[nige1]

Appeal from the Scottish National League.
Teams. IMPs converted to VPs. NS vul, dealer South.
South declared 4♥ after a simple Stayman sequence and West led ♦9.
South who has bad eye-sight, asked about the lead. East told South that from small cards, they lead the highest they can afford but mistakenly said that the nine denied the ten.
The play: The ♦9 was covered by the ♦Q, ♦K and ♦A. South ran ♥J to East's ♥Q
Table result: 4♥-2.
South called the director to ask for a ruling.
South said that since he held ♦8, he hoped to avoid a ♦ loser by covering the ♦9 opening lead with dummy's ♦Q. The contract depends on which way declarer takes the trump finesse. In view of the lead, South thought West was more likely to hold short diamonds so he finessed him for ♥Q. South claimed that with correct information, he would be more likely to finesse East rather than West for ♥Q and so make 4♥ (with an overtrick, had he played low from dummy at trick one).
East admitted he misexplained but said there was no indication whether the diamonds with West were short or long, so South was wrong to infer that West held short diamonds. EW believed that, with a correct explanation, South would still be likely to go down.
Director ruling: Perhaps South was slightly misled. Score adjusted to 4♥-1. NS appealed.
The committee listened to the above arguments from both sides and examined the EW system-card.
The EW system-card stated that from small cards they lead the "highest affordable". Specifically, the 9 from "9(x), 98x(x) or T9x(x)".
Committee decision: a weighted ruling: 10% of 4♥= and 90% of 4♥-1. Comments?

---

[paulg]

Clearly there has been misinformation but it is very difficult to assess the result if the declarer were given the correct information.

First I would quiz EW and ask if they would really lead the 9 from 97xx - "highest affordable" could easily be the seven and this is supported by their system card showing that they lead the 9 from 98x and not from 9xx. As they are using WBF cards I regard this as significant, so my starting position would be that they might well lead the 7 from 97xx or 97x.

Interestingly it would be their interests to accept this as it would mean declarer has to decide whether West has led from 9x or 109x(+) and I'd be inclined to leave the table result unchanged.

However if they can convince me that they would (perhaps they say that they only lead second highest when the 10 is involved), then declarer has to decide whether West has led from 9x, 9xx, 9xxx or 109x(+). Now declarer may feel that there is less to gain by playing the queen and probably make the contract. In such circumstances I believe that I would give declarer the contract 75% of the time and score accordingly.

I expect I may also give EW a PP for an improperly completed system card.

In terms of the committee's ruling, I dislike a 90-10 split - anything less than 80-20 does not seem worthwhile.

[ggwhiz]

I'm on declarers side. The explanation would indicate that the ten would be led and there is no reason to cover with the queen and no reason to play the king instead of low.

That makes the case for picking up the trump queen for me on top of the fact that I favor the non-offending side. 4♥ making.

[PhilKing]

Joke ruling.

Declarer had no chance to get it right given the explanation. If 9 is top of nothing or T9, I think it's normal to assume T9 is more likely, since 9xx(x) is not that attractive, so declarer would generally not cover. Then it is normal to get trumps right.

[jallerton]

paulg, on 2013-November-18, 09:13, said:

I expect I may also give EW a PP for an improperly completed system card.

Is it common to give out PPs for this sort of thing in Scotland?

[paulg]

jallerton, on 2013-November-20, 16:41, said:

Is it common to give out PPs for this sort of thing in Scotland?

It is anything but common, not least because the directing policy is to allow people to enjoy the game rather than enforce Laws or give penalties. However if an improperly completed card is responsible for damage then I think it is appropriate during an event that is the trial for the European championships.

[blackshoe]

paulg, on 2013-November-21, 02:25, said:

…the directing policy is to allow people to enjoy the game rather than enforce Laws or give penalties.

I don't think I would enjoy playing a game where I cannot know what the rules are, or where there are in effect no rules.

[paulg]

blackshoe, on 2013-November-21, 08:13, said:

paulg, on 2013-November-21, 02:25, said:

... the directing policy is to allow people to enjoy the game rather than enforce Laws or give penalties.

I don't think I would enjoy playing a game where I cannot know what the rules are, or where there are in effect no rules.

You are not the only one.

To be fair to the directing staff, the vast majority of tournaments in the country are run for social tournament players and, aside from trials events, there is only one serious weekend tournament in the calendar. This lack of serious competition makes it very difficult for directors to gain experience of the issues that stronger players generate and care about.

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2013-November-18, 16:15, said:

Joke ruling.

Declarer had no chance to get it right given the explanation. If 9 is top of nothing or T9, I think it's normal to assume T9 is more likely, since 9xx(x) is not that attractive, so declarer would generally not cover. Then it is normal to get trumps right.

Indeed, and the presence of both the ten and nine makes diamond length more likely, as West is 2-0 ahead in "collecting diamonds" from the dealer, and I would give 100% of 4H= here, plus a DP for the director of demotion to the Highland League for one season.