SB travels South

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqt8hadqt7cjt954&w=sk652h432da8642cq&n=sj9743h876d953ck3&e=shkqjt95dkjca8762&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1hd2hp3cp4cp4hppp]399|300[/hv]

Our friend from the North London club who looks and behaves like a Secretary Bird gathered a team together for Brighton and was involved in the rara avis of a ruling in both rooms on this hand from the Brighton Teams. The above, I was told, was the auction in room 1, in which SB was not involved, and, prior to leading, South asked about the 4C bid and was told "natural". He elected to lead the seven of diamonds and the declarer made in some comfort. South called the director and argued that he would have led the jack of clubs if he had known 4C was not natural. The TD ruled that there was MI in that the correct explanation was "no agreement". She then ruled that the contract would make anyway on the JC lead and decided on "no adjustment", but a glance at the frequencies shows that it is not so easy to make:

 

https://app.pianola.net/Results/Session57910/Travellers/21

 

After the jack of clubs lead, declarer must not ruff a club in dummy, as several declarers wrongly did, but he needs to play a heart, and later he can use his club pips to force a tenth trick after drawing trumps. In addition, there is the question of whether it is right for South to cash the ace of hearts first, in which case a glance at dummy will make it clear to continue with a low club, not the jack, after which declarer has no recourse. Your reporter thinks that 100% of 4H=, the TD ruling, was far from equitable.

 

In the other room, dummy knocked over his water before the final pass, and North exposed the king of clubs as he took evasive action. The TD ruled that it was still an MPC, and SB, East, elected to leave it as one and allowed South to lead anything he liked. The auction, I was told, had been 1H-(Double)-1S-(Pass)-2C-(Pass)-3H-(Pass)-4H-(All Pass). South thought that a club lead was the only LA, and he was told by the TD that he was allowed to know of the disposition of the penalty card, but not what it was. South asked, away from the table, whether the TD would be entitled to award an adjusted score if he led a small club successfully, and the TD just recited Law 50E. South decided to lead the ace of hearts instead, and when dummy appeared he switched to the four of clubs. This was a dagger to the heart of SB's contract and he could no longer get home. The TD consulted with at least one colleague and declined to adjust on the basis that there was no LA to the four of clubs after dummy appeared, and this was just rub of the green for SB.

 

So, 4H= in one room and 4H-1 in the other. And in both cases SB's side was the non-offender; SB was ranting away for several hours. How would you have ruled in both rooms?

[campboy]

In the first room, I don't see why a club lead becomes more attractive with correct information. In fact I would much rather lead a club if told "natural", since then there is a good chance that partner will be able to ruff a club, either initially or when I get in with the ace of trumps and lead another club.

 

In the second room I would have designated otherwise (not a penalty card), since West was partly responsible for it being exposed. Having allowed it to be a penalty card, it seems the TD should now adjust the score under 50E3, since NOS OS appears to have gained from the information. It is not clear how many tricks would have been made without the penalty card, so the adjustment should probably be a weighted score.

Edited August 24, 2015 by campboy

[WesleyC]

In the first room, where the opponents bid and raised clubs, I think the misinformation strongly suggests a club lead. Looking at 5 clubs and 2 Aces partner is almost marked with a club void. Had South had led a club and it had proved to be the losing option then I would have some sympathy.

 

I also agree with the director that after the ♣J lead **into a 3♣ gametry** the winning line is strongly suggested. This is a lot different to a club lead on a blind auction.

 

Definitely no adjustment.

[lamford]

In the first room, where the opponents bid and raised clubs, I think the misinformation strongly suggests a club lead. Looking at 5 clubs and 2 Aces partner is almost marked with a club void. Had South had led a club and it had proved to be the losing option then I would have some sympathy.

 

I also agree with the director that after the ♣J lead **into a 3♣ gametry** the winning line is strongly suggested. This is a lot different to a club lead on a blind auction.

 

Definitely no adjustment.

