From: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal)
Subject: Re: How would you rule (was Re: Lead Problem)
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:03:00 GMT

Avi Roy Shapira posted this hand, from the national championships in Israel.

+>              Qxx,                       North   South 
+>              AJTxx                              1 D (0)
+>Jxx           KTxx             KTxx      1 H     1 NT(1)
+>xxx           x                xxx       2 D (2) 2 H (3)
+>Ax                             xx        2 NT(3) 3 C
+>KJxxx         Axx              Qxxx      3 NT *  4 D
+>              KQ                         4 H     6 D
+>              QJxxx                      Pass
+>              Axx

+> 0) better minor
+> 1) 15-17
+> 2) transfer
+> 3) shows 5H & 4D and requests opener to bid 3C, after which N should show
+>    a feature, usually a singleton

+>The irregularity occured on the 3NT call.  On SW side of the screen, 3Nt was
+>not alerted. The bid was described as natural in reply to West's Querry.

+>On the NE side of the screen, 3NT WAS alerted, and explained as showing
+>a singleton club. North added that this was the first time the bid occured
+>since they started playing the system, and that he were not sure South would
+>remember.

+>West, Yeshaihu Levitt, a well known expert, led a club. When the smoke cleared
+>East asked his partner why he led a club knowing North had a singleton, and
+>It transpired that he thought N was 2542. Had he known about the singleton,
+>he would have surely led a spade, since that was the only chance to defeat
+>the contract.  West now called the tournament director, claiming that 3NT was
+>conventional and was not alerted.

+>South claimed that she thought 3NT showed 2542, and that it was therefore
+>natural, given the previous information (previous bids was all properly
+>alerted and explained) and therefore did not alert it.

So, either 3NT is conventional and should be alerted OR north forgot his
system. As a director, I don't care: I assume a incorrect explanation and
let the committee solve the problems.  

+>At the other table, NS played in 5D making 6.
+>The tournament director, who happened to be the national captain, ruled that
+>given the alert West had 90% chance of leading a spade, and adjusted the score
+>to 10 imps to the non-offending side. (90%*12 - 10%*12)

Why did he do that? The 1987 rules don't allow the director to make such
a ruling. 

+>Both sides protested. One of the three available committee members happened
+>to have kibitzed the hand, and voiced his opinion immediately. Nevertheless,
+>he sat on the committee, that further adjusted the score to 6 imps only.

I don't think that this person should sit on the committee. A committee 
should unbiased (=not have an opinion about the appeal before the hearing),
this person is clearly not unbiased. A kibitzer might be a witness though but
witnessses are not needed here as EW and NS agree on what happened during
the bidding. 

+>The other side appealed again, on the ground that one of the committee
+>members, voiced an opinion before the hearing. The tournament director,
+>acting as National Captain, agreed that the committee selection was wrong.
+>He therefore convened a second committee a couple of weeks later.

This seems a sensible thing to do.

+>To the second committee, NS brought a Bridge World article which described
+>their system. It was clear from the article that 3D is the bid used to show
+>a singleton club, and that 3NT indeed showed two doubletons. Therefore,
+>NS claimed, South gave the right explanation, and North the wrong one. But as
+>West was on lead, he was not damaged by the failure to alert.

+>The second committee ruled that West was not damaged by the failure to alert,
+>and allowed the score to stand. (ie 6D made)
+>The committee gave a procedural penalty of 1 victory point to the NS team
+>for failing to alert 3NT.

The question now is: do you believe that NS play the convention described
in the BW article? 

If you do then 3NT is natural, does not have to be alerted and there is
no damage to EW. The result should stand. BUT why does the committee give  
a penalty to NS? For not alerting a bid that does not have to be alerted?

If you don't then 3NT is conventional and a case can be made for either
a club or spade lead by west. The choice is clearly affected by north's
distribution (3541 or 2542) and the score should be adjusted. Again
you don't have to give NS a procedural penalty, adjusting the score is
already a penalty. 

Now, do I believe NS? I wouldn't because the sequence does not make sense to
me: First North asks partner to bid 3C so that he can show a feature and then
his next bid denies a feature. But then there is no reason to bid 2NT in
the first place. You would just bid 3NT and let partner make the final
decision. No, my guess is that NS saw the idea of 1D-1H-1NT-2D-2H-2NT in the
BW and decided to use it in a slightly different way. I would change the score
into 6D, down one.

Nobody forces you to play a complicated system but if you do, you should
know your system. 


Henk.

ps. This ruling obviously assumes that 1D..2H-3NT by NS would be natural.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                                      Email: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov 
SSC-labs, MS 2005.                                          46082::henk
Building 4, room F-428
2550 Beckleymeade Av.                                Phone: 1-214-708-6192
Dallas, TX 75237                                     Home:  1-214-283-6687
------------------------------------------------------------------------------