August 2021 - 34

Q
RULING the Game
Q
In an online game, I opened 2 holding:
A J 7 4 5 K Q 3 A K J 4 2.
It was a misclick; I was trying to open 1. This
hand is not strong enough in our system for 2, so I was
planning to jumpshift into spades over whatever partner
bid. As it turned out, we got to 4 making four, which was
a normal result for this board. The opponents called the
director, saying I had illegally opened 2. The director
asked what happened, and I explained that I did not mean
to open 2. The director ruled that I had psyched 2 and
changed the score to average-minus for us and average-plus
for our opponents. This does not seem fair.
A
For a bid to be ruled a psych, it must meet the definition
that it is a deliberate and gross misstatement
of honor strength and/or of suit length. Your bid is
neither of these things. By your admission, it was a misclick.
In other words, you did not intend to open 2, so we
cannot rule that it was deliberate that you did so. Moreover,
although this hand does not meet the Convention Chart
definition of " Very Strong " (it does not contain 20 HCP
nor does it have the playing strength of within one trick of
game), it is close to 20 HCP, so it is not a gross misstatement
of honor strength. Your bid cannot be considered a psych.
There is no general prohibition against psychic bids; however,
it is not permissible to psych an artificial opening bid.
If you had intended to open this hand 2, then different
rules apply. In an event using the Open or Open+ Chart, your
side would Alert the opponents, explaining that although
your 2 is strong, artificial and forcing, it might be based
on playing tricks and fall short of the Very Strong definition.
Failure to Alert would constitute misinformation; if
the misinformation damaged your opponents, the director
would adjust the score. On the Basic or Basic+ Charts, used
in tournament games for players under 3000 masterpoints,
opening 2 on this hand is not allowed. The director could
rule your side employed an illegal agreement and adjust the
score. If you reached a contract most other pairs reached, a
director might rule there was no damage and opt for education
rather than adjusting the score.
A
MODERATOR: MATT KOLTNOW
NATIONAL TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR
rulings@acbl.org
Our club has reopened for face-to-face play, and I
have noticed that many of our players do not follow
the proper procedure for making an opening lead,
by placing it facedown on the table before turning it face up.
I've directed long enough that offering the five choices still
comes naturally, but I still feel that the other side is disadvantaged
by not understanding the choices they have been
offered. I am tempted to give procedural penalties to people
who lead faceup out of turn. What do you recommend?
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to remind
readers that Law 41A says, " After a bid, double,
or redouble has been followed by three passes in
rotation, the defender on presumed declarer's left makes
the opening lead face down. " You are absolutely right that
this is the correct procedure. The facedown lead, according
to Law 41B, begins the Clarification Period, where opening
leader's partner or declarer may ask for a review of the
bidding or ask questions about the auction. Opening leader
had their chance to ask questions or get a review before
selecting a lead. This procedure is designed to keep opening
leader's partner from giving unauthorized information
(UI) to partner which might affect the choice of opening
lead. Furthermore, releasing the card completely to leave
it facedown on the table makes it much more likely that a
lead out of turn can be thwarted before it is turned up. For
years, the lead was accompanied with a question such as,
" Questions, partner? " While legal, this part of the procedure
has been misused by some pairs in ways which create UI
rather than eliminate it. The recommended question is,
" May I lead? " or something similar.
You make an excellent point that just because the Law has
a provision designed to protect a non-offending side does
not ensure they will be made whole. Although the Law cannot
redress the distress associated with an irregularity, it is
designed to offer choices which neutralize any advantage
gained by an offender through that irregularity. Law 10C1
says that after an irregularity the director shall explain all
the options available. I try to explain the effect of each of the
five choices rather than rattling them off robotically. As far
as giving a procedural penalty, a director is certainly within
their rights under Law 90A to do so. Experienced directors
are relatively conservative with penalties, normally giving
one when the action appears repeated, willful, or both.
34 | Bridge Bulletin | August 2021
August 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of August 2021
