Logical Alternative

[lamford]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=sat83hakj3dk4cj53&w=sk95ht976djt7ca74&e=sq642hq542dact986&s=sj7h8dq986532ckq2]399|300|Scoring: MP

P - P - 1C - P

1D - P - 1NT - P

3D - P - 3NT - All Pass[/hv]

 

North-South volunteered some helpful information after the end of the auction, but were unsure what exactly 3D showed; they indicated that South could puppet to 2D and then pass or bid 3D forcing.

 

East led the two of spades, dummy playing the seven, and West (I) thinking for perhaps twenty seconds before playing the nine. North won with the ten and played the king of diamonds to East's ace, South's two and West's ten (we had not agreed Smith Peters and this was, in theory, normal count if anything). East continued with the four of spades to the jack, king and ace. Now declarer led a diamond to the four of hearts, playing normal attitude and normal count, the queen of diamonds and the seven of diamonds.

 

Now declarer led the king of clubs from dummy and West, after a significant BIT - perhaps 30 seconds - ducked. Now declarer played a heart to the jack and East won with the queen. East exited with a club, and, at this point, "North (briefly) threw his remaining cards face-down on the table" (the exact statement of my partner, East) and then picked them up, in a manner that suggested to the table that East had used the BIT by West to find her exit.

 

West won, perforce, with the ace of clubs, cashed the jack of diamonds, and played a spade. East was a little discombobulated by North's actions and won, unnecessarily, with the queen (the six would have sufficed to win the trick and beat the contract two) and declarer claimed one off. This was almost average (12-10 to North-South). Two off would have been 5-17. Making would have been 19-3. West suggested to North that he call the director over the BIT, believing the club exit was the only LA for East, but North declined to do so, and the result of -1 was recorded as played.

 

How would you rule if you had been called by either side at any stage?

[lamford]

It seems the user cannot correct a typo in a thread name, and we are stuck with Loical Alternative on this one ...

[barmar]

N.M.

[bluejak]

I suppose there are three possibilities. West's trick one tank might have affected East's play when getting in with the ♦A, and suggests that North has not got AKT8 [the ten and eight are known].

 

West's tank over the ♣K could have affected East's exit after the ♥Q. Theoretically a heart or club return take it two off, but a spade leads to one off. Clearly no damage once East did not take her ♠6.

 

North's antics could have affected East and upset her which is why she did not take her ♠6. However, I really do not feel that you can adjust for this form of upset, where East, presumably an experienced player, has no reason not to play the six. A PP seems the only sensible rectification.

 

Incidentally, you have not told us th system. Can I presume, five card majors, either three card minors or short club, weak NT, and a 15-17 1NT rebid? The question I would ask when defending is whether the 1NT rebid denied a major. It is interesting to know whether the defence asked it or knew it anyway.

 

My instinct says that if I disallow the spade continuation when in with the ♦A the club switch is obvious, and declarer is not making.

 

So the answer to your question is that if called I would give no adjustment, but I would tell declarer off for his antics, issuing a PP if he regularly does this or is a top class player.

[jeremy69]

I was at the table. North as you will probably guess by reading on. The system was 5 card majors and Weak NT. The 1NT rebid(15-17) did not deny a major.

 

West had a problem at trick one and also when the club was played. The play by declarer to trick one was not quick.

 

East found it very easy to continue with a spade at trick 3 as a result of the tempo to trick one despite not agreeing to play Smith Peters. North could have held AK108 and West 953.

 

East played a club immediately and without thought when in with the Heart Queen.

 

It wasn't logical to play another spade as West had denied the 8 by his play to trick one and wouldn't have 4. A club was probably best as if declarer had the club Ace he might have established diamonds rather than taking a heart finesse but it was not the result of the defender working it out that led to the club being returned.

 

North (in his opinion) did not throw his cards anywhere but certainly did indicate to the table and any passing waiters that he thought that East had used UI. I'm not sure the first use of UI was discussed or commented on. I expect Bluejak would have checked whether the exact situation described by OP was unchallenged before issuing a PP. I would not have been that upset if a PP had been issued although I don't regard it as "recitifcation" but we then would have had the hand recorded for the persistent use of UI by East as well. I'm sure calling the playing TD would have been better if slower and to little effect as I agree an adjustment was not called for.

 

The inability of East to sort out the spade suit pips meant that no real damage had been caused thus when West invited a call of the director North did, as said, decline.

[bluejak]

I only said I would give North a PP if he was a top class player. :D :) :) :)

[lamford]

North (in his opinion) did not throw his cards anywhere but certainly did indicate to the table and any passing waiters that he thought that East had used UI. I'm not sure the first use of UI was discussed or commented on.

I think North's version is correct, that there was only a gesture and mannerism which indicated that he thought East had used UI, despite my partner's view of what happened, which I think links that with the claim just after she won the queen of spades a few moments later. I also agree that there was no discussion of the possible use of UI at trick three, although this is actually the crucial one, not the later issue.

 

My estimate of the time taken at trick one was that declarer took ten seconds in playing from dummy, and that I took about a further twenty seconds to play the nine. And I agree that this conveys UI in that I would usually take a lot less time with 9xx - as I suspect would most other players. The WB states: "The freedom for third hand to think about the deal generally at trick one if declarer has not paused before playing from dummy applies irrespective of his holding." It does not indicate what this pause needs to be so that a BIT by third hand does convey UI, but 10 seconds would certainly seem to be a pause to me, so I agree that 20 seconds by third hand is now UI. I do think that "pause" should be replaced by a specified amount of time, but that is another discussion point.

 

[it is an interesting question as well as to which card is right from the West hand at trick one; if East has led from AQ8x or even Axxx, then winning could well be right, in the first case continuing spades and in the second perhaps switching to hearts.]

 

Bluejak is wrong in believing that a club switch defeats the contract instead of the spade continuation at the third trick. Declarer just plays low in dummy and makes the contract pretty trivially, ducking the next spade if West wins the first club. Indeed, the spade continuation is the only winning defence. However, Law 16B3 does not allow me to call the director as I may only do so if an opponent uses UI, not if my partner does. I now think that the correct ruling is therefore an adjustment to 3NT making by North, on the grounds that a club is a logical alternative to a spade at trick three, and jeremy69 should have accepted my proposal to obtain a ruling.

 

East was the least experienced player at the table, but has played often in national events, and should have been aware of her UI duties.

 

I agree with bluejak that my partner should still have managed to find the play of the six of spades!