Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: How would you rule (was Re: Lead Problem)
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:33:47 GMT
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

I hope I am not spoiling the fun. But I was really interested in the ruling
on this hand. I actually got several responses to the lead problem, and most
responders realized the threat of dummy's hearts, and the need to make an
attacking lead. This excludes the red suits. Since South is marked with the
black aces, a spade lead works when partner has KQ or KT with the Q in dummy.
A club lead works if partner has the Q.  So the meaning of the 3NT call is
crucial.

Let me go over the scenario again, before I show all 4 hands.

The scenario is as follows: An extended match, IMP's opps are vul. Screens
are used with South and West on the same side of the screen. South deals.
NS are playing 5CM and weak (12-14)NT with gedgets.

I should add that the match is one in series of 12 team round robin, in which
the twelve teams compete for the national championship. The tournament is a
perennial event, lasting 4 months, and the bottom 3 teams lose their place
in the event, they compete next year in a lower division, and are replaced
by the top 3 teams of the lower division.  Teams that place (1,2,3) will
represent Israel in various international events.  One of the teams in
question is a place contender, and the other is fighting for his life in
the upper division (also known as the National League). My own team is in
the middle of the pack.  BTW at the end of each match the IMP score is
converted to Victory Points, and these determine the standings.

 The bidding (E-W silent throughout)

 S  1D(0)   1N(1)      2H         3C      4D      6D

 N       1H     2D(2)      2N(3)      3N*      4H     pass

 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.

These were the four hands:

              Qxx,
              AJTxx
Jxx           KTxx             KTxx
xxx           x                xxx
Ax                             xx
KJxxx         Axx              Qxxx
              KQ
              QJxxx
              Axx


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. She also said that
the only reason she bid 4D was her 5th diamond and KQ of hearts. She said
further, that had she known about the singleton club she would have bid
6D immediately.

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)

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.

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.

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.

Things did not end there. The non-offending team appealed to the supreme
court of the Israeli bridge Union, on a procedural question. The court ruled
that the ruling of both committees is null and void. It refered the bridge
question to the National laws committee, which also acts as a final appeals
committee on all bridge matters.  Things are a bit complicated, since two
members of the second committee are also members of the National Laws
Committee. So the court also ruled that these two could not sit on the hearing.
Two other persons will be appointed to replace them, ad hoc...

The round robin is now over, and the result of this hand will determine the
3rd place winner. It will have no effect on the offending team, which lost
his upper division place.

Now, What does the Net think the ruling should be?

Avi
--
Aviel Roy-Shapira, M.D.         Ben-Gurion University Medical School
Dept. of Surgery A.             POB 151, Beer Sheva, Israel
avir@chen.bgu.ac.il             AVIR@BGUVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge