[shevek]

Scoring: MP

1♣ - (1♠) - 2♦ - (no)
3♣ - (no) - 3♥! - (no)
3NT

---

No alerts. West led a spade.
NS mysteriously play 3♥ as a stopper ask in hearts. It's a free world. (Friday World Wide Pairs Bd 11)
Declarer won somewhere and decided to go for clubs. West won the second club and played a spade for -490. Perhaps dreaming partner had ♦K.
Neither pair is very good. Club pips wouldn't mean much to EW.

East called the director. NS agreed that 3♥ should have been alerted. East said he might have doubled 3♥ if alerted. Maybe he has a point.

Do you adjust? Too what?

[Oof Arted]

Have E/W been Damage by the Failure to Alert If so Adjust

Or have E/W Damaged themselves NO Adjustment

As for East AFTER the event saying had s/he known they would have doubled the 3!h bid, looking at the hand NO s/he would never have double 3♥ especially sat under the possible Hearts

Result Stands

[Free]

When dummy came down EW did their best not to take their 5 tricks. Result stands, warning for NS.

[helene_t]

Yes, the lead doesn't matter, W can just shift to a heart when he gets in with ♣A.

[david_c]

I think it is clear to adjust the score. Not because of East's claim that he might double 3♥ - I don't believe that at all. But what about West's defence? If he'd been told that declarer had asked for a heart stop, and then dummy appeared with ♥xx, might he not switch to a heart at trick three? The misinformation made it much harder to find the heart switch. Adjust to 3NT-1, or consider a weighted score if you are allowed to do that.

[helene_t]

David, it was 3♥ that asked for a heart stopper, it was dummy who bid that.

I dunno whether it was explained that 3♥ asked for a heart stopper before West came in with ♣A. If not, it is even clearer for W to shift to a heart as he won't expect S to have anything in hearts.

[david_c]

helene_t, on Jun 7 2009, 11:20 AM, said:

David, it was 3♥ that asked for a heart stopper, it was dummy who bid that.

Oh.

In that case ...

What about West's opening lead? OK we can ignore East saying he might have doubled 3♥, as that doesn't seem very plausible, but maybe West might find a heart lead anyway? Unless I'm misreading the auction again , it seems to me that the MI could have put West off leading a heart. Maybe he wouldn't always lead a heart, but if there is some chance, and the MI made it less attractive, then he still deserves an adjustment.

This post has been edited by david_c: 2009-June-07, 04:38

[hotShot]

1) Was there misinformation? Yes!
A failure to alert is misinformation too.

2) Were EW damaged? Yes!
Beginner usually lead 4th of the unbid major, if North has a natural 3♥ bid,
there is no unbid major.

3) Was the misinformation cause of the damage? Yes
At this point a score adjustment for N/S is mandatory!
The playing strength of E/W is such that I might consider a weighted score between 3NT-1, 3NT= and 3NT+1.

4) Did E/W contribute to their bad score by failing to play the best bridge they can?

South has 7 ♦ top tricks and 2 in ♠. So a ♦ or ♠ lead will allow 3NT to make. A ♣ lead will give away an overtrick. Only leading a low ♥, capturing the ♥Q will allow EW to take 5 tricks.

Look at the playing level of the pairs, South gets a "lucky lead" and instead of bringing the contract home, he gives it away again by playing ♣. At this level EW performance is to be considered incapable, but not irrational, wild or gambling. So they did not lose their right to a score adjustment.

What would happen if North's 3♥ bid is alerted as "asking for stopper"?

- East has a lead directing double (which I doubt with 4 HCP)
- leading ♥ gets more attractive to West

The old rules would give the damaged side the best probable score, the new rules allow weighted scores. Again we have to consider a weighted score between 3NT-1, 3NT= and 3NT+1.

[ArtK78]

I don't see any grounds for adjustment.

If EW thought that North was showing a stopper with his 3♥ bid, and the dummy came down with xx of hearts, how can West not play a heart on winning the ♣A?

Yes, the 3♥ bid should be alerted. Even if 3♥ was alerted, it is unlikely that West would have lead a heart. So that is not the cause of the damage. The failure to play a heart on winning the ♣A is the sole cause of the damage.

[Free]

hotShot, on Jun 7 2009, 11:38 AM, said:

3) Was the misinformation cause of the damage? Yes

I disagree! The damage was caused at least 95% by the poor defense, not by the misinformation.

When dummy comes down, everyone knows about the misinformation. After ♣A and at least 2 signals from his partner, where it's clear that ♥ is the critical suit, West should be able to figure out he has to switch to ♥.

[blackshoe]

If West might have led hearts to begin, why didn't he tell the director that?

If EW make a serious error in the defense (and not leading hearts at some point is a serious error, even for beginners, imo) then they don't get compensated for the damage caused by their own error. Which is all of it in this case. Put me in the "no adjustment" camp.

[hanp]

ArtK78, on Jun 7 2009, 06:11 AM, said:

If EW thought that North was showing a stopper with his 3♥ bid, and the dummy came down with xx of hearts, how can West not play a heart on winning the ♣A?

Agree.

[jdonn]

Wow EW get an adjustment for SURE! A lot of good double dummy defenders we are, but how many of us are just going to lead a heart into perhaps the king of declarer at mps?? If declarer was off the king of diamonds it might even give him his ninth trick. I don't understand where everyone is coming from on this, aren't you able to put yourselves into the seat of the player rather than just defending double dummy? Not switching to a heart is certainly not a serious error, and perhaps not an error at all.