I don't think 3C is usually any more than a 3-card suit, and may well be a low doubleton in normal methods, so that does not make the club lead that attractive if the raise is "natural". If dummy has Qxx and declarer Axx, then declarer will make two club tricks if you lead them, as he will surely not cover in dummy. Also the raise of a short suit trial bid does not show four cards even if "natural" nor does it suggest that, as EW are always playing in hearts. And "natural" only means a 3-card suit, according to the Blue Book.

[lamford]

OS appears to have gained from the information.

How has the exposure of the king of clubs suggested a lead of the AH? And after that there is no gain, as leading a low club when dummy has a singleton queen is automatic.

[Trinidad]

In the other room,

...

The TD ruled that it [the ♣K] was still an MPC, and SB, East, elected to leave it as one and allowed South to lead anything he liked.

...

South decided to lead the ace of hearts instead, and when dummy appeared he switched to the four of clubs. This was a dagger to the heart of SB's contract and he could no longer get home.

Why didn't SB forbid the lead of a club at trick 2?

Did South lead to quick at trick 2?

Was the TD still at the table (as he is supposed to be as long as there is a PC)?

 

Rik

[lamford]

SB did not know that South would be endplayed. He continued to leave the KC as an MPC to prevent South leading a putative second trump and the TD did stay until the MPC was disposed of.

[Trinidad]

So, the secretary bird wants to have his snake and eat it too?

 

Rik

[nige1]

https://app.pianola....0/Travellers/21

The under-25 stars, at the next-morning discussion, pointed out the near sure-trick line, on the ♣J lead:

 

Win ♣A, lead ♥K, win the return, draw another round of trumps, ruff a low ♣, draw trumps and concede a couple of ♣s.

 

The director might guess that the average Brighton-player would find this line. As Lamford hints, however, the travellers show that many experts had a blind spot.

 

The rules should stipulate that, if convenient, directors must examine events at other tables, as a source of objective evidence to judge likely results.

[lamford]

The under-25 stars, at the next-morning discussion, pointed out the near sure-trick line, on the ♣J lead:

 

Win ♣A, lead ♥K, win the return, draw another round of trumps, ruff a low ♣, draw trumps and concede a couple of clubs.

The director might guess that the average Brighton-player would find this line. As Lamford hints, however, the travellers show that many experts had a blind spot.

 

The rules should stipulate that, if convenient, directors must examine events at other tables, as a source of objective evidence to judge likely results.

The TD decision, and I overheard the TD stating at SB's teammates' table that he or she had decided that the contract would make anyway on the JC lead, seems to be completely wrong. Assuming that the jack of clubs is led, then I would expect the declarer to suffer the same fate as, among others, these celebrity pairs: Allerton and Lee, Teltscher and Townsend, Goldenfield and Goldenfield, Green and Holland, Howard and Scoltock, Castner and Gold, Cope and Hydes, Law and Collins, Dyke and F Brown ... All went one off in 4H on the jack of clubs lead. In each case the second player appears to have been declarer, but I cannot vouch for the accuracy of either the Brighton Hub or Pianola! Gunnar Hallberg had no trouble in making it, of course.

 

I would rule that South, with the correct explanation, would have led the jack of clubs, and declarer would have gone off at least 95% of the time. And it is completely irrelevant that the seven of diamonds was led with MI. All that is relevant is what would be led with correct information.

[campboy]

I would rule that South, with the correct explanation, would have led the jack of clubs, and declarer would have gone off at least 95% of the time. And it is completely irrelevant that the seven of diamonds was led with MI. All that is relevant is what would be led with correct information.

But the actual lead is relevant in determining what would have been led with correct information. And I see no good reason to believe the lead would have been different in this case, since the correct information doesn't make a club lead any more attractive (or a diamond lead any less attractive).

 

If the situation had been different, with South leading a club with MI and a different lead working better, I would be happy to adjust on the basis that South wouldn't lead a club with correct information.

[lamford]

But the actual lead is relevant in determining what would have been led with correct information.

