1NT was 15-17.
Making 2. N/S -670. 800 is available on any number of defenses.
a) what would you lead?
Assess the blame, well, double looks juicy; pass of double is 100%;
it's hard to assess any blame on the bidding. The trump lead looks right,
although it turns out to be a much easier hand to defend w/ a
The lead was questionable south has too many hearts, and NS are unlikely to have some other source of tricks. That means the strategy of killing declarer's side suit by a combination of drawing dummy's trumps and tapping the closed hand isn't best.
So NS should be trying to set up tricks
and hoping that any heart ruffs that could
have been prevented are unproductive ones.
North could have done other things, such as cashing 1 high club to get some more count information.
North also might have inferred that south had 1, not 3 diamonds, from the bidding and dummy.
Finally, North might have taken the safe route of
So, 60% N, for a variety of misdemeanors, although the lead was the worst action.
The director was called after the
Each side appealled. E/W wanted +200. N/S wanted +130.
How do you rule?
The lines of play to 10 tricks if East shifts to the
Furthermore, E/W get 2 pp's.
1) for taking blatant advantage of UI
2) for abuse of appeals process
Each of these penalties are so incredibly egregious to be 3/4 board a pop. [Way too harsh. But 3/4 of a board is only 2 IMPs at teams, so that comes to roughly 1 VP, which isn't all that big a deal after all. --Jeff]
On the other hand,
Is it clear enough to bid when pard's pass is slow (pard may be
thinking of doubling, not bidding)? I felt infuenced by having
overheard the original protest and the director's ruling, so I asked
several players in the Wed. Night Swiss Game at Candy's, asking several
players 1 or 2 at a time, initially withholding the slow pass info.
Everyone except 1 person thought it was clear to bid (there were a
Also, keep in mind that west doubled the first time,
instead of bidding
Regarding the number of tricks taken by NS in diamonds,
10 tricks isn't so unreasonable, without
permiting N/S to take the C hook (it jeopardizes
On a heart lead, there is some chance of the defenders scoring 2 heart tricks by way of a ruff, is this at all probable/likely? it takes a non-spade lead and other conditions. So, in any diamond contract, I'll rule 10 tricks.
So, for the result, EW -130, NS +130.
Was there an infraction? If so, it was misuse of unauthorized information by West. To determine that, we ask:
Did the infraction lead directly to the non-offending side's bad result? Yes, no question. If West had passed, N/S would have been plus at least 110. N/S didn't do anything goofy after the infraction, so it's only the infraction that hurt them.
Therefore, an assigned adjusted score is in order.
Which score? E/W get the least favorable score
at all probable. N/S get the most favorable score
that was likely. If West had passed, the only two
reasonable scores seem to be +110 and +130 for N/S.
What would have been the result? Obviously, East
will lead the
In other words, I think it's roughly a toss-up between a split score of +110/-130 and a single score of 130. Judging exactly what the likelihood of ten tricks' being made is a difficult problem and there's room for individuality among committees there. Neither ruling would be wrong in my opinion.
Are the appeals meritorious? N/S's clearly is; I think
they ought to get their request. At the very least,
their opponents' score should be changed. E/W's, however,
is not. Any good player should know not to bid
Which brings up something that's bothered me for a long time. Many times I have sat in commitee meetings (on either side of the fence) and the committee chair quickly submits a diatribe about how there will be no discussion after the ruling. To some degree, that makes sense; we can't have someone giving ACs grief after a ruling or no one would ever serve. But there should be room for discussion as long as it's kept to a minimum and is done in a reasonable tone. In particular, if a committee awards some sort of penalty to an offender, I think he ought to be able to ask for an explanation if he is confused. Also, in this case, I think it would have been appropriate for me to be able to ask, "are you sure that E/W shouldn't be awarded -130; isn't ten tricks at least 'at all likely'? I am not arguing about N/S's +110." If they considered that and rejected it, they can explain, "no, we figured that nine tricks would happen more than 90% of the time, so we awarded a single score." In general, however, I think the issue isn't one of effectiveness, but of rudeness. I feel very rude when my chair announces there'll be no discussion, etc.; I feel offended when someone else does it to me. Perhaps the tone is more of an issue than the actual statements; I've found committees to seem very arrogant when they make that announcement. Perhaps this can either be done better or done away with.
You open a strong (15-17) NT. Partner bids Stayman.
RHO (Meckstroth) bids
I suspect I would duck the club and win the second spade (provided
lefty's 2nd spade is lower than his first). Heart to ace, diamond
dummy, flying ace unless K appears on left. Assuming that I have to win