[bluejak]

I ran a Swiss Pairs today. Everything went wrong. But in the midst of all the chaos with four BridgeMates refusing to work, three others needing to be taken out of the room they were in to send their data, another one working less and less as time went on, the stand-by pair being sent home after one board, but recalled when a lady was taken to hospital, a very hot day in a club with no air conditioning, two floors with a single staircase, and everything else, I got a ruling. Ok, to be fair my assistant did, that is my wife did.

Scoring: MP

---

North bid 1♠, 2♥ from South, 3♦ from North, and East thought for a fair time then passed - agreed. South bid 3NT, West led a diamond, and 3NT went one off. N/S suggested that the BIT suggested a diamond lead which was not automatic from West.

Only after Liz had consulted with me, we had decided, and she had ruled, did I discover one of N/S was my regular partner, and her partner was someone I played a very important match yesterday, losing.

So, what do you think?

[axman]

bluejak, on May 23 2010, 07:17 PM, said:

I ran a Swiss Pairs today. Everything went wrong. But in the midst of all the chaos with four BridgeMates refusing to work, three others needing to be taken out of the room they were in to send their data, another one working less and less as time went on, the stand-by pair being sent home after one board, but recalled when a lady was taken to hospital, a very hot day in a club with no air conditioning, two floors with a single staircase, and everything else, I got a ruling. Ok, to be fair my assistant did, that is my wife did.

Scoring: MP

---

North bid 1♠, 2♥ from South, 3♦ from North, and East thought for a fair time then passed - agreed. South bid 3NT, West led a diamond, and 3NT went one off. N/S suggested that the BIT suggested a diamond lead which was not automatic from West.

Only after Liz had consulted with me, we had decided, and she had ruled, did I discover one of N/S was my regular partner, and her partner was someone I played a very important match yesterday, losing.

So, what do you think?

The pregnant pause after 3D carries an inference of surpise that N the Ds for that call.

THe suggestion by N and by S that a D lead is not automatic is suspect. A major suit lead asks for trouble. CA is suicide [S ought to have some Cs on this auction] and Cx may gobble E's whisker should he have one- and there still would be the matter of untangling the suit*. [I prefer my highest D spot in this situation.]

* if anything, the UI would tend to suggest that E has some entries- say also in Ss to cash his supposed C length.

A reasonable outcome after a Cx or Dx is 8 tricks.

I notice that E doesn't have the cards to support the hesitation which suggests to me that the pause was a breach of L73A1. I think that a lengthy conversation in a private place is warranted and might acheive the desired outcome.

[pran]

bluejak, on May 24 2010, 01:17 AM, said:

Only after Liz had consulted with me, we had decided, and she had ruled, did I discover one of N/S was my regular partner, and her partner was someone I played a very important match yesterday, losing.

So, what do you think?

I think that this is completely irrelevant. A competent Director should be both able to, and trusted to make his ruling without being influenced by such extraneous matters as personal friendship.

What on earth was East's reason for breaking tempo here? One marked effect is certainly to get partner focusing on the Diamond suit. Consequently if:
1: West logically has alternative leads to a diamond lead
and 2: The diamond lead damages declaring side (compared to their expected result with one of the alternative leads from West)
I would adjust.

It appears to me that I would have adjusted to 3NT made with 10 tricks (4 in each major suit and 2 in Diamonds).

(If my consulted colleagues argue for a club lead I would consider adjusting to just 9 tricks)

[655321]

Well I would always lead a diamond from the West hand.

If I had to make a (reasonably distant) second choice it would be the ♣T, I think all the other leads (Spade, Heart, ♣7, ♣A) are bad.

How this translates into logical alternatives and adjustments I couldn't say.

[paulg]

655321, on May 24 2010, 06:59 AM, said:

Well I would always lead a diamond from the West hand.

I would too until my partner hesitated over 3♦. Now I'd lead a club which I regard as the lead least likely to take advantage. A hesitation in this position is just unacceptable.

[jeremy69]

I would adjust the score. I am prepared to believe a diamond lead may be best but any doubt about that has been reduced by the pause over 3D. I think a small club beats it as well as a diamond but EW have to be careful to win tricks in the majors immediately so a club would perhaps not always break the contract on anything other than precise defence.
I would ask East why she hesitated over 3D and act according to the response received.

Quote

It appears to me that I would have adjusted to 3NT made with 10 tricks (4 in each major suit and 2 in Diamonds).

(If my consulted colleagues argue for a club lead I would consider adjusting to just 9 tricks)

I don't think it would make 10 tricks on a major suit lead and would make 8 on a low club lead quite a lot of the time.

[pran]

jeremy69, on May 24 2010, 02:08 PM, said:

I would adjust the score. I am prepared to believe a diamond lead may be best but any doubt about that has been reduced by the pause over 3D. I think a small club beats it as well as a diamond but EW have to be careful to win tricks in the majors immediately so a club would perhaps not always break the contract on anything other than precise defence.
I would ask East why she hesitated over 3D and act according to the response received.

