Join Bridge Winners
Assessing damage after a lead impropriety

D22 NAP B Pairs, first session, board 22:

West
1064
9753
A87
KJ6
North
A952
K864
632
53
East
QJ8
AJ10
Q10954
92
South
K73
Q2
KJ
AQ10874
W
N
E
S
P
1
P
1
P
1NT
P
P
P
D
1NT South
NS: 0 EW: 0

1 alerted and explained (14-16 bal, or 1-or-both-minors). 1NT shows balanced variant.

Before passing, E asked a number of questions about the heart suit (was it natural? what range? does it show hearts?). W then led the 7 (EW playing standard leads, i.e. 4th best according to enquiry). Director called at this point.

Continue play, call me back if there's a problem. I made 6 tricks (the only realistic course after a diamond through from E).

Director's ruling at the end of the hand: we're not going to do anything about this. Looking at the hand in more detail over the lunch break,I thought the ruling was overly simplistic. On a spade lead, for example, there are some additional chances. On the actual lead (note: 2nd from4 bad, not the stated 4th best), 6 tricks was probably an average result.

I protested the ruling after the break. The director's stance was essentially that I was not making 1NT regardless of what happened. To backup this position, a local expert was consulted. Still fuzzy.

I set up the hand as a BW lead problem, including the table talk: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/lead-problem-784 . This showed that 4%of responders would lead a .

The process seems odd to me. There was a clear infraction. It is difficult to tell what would have happened on a different lead. I don't think that adouble dummy analysis by a much better player than me is a flasless indicator of what is going to happen in a <2500 field.

I am not sure what question to ask, so this is not another poll. Would be interested in whether an adjusment seems reasonable, or whether EWshould just have been some directoral attention. 

52 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top