Join Bridge Winners
Common Leb mishap

I should preface my post by saying that, de facto, I have no axe to grind as I accepted the TD’s ruling and did not appeal but I should nonetheless be interested in views on this common Leb mishap: actual (most recent) sequence 

Dealer N, Swiss pairs, white

P-P-1S-1NT

P-2NT*-P-3C

P-3NT**-End

* Alerted (on enquiry, the alert was explained as Lebensohl. FWIW, EW’s CC said “system on” over a 1NT overcall (which implied 2NT was invitational). 

** Quizzical look,shrugs shoulders

E had a 1-4-4-4 8 count and intended 2NT as invitational. 3NT made. The defence was reasonable without being perfect. On perfect defence declarer might or might not make 3NT.  The TD’s attention was drawn and a ruling requested, with which I should say, EW were fine. It was acknowledged that there was UI but the table result stood as W was said to have accepted the invitation. Is this the ruling correct? Did EW simply fall on their feet : there being no law against doing so. 

This was the second time this has happened to me and the outcome was the same on the previous occasion. I am aware, anecdotally, of other instances. 

59 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top