German 2nd league

[Gerben42]

I thought I'd post this one on this new and rather empty forum, some might already know the hand (it was given as a lead problem online at some point). As the case is now closed, here it is.

 

The hand was played with screens (N/E on one side)

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sqt87h43dkq762ct3&w=s943hakj975dj9cq6&e=sj5hqt82da4cakj98&s=sak62h6dt853c7542]399|300|Scoring: Teams[/hv]

 

W N E S

-- -- 1♣ p

1♥ p 3♥* p

4♦* p 5♣* p

6♥ p p p

 

Opening lead: ♦K, N/S -980.

 

3♥ invitational, an unbalanced hand

4♦ West to South: Last train, East to North: ♦ shortness

 

Decision by TD: TD consulted E/W system script and found two chapters, according to which either might have applied, so he ruled MI. Furthermore, the TD consulted 7 players, who all would have led a ♠ given the explanation ♦ shortness, so decided to let score stand.

 

N/S appeal on the ground that with the correct explanation, it logically follows that ♠AK are missing, and that they also consulted 3 comparable players, two of which would lead ♦K.

 

Discuss.

 

Bonus question: Playing last train, logically this sequence means you'd bid it without a side control, as in the actual hand. Are you on firm ground in your partnership?

[bluejak]

N/S appeal on the ground that with the correct explanation, it logically follows that ♠AK are missing ...

Why?

[jdonn]

I agree with NS that an explanation of last train implies no spade control, but obviously their own poll doesn't override the one performed by the director (who I think did an excellent job and covered all his bases). No adjustment.

[cherdanno]

N/S appeal on the ground that with the correct explanation, it logically follows that ♠AK are missing ...

Why?

My vague guess is N/S want North to be fully informed about the misunderstanding. If West intends 4♦ as last train (denying a spade control), but East understands it as last shortness, then West thinks East showed a 2nd round spade control by bidding 5♣, whereas East denied it, and thinks West showed one by bidding 6♥. I.e., if we know how everyone intended their bids, then we know they are missing a spade control.

 

Of course, this expectation by N/S has nothing to do with the law.

 

Anyway, given that North made a truly horrible lead based on the information he got (which should have made a spade lead obvious), he is not entitled to an adjustment based on MI when the correct information would have made the spade lead less obvious.

Did they get their deposit back?

[bluejak]

If North had been told that 4♦ was last train, and thus showed no spade control, then 5♣ must show a spade control, yes?

 

N/S may want to be told what the E/W hands actually are, but that is not the way the Laws work.

[Phil]

Last Train doesn't make much sense in this context. It really should be a diamond control, since 3♠, 4♣ and (maybe) 3N are available as cues.

 

How does North expect to beat it on a diamond lead?

[Cascade]

Last Train doesn't make much sense in this context. It really should be a diamond control, since 3♠, 4♣ and (maybe) 3N are available as cues.

 

How does North expect to beat it on a diamond lead?

Maybe West's spades are king-jack and he needs to successfully guess the spades.

[Gerben42]

Last Train doesn't make much sense in this context. It really should be a diamond control, since 3♠, 4♣ and (maybe) 3N are available as cues.

 

It may not make sense to you, but this is how West meant it.

 

N/S may want to be told what the E/W hands actually are, but that is not the way the Laws work.

 

I am not an expert on rulings with screens, but if E/W really play Last Train (which is what the TD suggests since he ruled MI in the first place), why isn't North allowed to have this information?

[Cascade]

Furthermore, the TD consulted 7 players, who all would have led a ♠ given the explanation ♦ shortness, so decided to let score stand.

This is the wrong question to be answered.

 

There is damage if this north would have led differently given different information (and it mattered). Not what everyone else would do.

 

It is only relevant if the particular lead chosen was some attempt at a double shot or an egregious error. I don't think leading from a sequence against a slam rather than from an unsupported honour comes into that category.

[bluejak]

I am not an expert on rulings with screens, but if E/W really play Last Train (which is what the TD suggests since he ruled MI in the first place), why isn't North allowed to have this information?

He is. What he is not permitted is a ruling based on the correct meaning of 4♦ and the information that the other player has got it wrong. Adjustments are based on the presumption that the infraction had not occurred. So the adjustment is as though East had told North that it was 'last train'.

[jdonn]

Furthermore, the TD consulted 7 players, who all would have led a ♠ given the explanation ♦ shortness, so decided to let score stand.

