Jason (E) was informed by N, his screen partner, that 2S set diamonds. I wasn't given this alert by S, who thought that this agreement was off over Jason's double (God knows why this would be a superior treatment, most likely he just intended it to show a spade stopper for NT). Either way Jason probably knows that declarer is short in hearts, but how short? I could lead the 4 from either Jx4 or Jxx4, so ducking retains communication if I have, say, Kx of clubs. After the duck it was game over, pending the ruling. We will appeal if the table result stands.
How would you rule? I obviously haven't covered all possible inferences Jason made, etc.
THIS JUST IN: Directors ruled in our favor. Pending an appeal by the Japanese we won 17-13, are still undefeated and--at the moment-- are 18VPs clear of the field.
Another interesting point about this round is that I was querried for an appeal committee for the first time in my life, which was fun :-)
Hi Kevin,
ReplyDeleteI think your opponents look very suspect. If 2S showed diamonds, how can north pass and then raise 2NT to 3NT? That makes no sense at all. Probably the proper thing for north (who apparently suspected that south did not have clubs and diamonds, given his or her bidding) would be to explain that without the double 2S would show diamonds, but that they had not discussed this situation. With such an explanation you would have had no case.
As it is I am not sure the incorrect explanation made it harder for Jason to work out the correct defense. With or without the correct explanation I think he has an interesting defensive problem (I think I would win and switch to a spade at trick 2) but to be honest I think ducking at trick 1 isn't the right play.
Thanks for keeping us posted, and keep up the good work!
HAn