Not really. All you do is give the hand and auction to some peers with the correct information, which might be something like "no agreement, probably a cue bid or shortage", and South will either lead the ace of hearts when it is routine to beat it, or the jack of clubs when even members of the England Bermuda Bowl team go off. South did not lead the jack of clubs on the misinformation as he feared Qxx in dummy opposite Axx in declarer's hand.

[campboy]

Not really. All you do is give the hand and auction to some peers with the correct information, which might be something like "no agreement, probably a cue bid or shortage", and South will either lead the ace of hearts when it is routine to beat it, or the jack of clubs when even members of the England Bermuda Bowl team go off. South did not lead the jack of clubs on the misinformation as he feared Qxx in dummy opposite Axx in declarer's hand.

Peers in this context are people who might lead a diamond if told 4♣ was natural, so the lead is still relevant.

[lamford]

Peers in this context are people who might lead a diamond if told 4♣ was natural, so the lead is still relevant.

I polled a couple of people, and one cashed the ace of hearts and the other led the jack of clubs anyway. In any case, the TD ruling was that there was MI, but that the contract would make anyway on the JC lead, not that the MI did not affect the lead.

 

And you do not define a peer - at least I never have when polling - as someone who would make the same choice as damaged player, or offending player. You just select someone of approximately the same ability.

[campboy]

And you do not define a peer - at least I never have when polling - as someone who would make the same choice as damaged player, or offending player. You just select someone of approximately the same ability.

Then you're doing it wrong. How does polling a bunch of players who would never lead a diamond with either explanation tell you anything useful?

[lamford]

Then you're doing it wrong. How does polling a bunch of players who would never lead a diamond with either explanation tell you anything useful?

I can get all of them to lead a diamond if I suggest to them that the MI makes it more likely that dummy has ♣Qxx opposite ♣Axx. And don't forget that leading the ace of hearts beats it as well, and the correct explanation makes it more attractive to cash the ace of hearts. Maybe partner can play a second trump when he gets the lead. If their clubs are 3-3, there seems no gain in cashing the ace of hearts. And even if their clubs are ♣Kxxx in dummy opposite ♣Axx, then the club ruff which you are playing for will just be on fresh air.

 

The law says "peers playing the same methods". It does not say "peers playing the same methods and selecting the same action". An offender opens 1NT on ♠K [he}Qx ♦Axxx ♣KQxxxx and partner bids a slow 2NT. You buy a day-return to Broadmoor to try to find some bridge-playing inmates who would open 1NT on this hand, of whatever range ...

 

In addition, South was not the offender in this case. He states he would have led the jack of clubs if given the correct information. If he wanted to make a self-serving statement, he would say that he would have led the ace of hearts.

[Trinidad]

South did not lead the jack of clubs on the misinformation as he feared Qxx in dummy opposite Axx in declarer's hand.

Sorry, but that is not good bridge. You hold 5 clubs. Your opponents have bid and raised the suit naturally (according to the explanation). You expect partner to be void in the suit, not to hold Kx.

 

If I would be in this situation (and I wouldn't since I would have known the meaning of 4♣ before I passed), I would curse myself for not doubling. After cursing, I would lead the ♣J, expecting partner to ruff and to get back in with a spade for a second ruff. I would have had good hope to have beaten the contract by two in trick 5 while still holding the ♥A. Of course, it is possible that the opponents were a bit creative in their bidding and then partner might have a singleton club. Then I still expect to beat it with the club lead since I have the ace of trumps and can give partner a ruff when I play clubs the next time.

 

The MI practically forces the club lead on you. If you don't lead clubs with the MI, you are certainly not going to lead clubs without the MI.

 

Rik

[campboy]

The law says "peers playing the same methods". It does not say "peers playing the same methods and selecting the same action".

No law says that precisely (or even uses the word "peer"). There is a law which talks about "the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership", but it is a law about UI and irrelevant to this case.

 

A relevant law is 12B1: "[...] Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b)." To determine whether there was damage, we need to determine what would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred, and whether NOS side got a worse score "because of the infraction". So we need to determine as best we can what this particular South (who decided to lead a diamond with MI) would have led without MI.