This is the wrong question to be answered.

 

There is damage if this north would have led differently given different information (and it mattered). Not what everyone else would do.

 

It is only relevant if the particular lead chosen was some attempt at a double shot or an egregious error. I don't think leading from a sequence against a slam rather than from an unsupported honour comes into that category.

So your guideline is that noth can claim he would have made any lead that would have worked just as long as the lead he actually made is not utterly hopeless? If I were the director, I think a better method of determining what north would have done than believing him would be to poll 7 comparable players and see if any of them would have done the same thing.

[Cascade]

Furthermore, the TD consulted 7 players, who all would have led a ♠ given the explanation ♦ shortness, so decided to let score stand.

This is the wrong question to be answered.

 

There is damage if this north would have led differently given different information (and it mattered). Not what everyone else would do.

 

It is only relevant if the particular lead chosen was some attempt at a double shot or an egregious error. I don't think leading from a sequence against a slam rather than from an unsupported honour comes into that category.

So your guideline is that noth can claim he would have made any lead that would have worked just as long as the lead he actually made is not utterly hopeless? If I were the director, I think a better method of determining what north would have done than believing him would be to poll 7 comparable players and see if any of them would have done the same thing.

This player led the ♦K and claims that he would have led a spade with different information.

 

Comparable players are those that would have led a diamond on the given information.

 

All the director did is found 7 players that are not comparable with this player as they all would have led a spade on the given information.

[jdonn]

You said "It is only relevant if the particular lead chosen was some attempt at a double shot or an egregious error." The director is perfectly within his rights to decide that if 7 out of 7 players of comparable skill level that he polled all led a spade with the same information, that leading a diamond is an egregious error.

 

(in case I'm about to be quoted, I put something different then immediately edited it)

[Cascade]

Got a law to back that up, or are you just picking using whatever definition of "comparable" suits you the most?

The law requires that the player was damaged if some different people would lead differently then that says nothing about whether this player has been damaged?

 

This is logic not law.

[Cascade]

You said "It is only relevant if the particular lead chosen was some attempt at a double shot or an egregious error." The director is perfectly within his rights to decide that if 7 out of 7 players of comparable skill level that he polled all led a spade with the same information, that leading a diamond is an egregious error.

 

(in case I'm about to be quoted, I put something different then immediately edited it)

Of course everyone is entitled to be wrong.

[jdonn]

Ok, I don't think he was wrong. If it just comes down to a matter of opinion I see little more to discuss.

[Cascade]

"egregious: Conspicuously bad or offensive."

 

I don't think you can determine this from a sample of seven.

 

Perhaps you can if you specifically ask if you think ♦ K is egregious but this is a completely different question than 'what would you lead?'.

[Rossoneri]

This player led the ♦K and claims that he would have led a spade with different information.

 

Comparable players are those that would have led a diamond on the given information.

 

All the director did is found 7 players that are not comparable with this player as they all would have led a spade on the given information.

Reason why this is done is because the claim that he would have led differently is usually self-serving.

[Codo]

"egregious: Conspicuously bad or offensive."

 

I don't think you can determine this from a sample of seven.

 

Perhaps you can if you specifically ask if you think ♦ K is egregious but this is a completely different question than 'what would you lead?'.

Wayne,

 

why is leading a diamond from a sequence in any way an alternative when you have the explanation: Diamond shortness? There is a zero % chance that you will develop a trick. There is a possibility that possible losers will disappear on clubs, so I guess a spade lead- despite including a little risk- is the normal choice. And there is no way that an information like: 4 ♦ was last train" makes a spade lead better.

 

Acutally I think a diamond lead is better after the explanation 4 diamond is last train then after the actual given explanation.

[Cascade]

"egregious: Conspicuously bad or offensive."

 

I don't think you can determine this from a sample of seven.

 

Perhaps you can if you specifically ask if you think ♦ K is egregious but this is a completely different question than 'what would you lead?'.

Wayne,

 

why is leading a diamond from a sequence in any way an alternative when you have the explanation: Diamond shortness? There is a zero % chance that you will develop a trick. There is a possibility that possible losers will disappear on clubs, so I guess a spade lead- despite including a little risk- is the normal choice. And there is no way that an information like: 4 ♦ was last train" makes a spade lead better.

 

Acutally I think a diamond lead is better after the explanation 4 diamond is last train then after the actual given explanation.

