- Welcome to Aust. Bridge Directors Ass..
News:
January 2024
The ABDA has relaunched this forum with upgraded software, appearance and features. All the old content remains. Users should log in and update their membership profile.
Only financial members of the ABDA can register to be part of this forum. Non-members can browse the open sections of the forum and post questions to "Ask a Director" and "Online Directing" without registration.
Recent posts
#31
Dear Director / Re: When is a claim "complete"...
Last post by Matthew McManus - 22 April, 2024, 11:20 AMUnder Law 68A, a claim has been made. "Any statement by declarer or a defender to the effect that a side will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks."
Law 68C details the need for clarification. "A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed, including the order in which the cards will be played." What the claimer said, "I will save time...oops, that's not enough..." does not constitute a "CLEAR" statement. Therefore they will be given the chance to clarify their line of play. If they can't or are unable to do so within a reasonable time frame, then one of two things can happen. The non-claiming side can request that play continue - all four players must agree for this to occur. Alternatively the director will rule on a Contested Claim under Law 70. In doing so, the confused statement made by the claimer will be given significant weight in the consideration of the director's decision.
Note that this will not apply if there were any comments or actions taken by the partner of the claimer which could have led to their realisation that their original plan was faulty. Similarly, if the opponents made any comment which might have led the claimer to alter their line of play. In such cases, again, at the instigation of the non-claiming side, all four players can agree to keep playing. Or the director will make a ruling on the basis that the claimer will start by drawing trumps.
Law 68C details the need for clarification. "A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed, including the order in which the cards will be played." What the claimer said, "I will save time...oops, that's not enough..." does not constitute a "CLEAR" statement. Therefore they will be given the chance to clarify their line of play. If they can't or are unable to do so within a reasonable time frame, then one of two things can happen. The non-claiming side can request that play continue - all four players must agree for this to occur. Alternatively the director will rule on a Contested Claim under Law 70. In doing so, the confused statement made by the claimer will be given significant weight in the consideration of the director's decision.
Note that this will not apply if there were any comments or actions taken by the partner of the claimer which could have led to their realisation that their original plan was faulty. Similarly, if the opponents made any comment which might have led the claimer to alter their line of play. In such cases, again, at the instigation of the non-claiming side, all four players can agree to keep playing. Or the director will make a ruling on the basis that the claimer will start by drawing trumps.
#32
Dear Director / When is a claim "complete"?
Last post by Andrew Struik - 21 April, 2024, 09:05 PMA player says "I will save time by claiming the remaining tricks. I will draw trumps and then...Oops that's not good enough, I need to do it a bit differently"
It seems a claim has been made, but the clear statement of how the play should proceed has not been completed. There has not been any comment from the opponents to this point.
Can the claimant now provide a line of play which involves another step before drawing trumps? Is this spelt out in the Laws?
It seems a claim has been made, but the clear statement of how the play should proceed has not been completed. There has not been any comment from the opponents to this point.
Can the claimant now provide a line of play which involves another step before drawing trumps? Is this spelt out in the Laws?
#33
General Discussion / Dealmaster Pro
Last post by Nick Hughes - 07 April, 2024, 11:28 AMDMPro is a great program for directors and teachers. Many clubs use it to generate boards and hand records. At the moment, it doesn't seem to be available for download. Does anyone know how to get a copy? Or does anyone have in installable version?
#34
General Discussion / Re: Fairest movement for a sta...
Last post by Matthew McManus - 05 March, 2024, 05:08 PMPlaying 33 boards is probably too many for most clubs. With the inability to play a complete movement, I would elect to play a movement where everybody plays all the boards. For that reason, from the choices given, I would prefer the 27 board Web Mitchell.
#35
Dear Director / Re: Directors Training
Last post by Matthew McManus - 05 March, 2024, 05:06 PMDirector training is primarily organised through State Associations. They often offer courses once or twice a year. I would advise you to contact your local association to see what is available.
#36
Dear Director / Re: Doubling partners bid
Last post by Matthew McManus - 05 March, 2024, 05:04 PMDoubling partner's bid is termed an "Inadmissible Call" in the laws.
The consequences are clear-cut and quite harsh! The player must substitute any legal call and the player's partner must pass for the remainder of the auction.
When an opponent makes a call after an inadmissible call and before the director is called, the inadmissible call and all calls made after it are cancelled. The player who made the inadmissible call must change it to a legal call and the auction continues without any further penalty.
The consequences are clear-cut and quite harsh! The player must substitute any legal call and the player's partner must pass for the remainder of the auction.
When an opponent makes a call after an inadmissible call and before the director is called, the inadmissible call and all calls made after it are cancelled. The player who made the inadmissible call must change it to a legal call and the auction continues without any further penalty.
#37
Dear Director / Re: Score adjustment
Last post by Matthew McManus - 05 March, 2024, 05:01 PMLaw 79C is applicable here.
Generally, in the absence of any special regulation, scores become final 30 minutes after they have been made available for inspection. With the advent of online results, this is usually soon after the session has been completed. However, it may well be the case for some clubs that the players don't get to see the results until they come back to play the next week.
