[blml] 3NT or 4S

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows
> 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.
> 
> In reality the auction had gone:
> 
> West North East South
>                  1S    Pass
> 2D     Pass 3NT  Pass
> ---      Pass
> 
> on one side of the screen and
> 
> West North East South
>                  1S    Pass
> 2D     Pass 3NT  Pass
> 4S     Pass ---     Pass
> 
> on the other side of the screen.
> 
> How would you rule?
> 
> 3NT had made an overtrick with one defender defending that contract
> and the other defending 4S.
> 
> 4S would most likely have failed especially after the underlead of the
> diamond - the underleader did think she was defending 4S.

The entire story is unbelievable, and I do not understand how it could have
happened with the screens I am used to.

So before making any ruling I would investigate further if there could be
any deficiency in the equipment used, possibly resulting in a ruling where
both sides are considered not at fault.

It is clear to me that ruling a contract of 3NT is out of question (except
that for a ruling with neither side at fault it could form the base for a
split score ruling). Most likely I would end up with a ruling for equity
based on the contract of 4S.

Regards Sven