SB travels South

[lamford]

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.

And East would have redoubled. After you led the jack of clubs (instead of the automatic ace of hearts to see dummy), declarer would have won and played a heart. As you are not that good at opening leads, you would not save the overtrick and would now either continue with a high club, or try to cash the ace of spades, and concede -1480. When you ask for a ruling, I would rule that your action was SEWoG and you would keep your bad score, but the opponent's result would be corrected to +650. And I would give them a PP.

 

South should have argued that without the MI he would have led the ace of hearts, as there was a danger of club ruffs in dummy; even this particular TD would, with the aid of Deep Finesse, have concluded that the contract would not then make. With the MI there was no such danger. He should definitely have spoken to SB in the other room first, as SB is a past master at saying the right things to get a ruling in his favour.

[Trinidad]

And East would have redoubled. After you led the jack of clubs (instead of the automatic ace of hearts to see dummy), declarer would have won and played a heart. As you are not that good at opening leads, you would not save the overtrick and would now either continue with a high club, or try to cash the ace of spades, and concede -1480. When you ask for a ruling, I would rule that your action was SEWoG and you would keep your bad score, but the opponent's result would be corrected to +650. And I would give them a PP.

You are confusing the actual layout with the layout that can be expected given the MI. The MI was: "clubs were bid and raised naturally". Life doesn't come with guarantees, but it is entirely reasonable to expect "bid and raise naturally" to mean that they have 8 clubs. Add the five in my hand and you get to 13, leaving partner with none.

 

That means that with the MI given, I can reasonably expect partner to ruff clubs at trick 1. I have a spade entry for trick 2 and in trick 3 partner will ruff the second round of clubs and I am still going to make my ace of trumps. In addition, I have good hopes that the ♠K is with opener (who has shown most of the high card points). If that is the case, I will have an extra spade entry (and trick) and can give partner another club ruff. I have good hope that they are down three before they take a single trick and you call it a SEWoG to double?

 

Furthermore, the "SE" is clearly related to the infraction. If I would have had the correct information and would have known that West could have had a singleton, I certainly wouldn't have doubled. I might still have led a club. (Because I don't expect West to cue a void or singleton in partner's suit, marking him with a club ace or king + the four card suit that I expect with East + the five clubs that I hold myself = 10, leaving 3 other clubs with North, East, and West. Since from the auction, it doesn't seem that we are going to defeat this contract on high cards, it would be reasonable to think that the contract can only be defeated if partner can get a ruff. And the only suit in which he could get that ruff at some point is clubs. So, I might lead clubs since I don't expect the alternatives to beat the contract.)

 

But with the correct information, I certainly don't expect to beat the contract (as I did with the MI). And I certainly would not have a strong opinion about the correct lead. But I do have strong opinion about the correct lead when you are explained that the opponents most likely have 8 cards in a side suit where you hold 5 cards (+ the trump ace as insurance!) yourself: You give your partner the ruff.

 

Rik

[lamford]

But I do have strong opinion about the correct lead when you are explained that the opponents most likely have 8 cards in a side suit

You were not explained that. No opponent made any statement about the number of cards held in the suit. The only information given was that 4C was "natural", whatever that means, in response to a question.