January 2016 - 51

Ruling the Game
BY MIKE FLADER
ASSOCIATE NATIONAL TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR

In a six-card ending,
declarer (East) led a card,
and when South, who was
void in the suit that was led, paused
to think about what to play, declarer
stated that it didn't matter what
South did. So South discarded and
declarer stated his line of play and
showed his hand.
North then asked to see the South
hand and pointed out that had South
selected a different discard, the
defenders would get an extra trick.
Declarer agreed, but stated that
North could not tell South what card
to play after seeing all the hands, and
that South's play was made before
the claim was made, and therefore
could not be changed. North believes
the claim was made when the declarer stated "it didn't matter," and
subsequent to that, both defenders
have the right to see the hands and
determine the best line of defense.
What is the appropriate ruling?

The director should use the
guidelines of Laws 68 and 70
to resolve this issue. Law 68A
states that, "Any statement to the effect
that a contestant will win a specific
number of tricks is a claim of those
tricks. A contestant also claims when
he suggests that play be curtailed, or
when he shows his cards ..." Thus, a
claim has been made.
Law 68D says, "After any claim or
concession, play ceases (but see Law
70D3). If the claim or concession is
agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted
by any player (dummy included), the

rulings@acbl.org

director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies.
Law 70A says, "In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the director adjudicates the result of the board
as equitably as possible to both sides,
but any doubtful point as to a claim
shall be resolved against the claimer."
Law 70C3 goes on to say, "In accordance with Law 68D, play should have
ceased, but, if any play has occurred
after the claim, this may provide evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. The director may
accept it as evidence of the players'
probable plays subsequent to the claim
and/or of the accuracy of the claim."
I would rule that the board be rescored with the trick in question going
to the non-offenders in accordance
with the following: 70A states that
doubtful points be resolved in favor
of the non-claiming side, and 70C3
states that the director may (does not
have to) accept the evidence of the play
subsequent to the play as evidence to
be deemed to be part of the clarification of the claim. If the director accepts
the defender's assertion that the claim
statement may have affected the defender's choice of plays after the claim
was made, he should adjust the score.

The auction was over and
the opening lead was face
down. At that point, the
leader's partner informed declarer
that his partner had failed to Alert
a bid he made earlier in the auction.
What's the correct way to handle
this?

Law 20F5 applies to this
case. It says, "A player whose
partner has given a mistaken
explanation may not correct the error
during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has
been made." A mistaken explanation
includes failure to Alert or Announce
as regulations require or an Alert (or
an Announcement) that regulations do
not require.
The player must call the director
and inform his opponents that, in his
opinion, his partner's explanation was
erroneous (see Law 75), but only at his
first legal opportunity, which is at the
end of the play for a defender, but after
the final pass of the auction for declarer or dummy.
In this case, it was improper for the
leader's partner to speak up at the end
of the auction. The director must inform the opening leader that the information conveyed by his partner is not
authorized for him, and then have the
table play the hand, calling him back at
the end of play if they believe that they
have been damaged either as a result
of the misinformation received in the
auction or by the use of unauthorized
information by the opening leader. If
the director judges that to be the case,
he may choose to award an adjusted
score.
The director may also choose to assess a penalty against the offender for
his failure to follow correct procedure.
This is not mandatory, and, depending
on the experience level of the offender,
the director should seize upon this as
an opportunity to educate.
◾
January 2016 Bridge Bulletin

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of January 2016