[Trinidad]

So we need to determine as best we can what this particular South (who decided to lead a diamond with MI) would have led without MI.

Exactly. And a South who leads a diamond with the MI would lead two diamonds without the MI.

 

Rik

[lamford]

So we need to determine as best we can what this particular South (who decided to lead a diamond with MI) would have led without MI.

This particular South, a County Tollemache player, stated he would have led a club but for the MI. He is the non-offender, so we should believe him. Dummy did not correct the MI before the opening lead, and he would have known that the explanation was wrong. The TD did not rule that South would not have led the jack of clubs. She ruled, quite wrongly in my view, that the contract would still have made. The TD is responsible for the finding of fact based on the balance of probabilities. She agreed that, without MI, the JC would have been led. So, we do not need to determine anything about the lead without MI. The TD has already done that for us.

[lamford]

Your opponents have bid and raised the suit naturally (according to the explanation). You expect partner to be void in the suit, not to hold Kx.

The only bid which was explained to be natural was the raise to 4C. 3C was not alerted, but still could be xxx. A short-suit trial bid requires an alert, and a long-suit trial bid does not. I would not expect the raise to show "length" even if it is "natural".3 would not be alert able if it could be a low doubleton.

[campboy]

So, we do not need to determine anything about the lead without MI. The TD has already done that for us.

Nor do we need to determine anything about the number of tricks that would be made on the ♣J lead, then, since the TD has done that for us too.

[PhilKing]

Nor do we need to determine anything about the number of tricks that would be made on the ♣J lead, then, since the TD has done that for us too.

 

TD's are not that great at this based on the traveller.

[Trinidad]

This particular South, a County Tollemache player, stated he would have led a club but for the MI. He is the non-offender, so we should believe him.

?!? Non-offenders are always completely objective and never make self-serving statements? We shouldn't believe the non-offender, just because he is a non-offender. We should believe him because his statement makes sense.

 

In this case, his story about how the MI misled him doesn't make any sense. So, we don't take his word and we think for ourselves.

Dummy did not correct the MI before the opening lead, and he would have known that the explanation was wrong.

That is a second infraction, in my book good for a PP. But an infraction only leads to an AS if there is a causal relation between the infraction and the poor result for the NOS. This causal relation is missing. (In fact, the MI should have led to a better result!) Therefore, there is no justification for an AS.

The TD did not rule that South would not have led the jack of clubs. She ruled, quite wrongly in my view, that the contract would still have made. The TD is responsible for the finding of fact based on the balance of probabilities. She agreed that, without MI, the JC would have been led. So, we do not need to determine anything about the lead without MI. The TD has already done that for us.

And she did that just as wrongly.

 

If I understand the way this forum works correctly, in these cases the OP (in this case: you) asks us to take the position of the TD and rule on the entire case based on the facts in the OP. In this case, my ruling, and campboy's, is that the MI did not suggest the lead of the ♦7 over the potentially winning club lead. In fact, the MI strongly suggested the potentially winning club lead over the ♦7. Even with the help of the MI, South wasn't able to find the club lead. Without the help of the MI, he would have never found the club lead.

 

After that simple conclusion, it is irrelevant how many tricks declarer would have made on a club lead, because South would have never led a club. He was not misled in his choice of the lead by the MI.

 

And now, instead of letting us rule on the entire case, you state that we are only allowed to second guess the TD on the amount of tricks that East was going to take, and that we are not allowed to rule whether South's choice of lead was influenced by the MI... because this TD -who was silly enough to wrongly decide how many tricks East would take- has already decided that the MI influenced the choice of leads ... and now the TD is suddenly perfect.

 

You get my opinion on the entire case as presented in the OP, not on "what if we ignore one part of the TD decision, but accept the other part without criticism?".

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Whoa. Take it easy folks. Yes, the constraints on the ruling are a bit much, and Rik's right that we try to give good rulings here based on the evidence presented, but let's just take it easy. Not saying anyone is over the top yet, just trying to forestall going there.

 

Maybe Paul has a point he wants to make, I don't know.