[blml] L20F1

[David Barton]

>> On Behalf Of David Barton
>>
>>                       AQ954
>>                       Q
>>                       52
>>                       AQ762
>>
>> 10                                    J7
>> 109762                            A853
>> 9864                                A1073
>> 983                                  J105
>>
>>                        K8632
>>                        KJ4
>>                        KQJ
>>                        K4
>>
>> W     N      E        S
>>                             1S
>> P      4D     P        4H
>> P      4N     P       5D
>> P      6S     all pass
>>
>> opening lead C8 result N-S +1430
>>
>> Before the opening lead W asked about the auction and
>> was informed by N ONLY that
>> 4D showed a raise to at least 4S with good  trumps
>> 4H showed a H control
>> 4N also showed a H control
>> 5D showed a D control
>>
>> It subsequently emerged that S thought 4N was RKCB
>> and that 5D showed 1 or 4 key cards.
>>
>> If we accept that N's explanations were correct and that
>> once reminded S said nothing because correct explanations
>> had been given, is there any grounds for a score adjustment.
>>
>> If the explanations had been given in accordance with the
>> "...normally be given by the partner.." requirement of L20F1,
>> then Souths misunderstanding would have emerged, and a
>> red suit lead MAY have been selected.
>>
>> What are your views?


Sven
> Major issue: At the (preliminary) end of the auction before the opening 
> lead
> is made (even face down) both presumed declarer and dummy has the duty to
> "alert" defenders of any explanation they believe is wrong.
>
> (Note that this duty applies only to presumed declarer and dummy, their
> opponents must wait until end of play before giving such corrections).
>
> So in this case if South realizes that 4N indeed showed heart control he
> acted correctly, but if he still believes that their agreement is that 4N 
> is
> RKCB he has given defenders misinformation by keeping his mum shut.
>
> So the question TD must consider is whether this misinformation could have
> caused West to stay away from a lead in a red suit. Depending on his
> judgement of this question he will either adjust or let the table result
> stand.
>
> Regards Sven
>

There was no question of misinformation. However it was entirely possible
that North realised that South was uncertain about the system agreements,
and assumed responsibilty for giving the explanations to prevent the 
misunderstanding
emerging (at least until the hand was over). In other words North could have
known that his failure to abide by the "normally given by partner" provision
of L20F1 could work to his advantage.

*****************************************
  david.j.barton at lineone.net
*****************************************



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.431 / Virus Database: 268.14.11/543 - Release Date: 20/11/2006 21:20