In today's video bulletin, we have a fairly long interview with Prasad Keni. Please leave comments on this page about questions you may like him to address.
Video CoverageBulletin
We have a fairly long interview with Prasad Keni. Hence we have not added anything more.
In today's bulletin, in addition to all the regular features, we have also featured two rulings. Actually one ruling and another ruling that was reviewed.
We hope this is of interest to the readers. Do leave your comments in the post below.
Total Page Visits: 926 - Today Page Visits: 5
My view on the 7S ruling hand. imho after 1c x 2d 2h south can’t afford to bid spades. because it will be well nigh impossible to set diamonds and do an exclusion, especially if there’s further opposition bidding. south is more likely to bid 5c directly. now the question is can south identify especially SK in north’s hand. without that card grand isn’t practical. so imo the question would be between 6 and 7 diamond depending on whether their methods allow them to find SK below 6 level.
Sandeep,
two things are worth noting here.
1) After partner showing 8-13, known not more than doubleton H from bidding and bidding 3S to show higher of the range, opener didn’t even find a cuebid for small slam. To think that they would have found the double fit after a big known D fit and reached 7S is presuming too much.
2) Had the explanation been correct, won’t West jump to 4/5 Clubs over 2D ? Where is the question of finding S fit anymore ?
Imho, ruling 7S bid & made puts a serious question on the efficacy of whatever process we are
following.
In the review, if facts are presented as Sukrit has, where’s the case to call director after the deal ? Director call should have been made then and there after 4S bid . Why should directors even entertain such a call ?
Koushik,
Thanks for writing in.
As per the law, the defenders are ‘required’ to not clarify that there is a mistaken explanation.
So, the only point at which the declarer can call the director is after the hand is played out.
Sukrit, I am talking about the ruling which went for review. Where’s mistaken explanation there ?
There is no mistaken explanation in the review. The team wanted the reviewer to have polling done by a panel of ‘experts’ (their words).