[mrdct]

---

This hand came up on the first night of the Victorian State Teams Championships ("the Pennant") in the qualifying phase.

West is a multiple state open team representative and quite a good player. West is also good friends with both North and South.

Stop cards are not in use in Australia and bids above 3NT are not alerted. The 8-10 1NT range was pre-alerted in addition to being alerted by North when it came up.

Nobody asked about the 4♦ bid; which was somewhat fortunate for North-South as without the intervention 4♦ would've been RKCB but they hadn't explicitly discussed whether that was off after intervention but it seems they were on the same wavelength.

There was a noticable hesitation by East after the 4♦ bid and he apologised and acknowledged the break in tempo as he was putting dummy down.

After winning the ♠ lead in hand and playing a ♥ to the K, declarer got trumps wrong and then claimed 10 tricks conceding a ♣ and a ♦ after which South made a tentative suggestion that he might like to have the TD look at the board, to which West represented that he had a clear 4♥ bid at teams with a mini-NT on his right and a preempt on his left. North quickly agreed with West and the board was scored-up without any involvement of the TD.

If the TD had been called to adjudicate on the board, how do you think he should've ruled?

[Rossoneri]

Did West have any other methods to show a strong single-suited major hand? What would X first then bidding a suit show?

[nigel_k]

The methods are a bit strange. You wouldn't want to play against an 8-10 NT without a penalty double available but if so, West was taking a big risk that 2♦ might be passed out when partner is weak with diamonds.

But I can't imagine pass being a logical alternative with West under any circumstances.

[Cascade]

I wouldn't Pass 4♦ and I don't see how the hesitation suggests 4♥ over an alternative action (presumably double).

I would rule that Pass is not a logical alternative.

[mrdct]

mrdct, on 2011-September-21, 20:27, said:

After winning the ♠ lead in hand and playing a ♥ to the K, declarer got trumps wrong and then claimed 10 tricks conceding a ♣ and a ♦

So it seems right to let the 4♥ bid go, as North-South did at the table once they'd had a closer look at West's hand, but how about this claim?

Adding a little bit more to what happened at the table, after it had been scored as -620 and the cards were out of the next board, South jokingly complained to North, "You needed to underlead your ♦A to my Kx so I could get a ♦ ruff and take it one down". West then said to South, "Did you have ♦Kx? In that case I make 11". Not wanting to get into a discussion about whether or not a player of the calibre of West would adopt a "careless or inferior" line to lose a ♦ trick, South conceded the extra trick and re-entered the score as -650. As it turned-out the extra IMP for East-West was worth a VP, so at the end of match and still within the correction period stipulated in the regulations for the event, North-South queried with the TD whether or not he could look at the board and, if applicable adjust the score back to -620 as originally claimed. What should the TD do now?

[gordontd]

mrdct, on 2011-September-23, 00:00, said:

What should the TD do now?

Tell them to stop making their own rulings?