This depends if there are enough fast tricks. A diamond is safe if declarer has to play on spades (as I mentioned earlier) but not safe if declarer has enough club tricks without playing on spades.

 

A diamond might also be better whenever partner turns up with the ♦A - not that unlikely (unless I missed something).

 

I definitely wouldn't be judging that ♦ K was even close to an egregious error.

[Gerben42]

He is. What he is not permitted is a ruling based on the correct meaning of 4♦ and the information that the other player has got it wrong. Adjustments are based on the presumption that the infraction had not occurred. So the adjustment is as though East had told North that it was 'last train'.

 

Okay, but that seems to make this case really complicated now, and it doesn't seem that the director tried to answer the right question.

[greenender]

Surely the poll that the director should take is as follows:

 

1. What would you lead if 4♦ is explained as ♦ shortness?

 

2. What would you lead if 4♦ is explained as last train? (and it might be necessary to explain the inferences from last train as intended by W).

 

The answers to the first question define your peer group. The answers to the second tell you whether the peer group views lead you to conclude that N was damaged by the MI.

 

Of course you have a difficulty if you cannot find a peer group, because nobody leads a diamond on the information N actually had, but a TD's life is not always easy.

 

My feeling is that the correct ruling would be no damage, on the basis that the peer group is likely to demonstrate that a ♦ lead is more rather than less likely with the right information.

 

I also feel that N's claim of damage may be influenced by the notion that he is entitled to know that E/W are on different wavelengths, which as has already been noted, is not correct.

[gambit]

The questions are - was there misinformation, and if so, were the opponents damaged? It seems to me to be a case of sour grapes, not everyone bids these slams and when they do, sometimes the wrong lead is made. Making an unfortunate (if logical) lead is not negated unless the opponents were given MI which caused them to go astray. Looks to me like they want a get out of jail free card. No adjustment.

[Cascade]

The questions are - was there misinformation, and if so, were the opponents damaged? It seems to me to be a case of sour grapes, not everyone bids these slams and when they do, sometimes the wrong lead is made. Making an unfortunate (if logical) lead is not negated unless the opponents were given MI which caused them to go astray. Looks to me like they want a get out of jail free card. No adjustment.

To me the reasoning should be more like:

 

1. They were given MI

 

2. They might have led something different given the correct information

 

3. Leading the ♦K was not an egregious error

 

4. They deserve some sort of adjustment

 

Under these sort of conditions I would much rather err in favour of the non-offending side than err in favour of the offenders. Therefore any benefit of doubt should go with the non-offenders.

[Finch]

The questions are - was there misinformation, and if so, were the opponents damaged? It seems to me to be a case of sour grapes, not everyone bids these slams and when they do, sometimes the wrong lead is made. Making an unfortunate (if logical) lead is not negated unless the opponents were given MI which caused them to go astray. Looks to me like they want a get out of jail free card. No adjustment.

To me the reasoning should be more like:

 

1. They were given MI

 

2. They might have led something different given the correct information

 

3. Leading the ♦K was not an egregious error

 

4. They deserve some sort of adjustment

 

Under these sort of conditions I would much rather err in favour of the non-offending side than err in favour of the offenders. Therefore any benefit of doubt should go with the non-offenders.

1. First of all, you have to decide what the MI actually was, which we aren't told.

It's not at all obvious that the TD has decided that the correct explanation was "last train". From the description, it seems that the correct explanation was "it's either last train or shortage, we have two conflicting agreements and it's not clear which applies here"

 

2. Be careful how you put this. You only think of adjusting, not only if they 'might have led something different given the correct information' but if the different lead would be a consequence of being given the correct information. The player concerned needs to explain why he was damaged i.e. why a spade lead is more likely to be correct without the MI.

 

I agree with greenender about the type of questions the TD needs to ask (although as above, not the exact question).

 

3. Even if leading the DK is a serious error unrelated to the infraction, if you think an adjustment was right you still adjust against the offending side.

 

4. As others have pointed out, North seems to want to choose his lead in the knoweldge that EW have had a misunderstanding. All he is entitled to know is their agreements... admittedly if there agreement is "there are two possible interpretations" that does make it more likely that two tricks are cashing, but it becomes less likely that they are spades rather than diamonds.

 

My inclination is not to adjust. But I want to ask North why he is more likely to lead a spade with the correct information. He might have a good answer, that on my quick read of the problem I haven't thought of. If he has no good answer, no adjustment.