely
legible flyleaf cover), "Miles deals more
with exceptions and modifications
than with general rules. With clarity
and authority, he has written a must
book for greedy players who want to
win far more than their fair share . . ."
Yes, you can bid 21 HCP slams by
abandoning Blackwood and using your
natural bidding systems better. After
reading this book, you won't use aceasking bids near as much. And you will
find more good 4-3 fits.
My copy of the Miles classic has the
binding falling apart and the pages tied
together with string, but it is still timeless and very useful.
He will surely be missed by me, and
I've never met the man.
ALAN MARTIN
Prince George BC

Clarifications needed

In the June Ruling the Game column
(page 38), there are some clarifications
needed in Mike Flader's responses.
In the second question, the statement by the questioner that "players
may take inferences from partner or
the opponents at their own risk" went
unchallenged. Obviously, a player is
not allowed to take inferences from
partner, and it's crucial to educate players on this point.
The second part of the question was
addressed, but would perhaps be more
directly addressed by reference to
Law74C5, which calls "looking intently
at any other player during the auction
and play" a violation of procedure.
The reference to Zero Tolerance in
this context makes it seem like this action may be taken more seriously than
some other violations of procedure.
There was a recent controversy on
Bridge Winners over the issue of looking at one's opponents to try to read
tells (based on an Andrew Gumperz
article) and it would be worthwhile to

8 Bridge Bulletin August 2013

have ACBL clarification on whether
looking at the opponents for this purpose, no matter how intently, can ever
be appropriate.
To the first question, I'm a bit confused by the response. If North had
properly corrected the misinformation
at the end of the auction, did Flader
imply that East would then have been
able to take back his double?
I thought only a final pass could be
changed.
DEBBIE ROSENBERG
Cupertino CA
Mike Flader's response:
I agree, especially on the point raised
regarding the second question. A player
is entitled to use the information arising from his partner's calls and plays
and the mannerisms of the opponents.
Information that arises from other
sources is extraneous and possibly unauthorized.
With regard to the issue of Zero Tolerance, Law 16 gives us permission to base
our actions at the bridge table on the
mannerisms of the opponents (albeit at
our own risk). Law 74C5 does specify
that to stare at a player is a violation of
correct procedure, but law 74A2 says
that "a player should carefully avoid
any remark or action that might cause
annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the
enjoyment of the game."
The bottom line is that if it doesn't disturb your opponent, it is not a violation.
Regarding the first question, Law
75B defines the proper procedure to be
followed to correct a mistaken explanation. If the player who gave the misexplanation remembers his agreement,
he is supposed to correct it immediately
and must summon the director. For
the partner, he must correct the misexplanation at the earliest legal moment
and should summon the director. You
are right that the answer suggests that
the director may give the player who

doubled the option to change his call.
That is not correct because law 21B1a
says that a player may change a call
that could be based on misinformation only if his partner has not made a
subsequent call. Thus, he is not entitled
to change the double, but he may still be
entitled to an adjusted score if the director determines that damage to his side is
the direct result of misinformation.

Stuck on diamonds

I thought this extraordinary deal was
worth noting in the Bridge Bulletin. It
occurred at the Shrine Center Bridge
Club in Livingston NJ as part of an
ACBL-wide Senior Game.
Dlr: South ࡕ J 2
Vul: E-W ࡖ J 4
ࡗQJ932
ࡔ K 10 7 4
ࡕKQ974
ࡖ K Q 10 8 7 6
ࡗ5
ࡔ2
ࡕ85
ࡖ9
ࡗAK874
ࡔAQJ93

ࡕ A 10 6 3
ࡖA532
ࡗ 10 6
ࡔ865

This was the auction (I was East).
West

North

East

2ࡗ(1)
5ࡖ
Pass

3ࡗ
Pass
Pass

4ࡗ(2)
Pass
Dbl

South
1ࡗ
5ࡗ
6ࡗ
All Pass

(1) Michaels cuebid: both majors.
(2) Pick a major.
I've been playing bridge for more
than 50 years, and I am fairly certain
I've never before experienced an auction like this one. In my opinion, all the
bids were justified. The resulting 6ࡗ
doubled (for minus 300) was the par
result. In our game, there were seven
different contracts or outcomes in the
nine times the board was played.
JESSE REISMAN
Livingston NJ

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of August 2013