[CSGibson]

---

Edit: This is ACBL jurisdiction.

Playing swiss teams, south announced the NT range as 15-17. E-W play precision (opening all 11 HCP hands, and frequently on 10 HCP), and E decided not to make a penalty double of a strong NT even though that was a systemic option. At the end of the auction, N announced the MI, and E called the director. The director took E aside, and was told by E before the opening lead that he would have doubled a weak NT for penalty.

The lead was a systemic club, allowing the contract to make. Either a spade or a diamond lead sets it. At the end of the hand, E called the director back, and explained that he thought his side was damaged because a penalty double of 1N would have made it more likely that partner would find an aggressive lead of her doubleton, especially with trump control.

Everyone at the table is an expert, and in experienced partnerships. How do you rule?

[JLOGIC]

Presumably south would show the majors over a penalty X of 1N so I don't buy that west would lead a spade.

TBH I would try and learn what NS's methods are over a penalty double though and figure out a likely auction, it's likely they would get to 4S from north anyways depending on their methods. If they have no methods it's possible south would just bid 4H in which case I agree west would lead a spade, but if they play transfers it's possible south would bid 4D which would make north declarer on the CK (or maybe a trump) lead.

This post has been edited by JLOGIC: 2013-July-02, 16:54

[ggwhiz]

Although the same lead is likely on a clean auction, a killing lead is a live possibility and East was denied the opportunity to express his strength and stated he would have done so before knowing the result.

I can't divine a different final contract so I'm ruling down 1 right here and expect an expert partnership to accept it gracefully having blown such a fundamental disclosure.

[c_corgi]

CSGibson, on 2013-July-02, 16:45, said:

... and explained that he thought his side was damaged because a penalty double of 1N would have made it more likely that partner would find an aggressive lead of her doubleton, especially with trump control.

Was he really suggesting that West would lead more aggressively because East had shown more values? Surely the aggressive lead is needed when partner has fewer values which would then need to be more specific.

[CSGibson]

JLOGIC, on 2013-July-02, 16:52, said:

Presumably south would show the majors over a penalty X of 1N so I don't buy that west would lead a spade.

TBH I would try and learn what NS's methods are over a penalty double though and figure out a likely auction, it's likely they would get to 4S from north anyways depending on their methods. If they have no methods it's possible south would just bid 4H in which case I agree west would lead a spade, but if they play transfers it's possible south would bid 4D which would make north declarer on the CK (or maybe a trump) lead.

They expressed that they had several different options over a penalty double, some of which would make N declarer, and some S. All of the methods would show two-suited hands. Some would specifically show club shortage, but those are the ones that would make it more likely that N would be declarer. Note, if E is on lead in a heart contract, a trump lead also sets the contract, assuming W finds the obvious diamond shift.

[ggwhiz]

c_corgi, on 2013-July-02, 17:02, said:

Was he really suggesting that West would lead more aggressively because East had shown more values? Surely the aggressive lead is needed when partner has fewer values which would then need to be more specific.

Over a weak nt - double e/w may well compete up to 4♣. Too many possible auctions on both sides. A non-club lead would be astute but the chance to find it was removed.

[CSGibson]

c_corgi, on 2013-July-02, 17:02, said:

Was he really suggesting that West would lead more aggressively because East had shown more values? Surely the aggressive lead is needed when partner has fewer values which would then need to be more specific.

Well, that the lead of the doubleton was more likely to work in that case, at least, since W was more likely to have entries and a useful spade or trump ace.

[Zelandakh]

Given that South thinks North's 1NT opening is strong, would they not take the systemic route to 1NTXX rather than showing the majors? I do not buy East's argument about a spade lead but that does not mean that damage did not occur.

[gordontd]

Zelandakh, on 2013-July-03, 02:21, said:

Given that South thinks North's 1NT opening is strong, would they not take the systemic route to 1NTXX rather than showing the majors?

I wouldn't if I were South - I'd be worried about East having solid clubs for the double. We might well be going off in 1NT when game in a major is cold.

[gnasher]

gordontd, on 2013-July-03, 04:21, said:

I wouldn't if I were South - I'd be worried about East having solid clubs for the double. We might well be going off in 1NT when game in a major is cold.

Or slam even: partner could have AQ, KJ, KQ with RHO having solid clubs and ♦A.

[CSGibson]

The director ruled a split score, E-W getting -420 and N-S getting -50. They went through the process of trying do discover an auction, polling leads, etc, and decided that the split score was appropriate. Notable was that the other table was playing 4H from the S, and got a spade lead (though they did not wind up beating the contract because of a club switch).

I have a feeling if this came up in a nationals, it might have been a case where both sides would have appealed. At a sectional, we didn't bother.

[blackshoe]

CSGibson, on 2013-July-05, 16:49, said:

The director ruled a split score, E-W getting -420 and N-S getting -50. They went through the process of trying do discover an auction, polling leads, etc, and decided that the split score was appropriate. Notable was that the other table was playing 4H from the S, and got a spade lead (though they did not wind up beating the contract because of a club switch).

I have a feeling if this came up in a nationals, it might have been a case where both sides would have appealed. At a sectional, we didn't bother.

I cannot see how -420 for the NOS is "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". Nor can I see how -50 for the OS is "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred". So I think this is director error. Hard to tell, though, particularly given I no longer seem able to comprehend the law book when I read it — at least according to some.

I've always felt that if I disagree with a director's ruling, it's worth appealing, unless someone can convince my that my disagreement is wrong. For me, the question of how many match points or master points I will get, or the time it will take, doesn't enter into it. Of course, these days an appeal is difficult even where they're possible, because most of my partners don't give a damn, and we have to both want it (Law 92D1). Interestingly, in a team event I don't need partner's concurrence — though I do need the team captain's (Law 92D2) — and often, that's me!

I admit I'm being slowly worn down, though, into adopting the "who cares" attitude. As Heinlein said "It's amazing how much 'mature wisdom' resembles being too tired".

[ggwhiz]

Given that the E/W likely goes down only 2 (or 1 with inspired play in diamonds) in 5♣ if given a fair shot at competing AND that south may well bid to the 5-level over that -420 for the NOS is particularly harsh.

Failing to come in with the East hand over an announced strong 1nt is hardly a serious error.