[bluejak]

Scoring: MP

---

Contract: 3NT/N
Lead: ♠3

Trick 1: ♠ to K and T [discouraging]
Tricks 2 to 6: ♦s, guessing right
Trick 7: ♣ to Q and A
Trick 8: ♥2 to K and A

Trick 8 had been quitted. East then asked to see West's card and West duly obliged. The position was:

---

As is common in England a low card led shows an honour and East played the ♥T for one off - a black card leads to an overtrick.

We have already discussed the legalities, with some people thinking it should be adjusted under Law 66A and 12A1, and others believing this is a UI position. The importance of the distinction is that if it is a UI position Reveley comes into play.

But now I am interested in the bridge judgement. Should we adjust? If so, to what? Perhaps if you adjust you can tell me what to under Law 66A/12A1, and alternatively under the UI Laws.

[jallerton]

What was the auction (including range of any NT bids)?

What did West discard on the 4th and 5th diamonds?

[bluejak]

Sorry, no idea.

[nige1]

IMO There was UI, East chose the suggested alternative. Had he chosen a non-suggested logical alternative, declarer would make an overtrick and that is how the director should rule. Even had there been no damage, EW would still deserve a PP for breaking the law.

[shyams]

Some non-expert opinions:
1. As jallerton pointed out, I think the bidding and discards matter here.
2. A minor point -- after 8 played tricks, there would be 5 cards in each hand (not 6 as shows). I'd guess East now held ♠Jx ♥Tx ♦-- ♣T
3. Based on carding (esp to tricks 1 and 7) it is clear to East that partner does not hold ♣K and/or ♠Q. And the two discards made by West should (normally) also be enough for East to know what to play at trick 9.

My opinion is that table result should stand. I would leave the matter of PPs, warnings etc to the qualified directors.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on Jan 7 2010, 12:26 AM, said:

What was the auction (including range of any NT bids)?

pass 1♦ pass 3NT
all pass

NS play 4-card majors, 15-17 notrump. 3NT is about 13-15, but nobody asked.

Quote

What did West discard on the 4th and 5th diamonds?

Sorry, can't remember.

[Jlall]

Really? There is no logical alternative to playing a heart back, no matter which heart partner led back.

[jeremy69]

If you are trying to beat the contract then there is no alternative to a heart IMO. Given the auction I don't see how partner can have any more than he has. You might swap the HJ for the CJ but then so what. I think a heart is normal at matchpoints also and would not adjust the score. I would etiher warn EW or give them a PP depending on their experience and my view as a TD as to whether they were trying something.

[mjj29]

shyams, on Jan 7 2010, 05:14 AM, said:

2. A minor point -- after 8 played tricks, there would be 5 cards in each hand (not 6 as shows). I'd guess East now held ♠Jx ♥Tx ♦-- ♣T

The 8th trick is shown still there, which was a heart to the ace. East holds ♠Jxx ♥T ♦-- ♣T.

Jlall said:

Really? There is no logical alternative to playing a heart back, no matter which heart partner led back.

Then why did East need to see partner's card unless she wasn't sure (that's the only reason I would give anything other than result stands)

[lamford]

mjj29, on Jan 7 2010, 09:03 AM, said:

Then why did East need to see partner's card unless she wasn't sure (that's the only reason I would give anything other than result stands)

The fact that East asked to see West's card - probably just an instinctive reaction because she had not seen it, and she did not realise that she had quitted the previous trick when she asked - is unrelated to the fact that there is no logical alternative to a heart return. The player who tried to argue that a black-suit return was suggested would go down in my estimation, but maybe he or she is just playing by the book.

[bluejak]

Of course that may be the reason, but it assumes a fact not in evidence. It is just as likely, for all we know, that she did see it, but had forgotten it. Whether it applies in other countries I do not know, but a lot of people here ask to see the last trick when it is quitted, and it is usual for this to be accepted. Of course, that does not make it right. But it does mean that it is another bad habit people have got into.

[bluejak]

As seen in a different thread there are two different opinions as to what the legalities are in this situation, whether you should adjust under Law 66A and then Law 12A1, or whether you should treat this as a UI from partner case. On my advice the TD ruled under the former basis, so adjusted to:

   25% of 3NT +1, NS +430
+ 75% of 3NT -1, NS -50

So he thought that generally East would return a heart, but not all the time. Perhaps 4 times out of 5.

If you feel the bridge judgement is right, that is probably enough to make a non-heart return an LA, so if you adjust under the UI Laws you wold adjust to 3NT +1.

[greenender]

Given the fact that breaches of Law 66A are common, it feels terribly harsh for the OS to be saddled with 100% of 3NT+1. I therefore have a lot of sympathy with the route chosen by the TD. There does seem some vague logic in not applying the UI law, in that partner only provided the information in response to a request which is commonly, albeit improperly, allowed. If W had done something unprompted to draw attention to the position, that would have sounded more of a case for the all-or-nothing adjustment under the UI law. But I admit that this sounds a bit like reasoning backwards from the result that is perceived to be fair.

I hadn't previously considered that the full rigour of the ban on Reveley rulings was likely to be unduly harsh to the OS. Perhaps it is only an isolated sort of example.