Law 79C1 allows the Tournament Organiser (TO) to specify a different Correction Period (i.e. the time at which the scores become final). For clubs, the TO will usually be the club Committee. It would be sensible for clubs to have their own rules in place depending on the nature of their sessions. For instance, even with online scores being available, it might be worthwhile allowing a few days for players to look at and check the results. Additionally, they may choose to create different special regulations for a particular event.
As a general principle, once the Correction Period has expired, no further changes are permitted. However, there is a further allowance in Law 79C2. This says:
"Subject to approval by the Tournament Organiser, a scoring error may be corrected after expiry of the Correction Period if the Director is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the record is wrong."
This may be applicable in the current case, but that is up to the Tournament Organiser (probably the club Committee) and the Director of the session.
Generally, in the absence of any special regulation, scores become final 30 minutes after they have been made available for inspection. With the advent of online results, this is usually soon after the session has been completed. However, it may well be the case for some clubs that the players don't get to see the results until they come back to play the next week.
Law 79C1 allows the Tournament Organiser (TO) to specify a different Correction Period (i.e. the time at which the scores become final). For clubs, the TO will usually be the club Committee. It would be sensible for clubs to have their own rules in place depending on the nature of their sessions. For instance, even with online scores being available, it might be worthwhile allowing a few days for players to look at and check the results. Additionally, they may choose to create different special regulations for a particular event.
As a general principle, once the Correction Period has expired, no further changes are permitted. However, there is a further allowance in Law 79C2. This says:
"Subject to approval by the Tournament Organiser, a scoring error may be corrected after expiry of the Correction Period if the Director is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the record is wrong."
This may be applicable in the current case, but that is up to the Tournament Organiser (probably the club Committee) and the Director of the session.
#38
Dear Director / Re: Strong 2D opening
Last post by Matthew McManus - 05 March, 2024, 04:46 PMThe purposing of alerting is to warn the opponents that the call made has a meaning that they may not understand. If everyone in the club plays 2D as strong, then it probably doesn't need to be alerted. However that would probably be an unusual treatment and therefore in most cases it would warrant an alert.
Similar principles apply to a weak 2D. If you have just told the opponents at the start of the round that you play 2C as strong and everything else as weak, then there is no reason for an alert. Whereas if you were in a club where everyone plays that 2D is strong - as I described in the first case - then a weak 2D should definitely be alerted.
A guiding principle should be that you can't really "over-alert". If you think there is a chance that your opponents might not understand the call, alert it. It won't hurt. Note that the ABF Alerting Regulations dictate that some calls are self-alerting (for instance, doubles and redoubles, bids in the same denomination the opponents have bid, calls above 3NT other than openings bids). These calls are considered to be automatically alerted. It is not necessary to go through the normal alerting process when partner makes one of these calls.
Similar principles apply to a weak 2D. If you have just told the opponents at the start of the round that you play 2C as strong and everything else as weak, then there is no reason for an alert. Whereas if you were in a club where everyone plays that 2D is strong - as I described in the first case - then a weak 2D should definitely be alerted.
A guiding principle should be that you can't really "over-alert". If you think there is a chance that your opponents might not understand the call, alert it. It won't hurt. Note that the ABF Alerting Regulations dictate that some calls are self-alerting (for instance, doubles and redoubles, bids in the same denomination the opponents have bid, calls above 3NT other than openings bids). These calls are considered to be automatically alerted. It is not necessary to go through the normal alerting process when partner makes one of these calls.
#39
Dear Director / Re: Lead out of turn
Last post by Matthew McManus - 05 March, 2024, 04:36 PMIf the SA and West's play of the low spade had occurred at the same time, then the Laws deem that the correct lead had occurred first. Therefore the low spade lead would stand. East would be required to play SA. Assuming that won the trick, they would be required to lead HA to Trick 2.
However, it seems that this is not the case. East played SA before West led. It gets more complicated now! Both HA and SA are penalty cards. Declarer also has the right to prohibit the lead of a spade. If they chose that option, then SA will also be returned to East's hand. West will have to lead a club or a diamond. Now their low spade becomes a penalty card. The normal restrictions will apply when it is their turn to lead, or if East gets on lead and it is still a penalty card.
The knowledge that East holds SA and HA remains unauthorised to East.
However, it seems that this is not the case. East played SA before West led. It gets more complicated now! Both HA and SA are penalty cards. Declarer also has the right to prohibit the lead of a spade. If they chose that option, then SA will also be returned to East's hand. West will have to lead a club or a diamond. Now their low spade becomes a penalty card. The normal restrictions will apply when it is their turn to lead, or if East gets on lead and it is still a penalty card.
The knowledge that East holds SA and HA remains unauthorised to East.
#40
Dear Director / Doubling partners bid
Last post by Vanda Cassim - 27 February, 2024, 06:30 PMRecently a player doubled his partner's bid but the next player passed, thereby accepting the illegal bid.
So, 1C - pass - dbl - pass. What is your Director's decision?
And another instance of 1C - pass - dbl - 1S. A different scenario, a different ruling?
So, 1C - pass - dbl - pass. What is your Director's decision?
And another instance of 1C - pass - dbl - 1S. A different scenario, a different ruling?