[Posleda]

Scoring: IMP

N S
1♣* 1NT
2♣* 2♥
4NT 5♣
5♥ 5NT
PASS

---

No screens, no convention card, offline match, system Precision Club. Explanations:
1♣ 16+
1NT 8-10 balanced
2♣ natural 5+, alpha asking
4NT Blackwood
5♣ 03 aces

No coincidence when EW asked, but after 5♣ W asked "what is it?". Now or sooner bids were explained as above, nobody asked and explained 2♥. No queries after final pass, no correction of bad explanation before lead.

4♠ lead, faced dummy with ♣ shortness and TD summoned. Before his call NS proposed to change lead. After call S told he thought as explained, but later he found out 2♣ as Stayman. TD didn't instruct NS to correct or add other explanations, and let to continue play.

Lead cashed by Q♠, A♥ and Q♥ to king, S discarded ♣ and ♠. ♣ to A, next ♣ to K, just made, hearts behave. TD's decision down 1.

After board N told: all my explanations were correct.
S: Because of bad light I saw 2 diamonds as hearts and bidded 1NT mistakenly. Before 5♥ bid I found out this mistake. We didn't play with N for several years, so it was my mistake to misunderstand Stayman as alpha. I found out this mistake after 5♥. Repeated question "from what did you find out?" he answered undetermined "so seemed", "so looked".

In appeal NS argued, that every lead must set the contract. After cashing K♥ it is clear from Blackwood, that A♣ is by E, so W must play A♠ and ♣. EW's opinion is, there were too many bad explained bids and was hard to believe this one is correct. They played board too confused from opps explanations, because all was very different from explanations. At start ♣ couldn't be led after misexplanations, after this lead contract would be set for sure.

How do you rule ?

Thanks.

[paulg]

N/S have admitted that there was misinformation from the explanation of 2♣.

If West had been informed that 2♣ was Stayman, then the subsequent auction would have shown that North held both majors with better hearts and so a club lead would have been the probable choice. The contract appears to lose 4-5 tricks on a club lead, so E/W have been damaged by the MI.

Has there been any unauthorised information exchanged following the explanations of the bidding? No, I don't think so. There may have been if the 2♥ bid had been explained, but otherwise I cannot see a problem here. South intended to bid 1NT and it is not UI to tell South that!

So the only issue is the damage from the misinformation.

I would rule 5NT down 3 (-300) for both sides (Law 40C).

Edit: I now see that the original contract made and so there is the question of whether the defenders should lose their adjustment. The criteria for this varies, but the defence does not look gambling, wild, or the other epithets, so I would leave my ruling unchanged.

Paul

This post has been edited by cardsharp: 2007-June-06, 05:11

[blackshoe]

Hm. I dunno what regulations, alert are otherwise, are in place, so the answer to "how do you rule" is "I don't know yet. What were the relevant regulations?"

A couple of points: when, exactly, and how, did South "find out" that 2♣ was Stayman? If 2♣ had been alpha, what would 2♥ have shown? It appears the TD didn't allow West to change his lead. Did he say why not?

[jtfanclub]

Posleda, on Jun 6 2007, 05:41 AM, said:

before lead.
.
.
.

After call S told he thought as explained, but later he found out 2♣ as Stayman. TD didn't instruct NS to correct or add other explanations, and let to continue play.

N-S are required to correct the explanations before the opening lead was faced. In particular, if North's call had a meaning (Stayman) which South misexplained (Alpha), North must correct it before the opening lead is faced. That all of HIS explanations were correct is immaterial.

Once this has been done, the lead could be changed before being faced, and there would have been no harm.

I would rule 5NT -3 and warn NS that if they didn't correct partner's misexplanations when they ended up declaring the hand, next time there would be a procedural penalty as well.

All of this only applies in ACBL-land.

[Posleda]

blackshoe, on Jun 7 2007, 04:04 AM, said:

Hm. I dunno what regulations, alert are otherwise, are in place, so the answer to "how do you rule" is "I don't know yet. What were the relevant regulations?"

A couple of points: when, exactly, and how, did South "find out" that 2♣ was Stayman? If 2♣ had been alpha, what would 2♥ have shown? It appears the TD didn't allow West to change his lead. Did he say why not?

Lets assume WBF policy. 5♥ was the bid, which waked up S. 2♥ after alpha should mean good fit (♣) and max. TD didn't know the proposal to change opening lead.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Lets assume WBF policy. 5♥ was the bid, which waked up S. 2♥ after alpha should mean good fit (♣) and max. TD didn't know the proposal to change opening lead.

Um. Let's leave WBF policy aside for the moment. When 5♥ woke up South, he should have immediately called the TD and corrected his earlier misexplanation (law 75D1),

Instead, the misinformation was not corrected until the dummy came down. So West's choice of lead was based on misinformation. So, for that matter, were many of EW's calls during the auction. In any case, it is too late to change either the opening lead (because dummy has been faced-Law 47E2(a)) or any call in the auction (because the auction period is over, the opening lead having been faced (Laws 21B1 and 17E). In that circumstance, Law 40C applies:

Quote

If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score.

I would so decide. I would adjust the score to 5NT-2 for both sides (Law 12C2). I would issue a PP - at least a warning, possibly a penalty in imps - to NS for failure to follow proper procedure in not calling the TD after the 5♥ bid.

Somebody's gonna have to 'splain to me how it goes down 3.

I don't understand how the TD did not know about the desire to change the opening lead. In making his ruling, the TD needs to find that the NOS were damaged by the MI - and to do that he needs to know what they would have done differently.