theoretical case

[Free]

This is a theoretical case, based on a hand I had this weekend (7NT went -5).

 

Suppose you're playing against some LOLs and the auction goes something like this:

2♦! - 2♥!

3♦ - 3♠

3NT - 4NT

5♣ - 5NT

6♥ - 7NT

pass

(2♦ = multi: WK 6M or GF hands ; 2♥ = P/C)

5♣ was explained as 3 Aces

6♥ was explained as 3 Kings

 

Partner leads a small ♣ and in dummy appears:

AQJTxx

xxx

Qx

Qx

The ♣Q is covered with ♣K and ♣A, and declarer plays off all his ♦s (say 6 or 7, whatever). My partner "knows" that declarer has ♠K and all the Aces, so he supposes this LOL just never claims. He discards his 4 little ♠s to guard his ♥Q and some ♣s (you never know). All of a sudden however, declarer appears to have only 2 Kings, missing the ♠K. I have ♠K stiff, but because my partner discarded all his ♠s declarer can now drop my King!

(Even if he discards 3 ♠s it's highly likely the LOL will play ♠A because who would ever discard 3 ♠s from Kxxxx? So you might also rule in this case.)

 

What's your ruling?

 

Note: the CC doesn't contain the responses after a King ask, Ace ask is RKC 0314 (also without trump suit).

[WellSpyder]

What did declarer think 6♥ was showing? I think they should be asked!

 

It seems unlikely that a LOL would make a psychic response to the King ask, so if they bid 6♥ intending to show 2 kings then there are two possibilities:

a) the explanation is mistaken and declarer is obliged to correct it before the hand is played

B) declarer realised they had got the agreement wrong.

 

In the second case there is no obligation to correct, but I would want to be very sure that the agree really was as partner described before I said nothing in this situation!

 

In the absence of clear evidence that 6♥ really showed 3 kings I would expect a ruling based on mistaken explanation rather than mistaken bid. In that case it seems very likely that there will be an adjusted score since the outcome might well have been different without the mistaken explanation.

 

Even if you think it was a serious error for the defender not to continue to "play bridge" by assuming partner actually had ♠K, you would still adjust for the declaring side if you thought the result had been affected.