fair adjustem?

[helium]

HI FOLKS, WAS HOSTING A TEAM MATCH FOR EXPERTS AND WORLD CLASS ONLY TODAY AND GOT A CALL FOR THIS SITUASJON:

 

 

[hv=n=sakxhxxxdxxcqxxxx&w=sqj9xhjxdaj10xxxc9&e=s1043haq103dkqxcajx&s=sxxxhk9xxdxxck10xx]399|300|BIDDING WHENT, WHIT EAST AS DEALER: 1NT-PASS-2CL-PASS-2HE-PASS-3CL-PASS-3SP-PASS-3NT- ALL PASS

 

NO ALERTS VERE MADE AND LEAD WAS SMALL DI[/hv]

 

 

NOW 3 NT MAKES AS ALL CAN SEE , BUT NS WANT AN AJUST BECOUSE OF THE FAIL TO ALERT 3♣.

 

CLUB LEAD SET THE CONTRACT.

 

WHAT U THINK?? I ADJUSTED THE BOARD TO AVE=- AND GOT A LOT OF HEAT FROM EAST -WEST PAIR.

 

 

KENNETH

[EricK]

I think you should adjust, but I don't like adjusting to Ave-.

 

Why not give an adjusted score (3NT -1 or -2 depending on how cruel you feel)?

 

Eric

[paulg]

First you would have to establish that the 3♣ bid was alertable (and not a psychic lead inhibitor).

 

Assuming this is the case, then it seems normal to adjust to 3NT-2. If the opps appeal then I'd probably let them have 3NT-1.

 

Paul

[skorchev]

I agree with Paul almost everything.

 

1.) You should ask EW pair what 3♣ means and why he/she bid so. But I think that EW pair have some agreement for this situation, 3♠ bid doesn't looks esthetic, I guess it means something.

 

2.) A=- isn't a good adjustment. I think the game is -1, because after the opening of the ♦s North should stay with 6 cards - ♠AK♣xxxx then the declarer will try to finesse the K♥ and when North discard something (I guess ♣) he will cash his ♥A for 8 tricks - 6♦+1♣+1♥.

 

However I would adjust 3NT-1.

 

(And think the right place for this post is the Tournament Directors Forum.)

 

 

Stefan

[helium]

hi, i did ask what 3 ♣ meant and he replied it was new stayman, forsing and asking for 4♦or 5♥, so not a psyke.

 

 

kenneth, and the reason i gave ave=- was becouse i was the north player

 

kenneth

[helium]

(And think the right place for this post is the Tournament Directors Forum.)

 

 

Stefan

SORRY ABOUT THAT, DINT KNOW.

 

 

KENNETH

[paulhar]

A=- isn't a good adjustment. I think the game is -1, because after the opening of the ♦s North should stay with 6 cards - ♠AK♣xxxx then the declarer will try to finesse the K♥ and when North discard something (I guess ♣) he will cash his ♥A for 8 tricks - 6♦+1♣+1♥.

 

However I would adjust 3NT-1.

 

You're assuming incompetent defense by North? North would certainly keep a heart, since if partner has the ace, it can't cost, and if partner doesn't have the ace, North doesn't want to reveal the heart situation to declarer!

 

IMO the fairest thing to do (but difficult) would to make the result some hybrid result based on the other declarers in 3NT who got a club lead, i.e. if half were -1 and half were -2, award the MP or IMP score halfway between these.

[skorchev]

You're assuming incompetent defense by North? North would certainly keep a heart, since if partner has the ace, it can't cost, and if partner doesn't have the ace, North doesn't want to reveal the heart situation to declarer!

 

OK, if North keep the heart then South should keep ♠x♥Kx♣K10x. It's possible but it's not so easy and isn't very esthetic to adjust 3NT+1 to 3NT-2, 3NT-1 is enough.

 

IMO the fairest thing to do (but difficult) would to make the result some hybrid result based on the other declarers in 3NT who got a club lead, i.e. if half were -1 and half were -2, award the MP or IMP score halfway between these.

 

This thing can't be checked when the tourney is running, it can be checked after the tourney.

 

 

Stefan

[gabika73]

When an offense from one side causes damage, the score should be ammended such, that the non-offending side gets the best score possible had the offense not taken place.

Since with reasonable play, 3nt -2 is a reasonable result that fulfills this requirement, I would give a score based on this result.