[blml] 3NT or 4S

[Herman De Wael]

David Grabiner wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
> 
> 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.
> 

South and West are also at fault for not noticing the missing bid.

> Unfortunately, since East played in 3NT, what happened was not bridge, 

Sadly, that is not true. There is no rule that says that you have to 
be playing bridge. If one player thinks he is playing in a different 
strain than the real one, then his "ruffs" are simply counted as 
"discards" (and possibly vice-versa). The contract is 4S, and all 
tricks need to be given their rightful owner according to that 
contract. Any leads out of turn have been accepted.

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.
> 

There is no equity for silly plays. When my partner ruffs my ace, I 
would also like to be restored, but sadly there is nothing I can do 
about it.

>> 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.
> 

4S has been played - we know how many tricks there were - no need to 
rule anything.

> 
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> 
> 


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be