Btw it's also entirely believable that east would have doubled 3♥ (not saying I would have) since both opponents have essentially denied four hearts by that point. There is a danger a heart lead isn't best, but there is certainly no danger the opponents will play it there.

[david_c]

blackshoe, on Jun 7 2009, 02:26 PM, said:

If EW make a serious error in the defense (and not leading hearts at some point is a serious error, even for beginners, imo) then they don't get compensated for the damage caused by their own error. Which is all of it in this case. Put me in the "no adjustment" camp.

I don't agree that it was a serious error. But even if it was, you'd still have to adjust the score for the offending side, would you not?

[mink]

shevek, on Jun 7 2009, 07:48 AM, said:

Scoring: MP

1♣ - (1♠) - 2♦ - (no)
3♣ - (no) - 3♥! - (no)
3NT

---

No alerts. West led a spade.
NS mysteriously play 3♥ as a stopper ask in hearts. It's a free world. (Friday World Wide Pairs Bd 11)
Declarer won somewhere and decided to go for clubs. West won the second club and played a spade for -490. Perhaps dreaming partner had ♦K.
Neither pair is very good. Club pips wouldn't mean much to EW.

East called the director. NS agreed that 3♥ should have been alerted. East said he might have doubled 3♥ if alerted. Maybe he has a point.

Do you adjust? Too what?

Looks there is one issue that was overlooked by all:

Opps bid 3nt. So they should have at least 25 points. I (West) have 12 points. So there are only 3 points left for my partner. Which 3 points? Suppose he has ♥K. Then declarer has ♦K. In this case, declarer would not risk to play the clubs, but simply cash his 9 tricks. So declarer must have the ♥K, and partner maybe has the ♦K. Therefore it is a good idea to continue ♠, hoping the ♣ suit is not sufficient for declarer to get his 9 tricks.

Looking at it in this way, the ♠ play by West in trick 4 is totally sane, and his only chance to set the contract is by a ♥ lead. The bidding without any alert suggested that North has an ♥ stopper. This should be quite a good stopper, as North knows that he should be able to deal with a lead through his stopper. If South has the stopper, it can be lighter, and so it is more likely that West will lead ♥ if he knows correctly who has the stopper. Furthermore, the fact that North asks for a ♥ stopper makes it more likely that he has a ♠ stopper, because with no major stopper at all he probably might have passed or bid 4 of a minor. This consideration makes a ♠ lead less attractive, given that 3♥ was alerted. After winning the lead with ♥K, East will see the dummy and no doubt continue with ♥, which makes it easy for West to collect 5 tricks.

So the score to assign is 100% 3nt-1.

This ruling does not take into account that East maybe would have doubled the 3 ♥ bid if it was alerted. I see no reason not to believe East. To double can only be harmful for E/W if opps chose to play 3!H doubled and make. But this is close to impossible, because the bidding suggests that South has less than 4 ♥ cards and North cannot have much, too, if he asks for a stopper. But if you assume the double, the result would be the same, so the question if there might be a double is simply irrelevant.

[blackshoe]

david_c, on Jun 7 2009, 01:24 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jun 7 2009, 02:26 PM, said:

If EW make a serious error in the defense (and not leading hearts at some point is a serious error, even for beginners, imo) then they don't get compensated for the damage caused by their own error. Which is all of it in this case. Put me in the "no adjustment" camp.

I don't agree that it was a serious error. But even if it was, you'd still have to adjust the score for the offending side, would you not?

Well, maybe it's not. And you're right, the OS should get an adjustment regardless.

[skjaeran]

EW might easily have been damaged here, both in the bidding and the defence. An adjustment is clear. Might not be clear that they should have a full compensation at MP (at IMPs it's obvious to switch to a low heart), but most probably I'd award them one down.

Whatever I did for EW, I'd adjust the score to 3NT-1 for NS.

[jdonn]

skaeran, on Jun 8 2009, 01:25 PM, said:

(at IMPs it's obvious to switch to a low heart)

You are definitely good enough to tell me if I'm missing something, but why couldn't declarer be Axx Kxx x KQTxxx? In fact, that hand is about a million times more likely than the actual hand in which he had 9 top tricks, no?

[blackshoe]

skaeran, on Jun 8 2009, 01:25 PM, said:

EW might easily have been damaged here, both in the bidding and the defence. An adjustment is clear.

Conclusion does not follow from premise. It's not enough that they might have been damaged, they must actually have been damaged. Other than that, we seem pretty much in agreement

[shevek]

ArtK78, on Jun 7 2009, 06:11 AM, said:

I don't see any grounds for adjustment.

If EW thought that North was showing a stopper with his 3♥ bid, and the dummy came down with xx of hearts, how can West not play a heart on winning the ♣A?

Yes, the 3♥ bid should be alerted.  Even if 3♥ was alerted, it is unlikely that West would have lead a heart.  So that is not the cause of the damage.  The failure to play a heart on winning the ♣A is the sole cause of the damage.

N/S agreed that they used 3♥ here to ASK for a stopper as stated, so the sight of a small doubleton in dummy is meaningless.

It is by no means clear for West to switch to a heart but that is not the issue. West made a normal lead, then saw dummy track. He had the chance to reassess but didn't.
He now knew that South had a heart stopper but he'd have known this and no more if there had been an alert. West has not been damaged.

East said he would have doubled 3♥, though that's "self-serving" to use some silly jargon. I think double with East's cards has some merit, the low point count not withstanding.