Quote

It appears to me that I would have adjusted to 3NT made with 10 tricks (4 in each major suit and 2 in Diamonds).

(If my consulted colleagues argue for a club lead I would consider adjusting to just 9 tricks)

I don't think it would make 10 tricks on a major suit lead and would make 8 on a low club lead quite a lot of the time.

Well, I didn't bother about too deep an analyze, but it seems to me that declarer will raise both major suits before the defence can fetch any Diamond tricks; leaving just the Ace of clubs and the two major Kings to the defence?

On a club lead the defence should make two club tricks and their major Kings, but nothing more?

[bluejak]

pran, on May 24 2010, 07:39 PM, said:

On a club lead the defence should make two club tricks and their major Kings, but nothing more?

Which nine tricks is declarer making? Remember on a club lead he may get no heart tricks at all if he finesses in hearts.

This does not seem to be getting many replies, so I shall tell you what we did. We considered that there was an LA to leading a diamond, so we disallowed a diamond lead. Note that it makes no difference if you consider a diamond a 65% lead, that is what the Law requires.

The play looked very complicated to me. For example on a spade lead and club return declarer might lose the heart suit - or he might use the the ♠J as an entry and lose the spade suit!!!! On a spade lead ducked, declarer might to best to play ♥A, ♥Q, but a diamond return will now embarrass him. However, it also seems the defence can go wrong fairly easily.

We were having a lovely day, with a late arrival, an unentered pair playing one board then letting the late pair in, a player taken to hospital so the unentered pair was recalled, four BridgeMates refusing to work, three BridgeMates usually had to be taken out of their room to work, one small staircase for about fifty people to change floors every round, a hotter day than any I got in South Africa and no air conditioning, so spending too much time on this hand seemed the wrong thing.

We gave an adjusted score for both sides of:

.. 15% of 3NT +2, NS +460
+ 15% of 3NT +1, NS +430
+ 15% of 3NT =, NS +400
+ 55% of 3NT -1, NS -50

pran, on May 24 2010, 06:44 AM, said:

bluejak, on May 24 2010, 01:17 AM, said:

Only after Liz had consulted with me, we had decided, and she had ruled, did I discover one of N/S was my regular partner, and her partner was someone I played a very important match yesterday, losing.

So, what do you think?

I think that this is completely irrelevant. A competent Director should be both able to, and trusted to make his ruling without being influenced by such extraneous matters as personal friendship.

I am a bit surprised at this answer. It never occurred to me that anyone would take this comment as anything more than background information for interest. Of course it would not have affected me if I had known who the players were.

[jallerton]

Some posters suggest that there may be no logical alternative to a diamond lead. The TD should perform a poll of West's peers to test this assertion. There might also be case for finding out the auction at other tables; I'd expect this auction to be duplicated a fair amount of the time and this would give the TD some poll results in real life conditions.

The poll results will tell the TD which alternatives leads are "logical" and hopefully restrict the number of lines of play the TD has to consider. It's hard to construct a plausible line of play leading to 11 tricks (surely ♣A will not be led at trick 1), so it is not clear to me why any percentage of 3NT+2 was included in the TD's final ruling.

[TimG]

jallerton, on May 27 2010, 06:29 PM, said:

Some posters suggest that there may be no logical alternative to a diamond lead.  The TD should perform a poll of West's peers to test this assertion.  There might also be case for finding out the auction at other tables; I'd expect this auction to be duplicated a fair amount of the time and this would give the TD some poll results in real life conditions.

Even if everyone leads a diamond, might they give serious consideration to other leads, and wouldn't that serious consideration mean that there are logical alternatives.

[blackshoe]

TimG, on May 27 2010, 08:33 PM, said:

Even if everyone leads a diamond, might they give serious consideration to other leads, and wouldn't that serious consideration mean that there are logical alternatives.

No.

Law 16B1b said:

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

If everyone leads a diamond, then there are no logical alternatives.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on May 28 2010, 12:29 AM, said:

It's hard to construct a plausible line of play leading to 11 tricks (surely ♣A will not be led at trick 1), so it is not clear to me why any percentage of 3NT+2 was included in the TD's final ruling.

Spade to the king, heart back.

[shyams]

bluejak, on May 28 2010, 02:25 AM, said:

jallerton, on May 28 2010, 12:29 AM, said:

It's hard to construct a plausible line of play leading to 11 tricks (surely ♣A will not be led at trick 1), so it is not clear to me why any percentage of 3NT+2 was included in the TD's final ruling.

Spade to the king, heart back.

This makes 10 tricks -- declarer will still lose a club in the end despite both his majors being set up after trick 2.

[bluejak]

Sorry, you are right. There are 11 tricks but 3 losers.

Oh, well, the advantage of weighted scores: this mistake hardly matters in the actual score, assuming there is no other way to 11 tricks.