[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-August-25, 06:06, said:

Your opponents have bid and raised the suit naturally (according to the explanation). You expect partner to be void in the suit, not to hold Kx.

The only bid which was explained to be natural was the raise to 4C. 3C was not alerted, but still could be xxx. A short-suit trial bid requires an alert, and a long-suit trial bid does not. I would not expect the raise to show "length" even if it is "natural".3 would not be alert able if it could be a low doubleton.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2015-August-25, 09:27, said:

So, we do not need to determine anything about the lead without MI. The TD has already done that for us.

Nor do we need to determine anything about the number of tricks that would be made on the ♣J lead, then, since the TD has done that for us too.

[PhilKing]

campboy, on 2015-August-25, 11:31, said:

Nor do we need to determine anything about the number of tricks that would be made on the ♣J lead, then, since the TD has done that for us too.

TD's are not that great at this based on the traveller.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2015-August-25, 09:27, said:

This particular South, a County Tollemache player, stated he would have led a club but for the MI. He is the non-offender, so we should believe him.

?!? Non-offenders are always completely objective and never make self-serving statements? We shouldn't believe the non-offender, just because he is a non-offender. We should believe him because his statement makes sense.

In this case, his story about how the MI misled him doesn't make any sense. So, we don't take his word and we think for ourselves.

lamford, on 2015-August-25, 09:27, said:

Dummy did not correct the MI before the opening lead, and he would have known that the explanation was wrong.

That is a second infraction, in my book good for a PP. But an infraction only leads to an AS if there is a causal relation between the infraction and the poor result for the NOS. This causal relation is missing. (In fact, the MI should have led to a better result!) Therefore, there is no justification for an AS.

lamford, on 2015-August-25, 09:27, said:

The TD did not rule that South would not have led the jack of clubs. She ruled, quite wrongly in my view, that the contract would still have made. The TD is responsible for the finding of fact based on the balance of probabilities. She agreed that, without MI, the JC would have been led. So, we do not need to determine anything about the lead without MI. The TD has already done that for us.

And she did that just as wrongly.

If I understand the way this forum works correctly, in these cases the OP (in this case: you) asks us to take the position of the TD and rule on the entire case based on the facts in the OP. In this case, my ruling, and campboy's, is that the MI did not suggest the lead of the ♦7 over the potentially winning club lead. In fact, the MI strongly suggested the potentially winning club lead over the ♦7. Even with the help of the MI, South wasn't able to find the club lead. Without the help of the MI, he would have never found the club lead.

After that simple conclusion, it is irrelevant how many tricks declarer would have made on a club lead, because South would have never led a club. He was not misled in his choice of the lead by the MI.

And now, instead of letting us rule on the entire case, you state that we are only allowed to second guess the TD on the amount of tricks that East was going to take, and that we are not allowed to rule whether South's choice of lead was influenced by the MI... because this TD -who was silly enough to wrongly decide how many tricks East would take- has already decided that the MI influenced the choice of leads ... and now the TD is suddenly perfect.

You get my opinion on the entire case as presented in the OP, not on "what if we ignore one part of the TD decision, but accept the other part without criticism?".

Rik

[blackshoe]

Whoa. Take it easy folks. Yes, the constraints on the ruling are a bit much, and Rik's right that we try to give good rulings here based on the evidence presented, but let's just take it easy. Not saying anyone is over the top yet, just trying to forestall going there.

Maybe Paul has a point he wants to make, I don't know.

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-August-25, 06:06, said:

If I would be in this situation (and I wouldn't since I would have known the meaning of 4♣ before I passed), I would curse myself for not doubling.

And East would have redoubled. After you led the jack of clubs (instead of the automatic ace of hearts to see dummy), declarer would have won and played a heart. As you are not that good at opening leads, you would not save the overtrick and would now either continue with a high club, or try to cash the ace of spades, and concede -1480. When you ask for a ruling, I would rule that your action was SEWoG and you would keep your bad score, but the opponent's result would be corrected to +650. And I would give them a PP.

South should have argued that without the MI he would have led the ace of hearts, as there was a danger of club ruffs in dummy; even this particular TD would, with the aid of Deep Finesse, have concluded that the contract would not then make. With the MI there was no such danger. He should definitely have spoken to SB in the other room first, as SB is a past master at saying the right things to get a ruling in his favour.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2015-August-26, 05:06, said:

And East would have redoubled. After you led the jack of clubs (instead of the automatic ace of hearts to see dummy), declarer would have won and played a heart. As you are not that good at opening leads, you would not save the overtrick and would now either continue with a high club, or try to cash the ace of spades, and concede -1480. When you ask for a ruling, I would rule that your action was SEWoG and you would keep your bad score, but the opponent's result would be corrected to +650. And I would give them a PP.

You are confusing the actual layout with the layout that can be expected given the MI. The MI was: "clubs were bid and raised naturally". Life doesn't come with guarantees, but it is entirely reasonable to expect "bid and raise naturally" to mean that they have 8 clubs. Add the five in my hand and you get to 13, leaving partner with none.

That means that with the MI given, I can reasonably expect partner to ruff clubs at trick 1. I have a spade entry for trick 2 and in trick 3 partner will ruff the second round of clubs and I am still going to make my ace of trumps. In addition, I have good hopes that the ♠K is with opener (who has shown most of the high card points). If that is the case, I will have an extra spade entry (and trick) and can give partner another club ruff. I have good hope that they are down three before they take a single trick and you call it a SEWoG to double?

Furthermore, the "SE" is clearly related to the infraction. If I would have had the correct information and would have known that West could have had a singleton, I certainly wouldn't have doubled. I might still have led a club. (Because I don't expect West to cue a void or singleton in partner's suit, marking him with a club ace or king + the four card suit that I expect with East + the five clubs that I hold myself = 10, leaving 3 other clubs with North, East, and West. Since from the auction, it doesn't seem that we are going to defeat this contract on high cards, it would be reasonable to think that the contract can only be defeated if partner can get a ruff. And the only suit in which he could get that ruff at some point is clubs. So, I might lead clubs since I don't expect the alternatives to beat the contract.)

But with the correct information, I certainly don't expect to beat the contract (as I did with the MI). And I certainly would not have a strong opinion about the correct lead. But I do have strong opinion about the correct lead when you are explained that the opponents most likely have 8 cards in a side suit where you hold 5 cards (+ the trump ace as insurance!) yourself: You give your partner the ruff.

Rik

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-August-26, 18:12, said:

But I do have strong opinion about the correct lead when you are explained that the opponents most likely have 8 cards in a side suit

You were not explained that. No opponent made any statement about the number of cards held in the suit. The only information given was that 4C was "natural", whatever that means, in response to a question.