schulken Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 [hv=pc=n&s=s93hjt874dakj97cj&w=sa8764ha9d62ca974&n=sqt2hk653d83ck652&e=skj5hq2dqt54cqt83&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1sp1np2cp3sppp]399|300[/hv] ACBL. Club game. Match points. NS C players. EW advanced A players. W led 8♦ which S won. S returned J♣. W sensed what was going on and rose with the A, followed by small ♣ from W and dummy and 3♠ from S. We got it sorted out - I ruled that it was a fifth card played to a trick as it was clear through her action and a somewhat incoherent conversation that she was quite eager to ruff a ♣. Since W had won the trick, he took advantage of the free finesse and cleared the trump suit. As I was walking away, W made a comment about there being UI, which I didn't consider at the time but I have thought about a good bit since. Let's say W had ducked the ♣ hoping to set up three tricks in that suit. Given the early stage of the play and nothing being contributed by the defenders during the auction, declarer might not have worked out yet that the J♣ was stiff. Now N rises with the K, E plays low and S contributes a trump as the fifth card to the trick. Now we have an exposed card, P is on lead and the best declarer can do is prohibit the lead of a ♠ under L50D.2.(a). N is happy to comply by leading a ♣ which S ruffs, disposing of a major penalty card at its first legal opportunity. It would be a better solution for declarer if I could rule that the ♠ was led (rather than being a fifth card to the trick), which would again give declarer a free finesse of the trump suit. Since the facts and circumstances didn't support such a ruling, declarer gets a bad result. About the only relief I can conjure up is to award an adjusted score under L12. I just had not considered that there could be UI resulting from such an action. I guess that's why we want experienced TDs - people who have been around long enough to have seen everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 I would let it happen; but then adjust under L23 afterward...bringing it back to 3S=. I don't have to show that South did anything on purpose ---only that he might have been aware that what happened could happen. (Simplified paraphrase, but good enough for this purpose). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 Can't declarer require a spade lead from North? Also, North does have unauthorised information - so even without lead restrictions, he may not be allowed to play a club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahydra Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 Sounds like exactly the kind of thing that Law 23 was designed for. Remember that equity is the most important thing :) ahydra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schulken Posted September 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 Can't declarer require a spade lead from North? Also, North does have unauthorised information - so even without lead restrictions, he may not be allowed to play a club. Declarer could require a ♠ lead but then S gets to return the 3 to his hand, replacing it with the 9, causing declarer to win with the A. W still hasn't learned anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 1) there's a couple of W that should be N in the OP (opening lead, 'followed with a small'), but it made sense.2) Declarer can force a spade lead, thus allowing almost the "free" finesse.3) of course there's UI to north, but "take the first trick, switch to the J in a suit dummy has QT, as one of my opponents said last week 'when you play the J and that dummy shows up, it sort of gives the game away' ". Also, North is allowed to count to 13 - was 1NT forcing? If not, then West isn't very likely to be on a 3-card suit; but even if it is forcing (and so West is likely to have 3), there's no alternative to a club after the J into the QT unless partner is an idiot (and even then, you teach them why with the return). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillHiggin Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 [hv=pc=n&s=s93hjt874dakj97cj&w=sa8764ha9d62ca974&n=sqt2hk653d83ck652&e=skj5hq2dqt54cqt83&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1sp1np2cp3sppp]399|300[/hv] ... W led 8♦ which S won. ... Being a true trouble maker, I want to back everything up to the point where West led a card borrowed (or stolen) from North's hand. (OK, I will crawl back into the woodwork now) :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Can you really make a ruling based on the assumption that South would have played a 5th card to the trick if the cards from West and North had been different? South was obviously eager to trump a club, but would he really be so eager to do it if his partner's King were winning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Let's say W had ducked the ♣ hoping to set up three tricks in that suit. Given the early stage of the play and nothing being contributed by the defenders during the auction, declarer might not have worked out yet that the J♣ was stiff. Now N rises with the K, E plays low and S contributes a trump as the fifth card to the trick. Can you really make a ruling based on the assumption that South would have played a 5th card to the trick if the cards from West and North had been different? South was obviously eager to trump a club, but would he really be so eager to do it if his partner's King were winning?That is what OP is asking us to do, Barry. It seems to be the whole purpose of the thread. In his hypothetical, West and North's cards were different (low and King-winning) --at which time South eagerly produced the trump. Yes we can make a hypothetical ruling, if we are given a hypothetical situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Side Note: I guess that's why we want experienced TDs - people who have been around long enough to have seen everything.From my position that allows me frequently to have these sorts of discussions with WBF-finals level TDs (and NABC-DIC level TDs), that level of experience Does Not Exist. I'm not (anywhere near) this level yet (nor will ever be), but I see something new every regional I work; and more often than not at a sectional. Their level maybe once a year, but it still happens! It's just like playing the game - there's always something new around the corner. That's why we do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weejonnie Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 There is always law 50E3. If the Director judges that the exposed card conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side he shall award an adjusted score. A simple answer to an interesting problem (and from previous bloggs one that is quite often overlooked) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.