[blml] 3NT or 4S

[David Grabiner]

"Wayne Burrows" <wjburrows at gmail.com> writes:

> Screens in use.
>
> Uncontested auction.
>
> West North East South
>                 1S    Pass
> 2D     Pass 3NT  Pass
> 4S     All Pass
>
> This was how the auction was intended but things did not quite happen this 
> way.
>
> As the tray was being passed through the screen after the 4S bid the
> 4S card fell off the tray.  South who was responsible for moving the
> tray replaced the 4S card on the tray.  However somehow the 4S card
> still did not make it to the other side of the screen.
>
> Neither North nor East noticed that West had not passed (nor bid 4S or
> any other bid).  North passed thinking he was passing out 3NT.
>
> The tray was passed through to the other side of the screen where now
> neither South nor West noticed that East had not passed or bid.  South
> passed thinking she was passing out 4S.
>
> I suspect that the 4S card had been caught in the screen and was
> somehow picked up by the tray as it returned.
>
> South now brilliantly underled her diamond ace against 4S and partner
> won the singleton queen.  The play continues until about trick 8 or 9
> when declarer claimed pitching his spades on his established winners.
> This was a novel idea for South who believed that spades were trumps.

The contract should have been 4S, since that call was made.  North and East
are both at fault for being misinformed as to the contract because they accepted
a bidding tray with a bid missing.

Unfortunately, since East played in 3NT, what happened was not bridge, so all
I can to is to restore equity from the point at which bridge stopped being 
played,
treating both sides as offending if necessary.

The only other option is to treat the contract as being 4S all the way, awarding
tricks according to the actual play (if someone discarded a spade, it becomes a
ruff followed by an accepted lead out of turn), and let East's claim break down
at the point at which someone ruffs and East must thus realize the correct 
contract.
I would prefer to restore equity.

> 4S would most likely have failed especially after the underlead of the
> diamond - the underleader did think she was defending 4S.

South was properly informed, so she is entitled to the likely result after the 
lead
she actually chose to make.  I rule 4S down 1.  I could rule 4S making for N-S
and 4S down 1 for E-W if I am not sure whether 4S would go down.