Join Bridge Winners
Evaluate this ruling/appeal

Please evaluate this ruling/appeal from Hand 29 of the NAP 2nd qualifying session:

West
J842
AK2
KQ874
2
North
KQ1076
1087
2
Q1075
East
A9
J4
AJ1093
K863
South
53
Q9653
65
AJ94
W
N
E
S
P
1NT
P
2
P
2
P
2
P
3
P
3NT
P
P
P
D
3NT East
NS: 0 EW: 0

1NT was 13-15. After the 3NT bid North asked what 2 was and what 3 was. East said that 2 shows both majors with stronger spades. West said that 3 was natural.

On opening lead, South (me) also asked about 2 and East said it showed his "strongest" suit. There was a slight language barrier so I re-confirmed the answer to partner's questions that the Stayman-then-2 sequence showed both majors.

I led a diamond figuring that was likely partner's best suit on the bidding and that my heart spots weren't good enough to lead that suit.

When dummy tabled, I called the director and expressed that dummy was nothing at all like what was described prior to my lead. We reviewed with the director the entire discussion. The director then asked to call him back if needed and went away.

The table result was 3NT making 4.

On the run of the diamonds, I pitched 2 hearts and a spade. Partner pitched 2 hearts, a spade and a club. At trick 6, declarer led a low spade from dummy and partner played low (fearing he would be smothering my 9 of spades and sensing declarer would rise A). When the 9 of spades held, declarer cashed her winners and threw south in with a heart which endplayed me into giving her a club trick.

The director wasn't available for a few hands, but eventually questioned EW in more detail. The director reported to us the 2 bid should have been alerted. EW have an agreement that they bid 2NT with no 4-card major, so 2 showed diamonds. The director tried to persuade my partner and me that 2 does kind of show W's strongest suit. I maintained that diamonds is clearly W's strongest suit.

The director seemed to have a slight language problem with EW, as well, and was never able to discern whether the 2 bid promised both majors (as reported by EW prior to my lead) or whether 2 was a simple Stayman-like way of showing a random 4-card major over E's 2 bid.

The ruling was that the table result stood. The appeal confirmed this ruling. The reasoning given us is that it would be hard to defeat 3NT anyway and that south might very well lead a heart giving declarer his 9th trick. Our counterargument, of course, is that a spade lead would clarify that suit for partner and - even if it didn't set the contract - would certainly eliminate the overtrick. I personally believe it likely I would have found the spade lead given complete information, and partner similarly (but less likely) might have found a lead-directing double.

The directors emphasized my partner's duck of the spade as evidence of bad bridge. It turns out my partner is as good a defender or declarer in the field.

The motivation for me posting this poll/article is that I very rarely ask for rulings of this type precisely because in my experience the directors SEEM to be under guidance NOT to change a score if at all possible, at least for "flight B" events (in a NAP qualifier, lho doubled my weak 2 bid very emphatically, and rho passed it out despite the fact that the doubler had a penalty double and rho had short hearts and 4 spades, and the ACBL director allowed this to stand).

Ruling is completely normal: move along
Ruling is a tough choice between 3NT making 3 and 3NT making 4
The ruling should be rolled back: it's a coin toss whether it should be 3NT making or 3NT down 1.
The ruling should be 3NT down 1: the most favorable result likely achievable by the non-offending side.

Sorry, to answer polls. Registered users can vote in polls, and can also browse other users' public votes! and participate in the discussion.

Getting results...
loading...
71 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top