[Apollo81]

Scoring: IMP

---

1NT (Dbl)* 2♣ (2♠)
pass (pass) 4NT (all pass)

* intended as DONT, alerted as CAPP, partnership had agreed to play CAPP

W leads ♦J
Result: EW +400

Director called and ruled that West had to lead a spade, result changed to NS +720

EW appeal, arguing that West knew from the 4NT bid that a spade had no chance to defeat 4NT, so had to lead a diamond.

[jdonn]

What did the players say they were thinking and would have done? For example, south might reasonably double 2♠ with one meaning but not the other. North might rebid 3♣ with one meaning but not the other. Etc.

Btw before anyone whines about it, I'm sure this problem was in the ACBL.

[bluejak]

What is DONT? What is CAPP?

[Apollo81]

bluejak, on Jan 11 2010, 11:30 AM, said:

What is DONT? What is CAPP?

DONT: double = 1-suiter
CAPP: double = penalty

[Apollo81]

jdonn, on Jan 11 2010, 11:30 AM, said:

What did the players say they were thinking and would have done?

West said a spade lead had no chance to defeat 4NT because partner is known to have only 4-5 hcp, so a diamond is the only chance.

I don't know what NS or E were thinking. I was not at the table.

[helene_t]

Without UI I would lead a diamond.

Is a spade lead a LA? I dunno.

Is a diamond lead suggested by the UI? Yes I think so. 2♠ opposite a DONT double shows a better suit than opposite a penalty dbl.

[jdonn]

Anyway it seems easy for the director to take a poll and rule on that basis (was a spade lead a logical alternative? since it seems clear a diamond lead is suggested by the UI), in which case I would say whichever side appeals it has no merit (unless N/S appeal on the basis that the bidding would have been different with the correct explanation and gotten them to 4♥.)

[TimG]

jdonn, on Jan 11 2010, 11:45 AM, said:

I would say whichever side appeals it has no merit (unless N/S appeal on the basis that the bidding would have been different with the correct explanation and gotten them to 4♥.)

N/S were given the correct explanation according to partnership agreement. There should be no merit to an appeal which is based on a hope that they will get protection against the misbid.

Isn't it hard to imagine a hand, consistent with north having a slam invite, where a spade lead works better than a diamond lead? If I were on the committee, I would be inclined to roll it back to the table result.

[lamford]

TimG, on Jan 11 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

N/S were given the correct explanation according to partnership agreement.

I don't think they are claiming they are damaged by MI, as there was none. They are claiming that there was UI, because West recalled the methods as a result of the alert.

I agree with the TD; the spade lead is demonstrably suggested by the UI; and it is clearly an LA, as partner bothered to bid the suit at game all.

[iviehoff]

I think we would have got nearer to the answer if we had a poll on the lead first. In the absence of such a poll, I agree with Paul (lamford).

[Gerben42]

I find this one very complicated, as ♦ lead is really obvious, yet there will be some ♠ leaders anyway.

I would reverse director's ruling, as EW have a point in that a ♠ lead would only be correct if:

* Opener has only 13 HCP and 6♣
* Partner has ♠A and ♦Q
* Opener has ♦K

That's a bit of a wishing well.

[TimG]

lamford, on Jan 11 2010, 01:05 PM, said:

TimG, on Jan 11 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

N/S were given the correct explanation according to partnership agreement.

I don't think they are claiming they are damaged by MI, as there was none. They are claiming that there was UI, because West recalled the methods as a result of the alert.

Did you read the quote to which I was responding?

jdonn, on Jan 11 2010, 11:45 AM, said:

I would say whichever side appeals it has no merit (unless N/S appeal on the basis that the bidding would have been different with the correct explanation and gotten them to 4♥.)

[jdonn]

TimG, on Jan 11 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 11 2010, 11:45 AM, said:

I would say whichever side appeals it has no merit (unless N/S appeal on the basis that the bidding would have been different with the correct explanation and gotten them to 4♥.)

N/S were given the correct explanation according to partnership agreement. There should be no merit to an appeal which is based on a hope that they will get protection against the misbid.

You're right, I hadn't noticed that it was stated the explanation matched the actual agreement.

[lamford]

TimG, on Jan 11 2010, 02:26 PM, said:

lamford, on Jan 11 2010, 01:05 PM, said:

TimG, on Jan 11 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

N/S were given the correct explanation according to partnership agreement.

I don't think they are claiming they are damaged by MI, as there was none. They are claiming that there was UI, because West recalled the methods as a result of the alert.

Did you read the quote to which I was responding?

jdonn, on Jan 11 2010, 11:45 AM, said:

I would say whichever side appeals it has no merit (unless N/S appeal on the basis that the bidding would have been different with the correct explanation and gotten them to 4♥.)

I did, and my response is the same; I would adjust because of misuse of UI.

[peachy]

Table result stands. This is a typical case of mayhem caused by misbids due to forgetting system. Unfortunate for NS. NS received correct explanation of agreements. I assume it was established that Capp _was_ the correct agreement and also assume there was no body or other language UI to clue West in that East had misbid so W was free to lead whatever he wanted to.

[bluejak]

The UI was provided by East's explanation.

[peachy]

bluejak, on Jan 11 2010, 05:31 PM, said:

The UI was provided by East's explanation.

Boo. I had West leading out of turn. You are right, there was UI.
As to the lead from East, now I don't know what the UI could suggest. The Kx lead was wild and successful but if one cannot find a connection between the lead and the UI, then one should rule table result stands. The auction IMO suggests a non-spade lead though not strongly - spade could still be right if EW gets to establish them and retain entry before NS have 10 tricks, but it sounds like a distant hope.

[bluejak]

Perhaps it is time you re-read th OP.

South opened 1NT and is declarer. West is on lead: his partner has bid spades. He has the UI that East thought they were playing Capp when he thought they were playing DONT. He led his seven card suit not his partner's bid suit.

The suggestion is that the explanation affects whether he should lead a spade or a diamond.

[lamford]

peachy, on Jan 11 2010, 05:24 PM, said:

I assume it was established that Capp _was_ the correct agreement and also assume there was no body or other language UI to clue West in that East had misbid so W was free to lead whatever he wanted to.

I assumed that as well. East did not misbid; he elected to play in 2S opposite a penalty double of 1NT. And there is no need for any body language for an adjustment. That comes from the UI of the explanation that double was a single-suited hand, and the adjustment is solely because of the selection of the diamond lead instead of the LA of the spade lead.

[lamford]

bluejak, on Jan 11 2010, 06:11 PM, said:

Perhaps it is time you re-read the OP.

Re-read? that is generous; there is no evidence peachy has read it all.