fake_user+rv@forums.bridgebase.com

Hi, Recently Ton Kooijman was here in Chennai, India on the occasion of BFAME (CTD and director's seminar as part of Zone 4 champs). Hence, David may need to wait a little longer to be officially invited:) A few final thoughts on this deal from my side: a) Incidentally on further analyses of deal, if defense starts with 3 rounds of clubs, declarer can actually get home. After cashing 5 ♦ tricks, in a 5 card ending where dummy holds ♠JTX, ♥AT and declarer holds ♠ AX, ♥XXX, West is strip squeezed (even if he unblocks a heart honor) and declarer can always get a second ♥ or ♠ trick if he reads ending correctly. Defense needs to switch to ♥ after 2 rounds of ♣ to legitimately defeat this contract. Since defense did not find this switch even after 2 rounds of spades and 2 rounds of clubs (consequently after getting more information about declarer's hand), can we safely assume they wouldn't find the ♥ switch at trick 3. Does this fact affect ruling anyway? b) There has been some debate in the Indian bridge community that director should be allowed to ask North to step-aside if required, check with South and inform East about right meaning of 3♣ bid if it is part of their detailed notes/discussion (say North has forgotten sys). This forum clearly is of the opinion that this is not accepted practice as per WBF screen guidelines. Is it ever possible in any other situation for a player to be asked to leave table and for director to get right information from his partner across screen or is it only possible without screens? Does it make sense to allow this even with screens (rule change?) with slight delay in play to ensure actual result is based on actions at table. Additionally this could potentially avoid plenty of further delays in director ruling and AC deliberations. c) A suggestion from Indian bridge community, As a director, I was asked to document exact reason stated by East at the table for redress so that in case deal goes to AC, E-W won't come up with perfect/better defense after consulting others or having more time to analyse hand. I believe this is a practice followed by directors in western world so that non-offending side don't get undeserving redress. d) Would N-S get full redress if 3♣ is actually natural as per their CC and North has actually misbid his hand? This will be last post on this deal from my side. A big thanks to Dave, David and others for responding with their erudite views. Rgds, RV

Hi, Karnataka is state in India (southern part of India) similar to Queensland or NSW in Oz and, Texas, Florida or California in US. You could compare this event to sectionals/regionals in the US. The winning team from this event will represent Karnataka in Indian inter-state nationals later this year. A few questions based on responses so far: a) Though director was called to the table before opening lead, is it correct that as per laws he could not check with South and inform East of the right explanation to prevent any infraction? If yes, should it be a recommendation for future laws change? b) Before the lead, East was aware that North is not sure of explanation since he corrected his original explanation of South showing ♣ to fairly nebulous statement of "it could show ♣ or both majors asking him to pick one". In this context, does it weaken East's case for unfortunate lead? Would East's case be a lot stronger if North had plainly informed "South 3♣ shows ♣s" in which case it would be clear that East has been clearly misinformed? c) Even with the right explanation, "is it absolutely clear that this particular East would lead ♣Q with no entry to his hand especially after North has denied 4M"? Does the panel here feel that irrespective of unfortunate lead and subsequent mis-defense, E-W are still entitled to nearly full redress? d) Finally would your ruling be any different if N-S really didn't have any agreement on this as per CC and South has either forgotten or assumed partner will work out meaning of 3♣? In this context, would it be a case of mistaken bid by South and not mistaken expln? Rgds, RV

Hi, Interesting ruling from Karnataka state (like sectionals/regionals in US) selection trials where I was director: Bidding NS Vul, Bidding proceeds: N E S W 1N P 2♣ P 2♦ P 3♣*? P 3♦ P 3N All Pass The event was played with screens. When the tray came to N-E side after South's 3C bid, East asked meaning of 3♣ bid. North initially said it showed ♣. Subsequently he said it might also show both majors and asking him to choose. North also told East that they were playing 4 suit transfers, hence he wasn't very sure of meaning of 3♣ bid. East called director before lead and indicated he wanted to protect his rights since explanation was ambiguous. North told director that he is not very sure whether South's 3♣ showed clubs or artificial showing both majors? Play East held ♠96, ♥J8, ♦7542, ♣QJT54 and chose to lead ♠9. Dummy came down with ♠JT753, ♥AT76, ♦KT, ♣76. Declarer played ♠T from dummy, covered by West with ♠Q and won with ♠A. Declarer now played ♠2 and played ♠J from dummy won by West with ♠K. West now played ♣8 which won trick and continued with ♣9. East overtook ♣9 with ♣T and continued with ♣Q. Declarer played ♦3 to ♦K and continued with ♠7 losing to ♠8 with West. When West continued with ♥K, declarer claimed 9 tricks. Declarer held ♠A2, ♥543, ♦AQJ63, ♣A32. West held ♠KQ84, ♥KQ92, ♦98, ♣K98. Director's enquiry Director checked with N-S pair. N-S pair is not regular pair and they had rudimentary convention card w/o detailed notes. South had explained to West that 3C is artificial (repeat stayman) asking East to explain his hand further (detailed written notes not available). As I director, I felt following questions were relevant to this case for right ruling: a) As a defender was East right to call the director immediately (before opening lead) or should he have informed North of protecting his rights and call director at the end of deal? b) Before East's lead, it was fairly clear at the table that North wasn't sure of meaning of South's bid. Does rules allow director to check with South immediately and inform East of right explanation of South's bid so that non-offending side is not damaged at all. c) North's expln was not consistent with South's expln. Since N-S pair didn't have CC, is this clearly case of mistaken explanation and not mistaken bid? d) Even with ambiguity of North's explanation, was East's lead of ♠9 from ♠96, ♥J8, ♦7542, ♣QJT54 very speculative or is there is some justification? e) After winning SK at trick 2, West played ♣8 followed by ♣9 both ducked by declarer. Now ♥ shift will defeat the contract by setting up atleast 1 trick in the suit before declarer can set-up spades. How much does this mis-defense affect E-W's chances of getting any redress on the deal? I felt based on answers to (a) to (e), I had 3 ruling options a) Let table result stand (if it is clear E-W contributed solely for their poor result) and give Procedural penalty to N-S for nebulous explanation/lack of detailed CC? b) Give weighted ruling (say 60-40 in favor of NS) for both sides (if it is felt East's lead was not wild or gambling given the ambiguous explanation, it is clear that with right explanation East is odds on to lead CQ which would have given no chance for declarer and at the same time penalize E-W appropriately for their mis-defense) c) Give split ruling (say 3n making for E-W and 3n 1 down for N-S) for both sides (if it is felt E-W deserved their bad score for their lead and subsequent mis-defense and at the same time N-S don't deserve their good score for their ambiguous explanation and not keeping CC upto-date) In my view, on introspection I gave wrong ruling at the table. Please revert with your views on above questions and final ruling on case. Additionally could the director have anything better in his investigation? Rgds, RV (BBO ID: RV)