Rulement issue

[Fluffy]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sak9xxhaqj108djxcx&w=sxxxhkxdqxcajxxxx&e=sxhxxxxxdaxxxcqxx&s=sqjxxh9dkxxxxckxx]399|300|Scoring: MP

S - W - N - E

ps-ps-1♠-ps

4♥-ps-4♠-ps

ps-ps[/hv]

 

The lead was a ♥ wich ended in too many overtricks, West called director and argued nobody alerted 4♥ as splinter, and if alerted the fact eh failed to double it might induce his partner to make a better lead.

 

North argued that he wasn't sure of the 4♥ meaning, and only because of his ♥ holding, he deduced the right bid. And had he got singleton ♥ he would had passed. And he didn't know he had to alert opponents from the deductions he made based on his own cards. North-South ain't a regular partnership, they had agreed splinters, but didn't talk about 1♠-4♥ sequence, (passed hand even less).

 

Director ruled that north had made a fult on the alerting procedure and sanctioned with 10% of the board.

 

Do you think everything right?

[luke warm]

i can't think of any passed hand that would bid a natural 4H over partner's 1S opening.. as for the director's ruling, i'm not qualified to say

[Guest Jlall]

I would rule 4S=.

 

EW should have been alerted. There was clearly misinformation. Even if north was not sure, south should have said something before the lead was made. I do not buy that there was no agreement, they had agreed on splinters and south obviously hoped north would interpret 4H correctly based on this agreement. At the very least south could have said "before you lead, we have no agreement about this auction but we have agreed on splinters." Did this failure to alert cause this lead? East perhaps hoped west had short hearts after the 4H bid, and it seemed like a safe lead. I think it is reasonable that had 4H been alerted, east would not have led a heart.

 

After a club lead west can win the jack and return a trump. Declarer would likely pull trumps and take a ruffing finesse in hearts. This will lead to making 4.

[kenberg]

I would send North, South, and East to bed without their supper.

 

N: If they have agreed to play splinters and no exceptions were listed, 4H is a splinter. Sure it might not be, but it is. So you alert it.

 

S: Of course he needs to say something. They agreed to play splinters, he made one, partner didn't alert it. Any argument that "well, we only agreed to play splinters, we didn't actually discuss which bids were splinters" may well be literally correct but so what. If nothing else, ruling against them will have the useful side effect of encouraging them to discuss what their artifical bids mean.

 

E: He thought South's bid was natural did he? Really?

 

The lion's share of the criticism to NS but I don't much care for the East argument either.

 

I will never be asked to direct anything since I have little patience for legalisms. I have no idea who wins this if it goes to court.

[whereagles]

hum.. if East is an experienced player, I'd say he was playing a two-way shot. He probably suspected 4♥ to be some artificial bid (passed hand), but didn't bother to ask, thinking "if I have a good score, no harm done. If not, I demand it back in the secretariate." LOL

[Kalvan14]

hum.. if East is an experienced player, I'd say he was playing a two-way shot. He probably suspected 4♥ to be some artificial bid (passed hand), but didn't bother to ask, thinking "if I have a good score, no harm done. If not, I demand it back in the secretariate." LOL

This is certainly the right explanation: it fails if, and only if, E is a beginner.

If E is a good player, I would really consider penalising him (for lawyerism :D : in the good old days, he would hang, if convicted. nowadays no risk of that :) )