BRIDGE MASTERCLASS

MoSt duplicate players will know that if they feel damaged by a misdeclaration of the opponents’ bidding methods, they may seek redress from the tournament director.

however, it must be borne in mind that a ‘misdeclaration’ is not, in itself, a crime; it may be a genuine or inadvertent misunderstanding between the partnership.

It is therefore still incumbent on the claimant to show that his reasonable choice of action was influenced by the opponents’ bidding.

the above hand illustrates the point admirably. After establishing from North that partner’s 2 ♥ was strong, he raised to 4 ♠ , and partner made all the tricks. east’s subsequent appeal to the tD was quickly dismissed on two grounds. Given his own massive hand, it is inconceivable that South could have a genuine strong 2 ♥ bid. even so, he should have taken stronger action — either by bidding 6 ♠ , or better still, 4 ♥ .

Footnote. N-S agreed in the bar to play Weak twos, but North forgot at the table and showed Strong on his convention card.