[Gerben42]

Quote

He is. What he is not permitted is a ruling based on the correct meaning of 4♦ and the information that the other player has got it wrong. Adjustments are based on the presumption that the infraction had not occurred. So the adjustment is as though East had told North that it was 'last train'.

Okay, but that seems to make this case really complicated now, and it doesn't seem that the director tried to answer the right question.

[greenender]

Surely the poll that the director should take is as follows:

1. What would you lead if 4♦ is explained as ♦ shortness?

2. What would you lead if 4♦ is explained as last train? (and it might be necessary to explain the inferences from last train as intended by W).

The answers to the first question define your peer group. The answers to the second tell you whether the peer group views lead you to conclude that N was damaged by the MI.

Of course you have a difficulty if you cannot find a peer group, because nobody leads a diamond on the information N actually had, but a TD's life is not always easy.

My feeling is that the correct ruling would be no damage, on the basis that the peer group is likely to demonstrate that a ♦ lead is more rather than less likely with the right information.

I also feel that N's claim of damage may be influenced by the notion that he is entitled to know that E/W are on different wavelengths, which as has already been noted, is not correct.

[gambit]

The questions are - was there misinformation, and if so, were the opponents damaged? It seems to me to be a case of sour grapes, not everyone bids these slams and when they do, sometimes the wrong lead is made. Making an unfortunate (if logical) lead is not negated unless the opponents were given MI which caused them to go astray. Looks to me like they want a get out of jail free card. No adjustment.

[Cascade]

gambit, on Jul 19 2009, 12:29 PM, said:

The questions are - was there misinformation, and if so, were the opponents damaged? It seems to me to be a case of sour grapes, not everyone bids these slams and when they do, sometimes the wrong lead is made. Making an unfortunate (if logical) lead is not negated unless the opponents were given MI which caused them to go astray. Looks to me like they want a get out of jail free card. No adjustment.

To me the reasoning should be more like:

1. They were given MI

2. They might have led something different given the correct information

3. Leading the ♦K was not an egregious error

4. They deserve some sort of adjustment

Under these sort of conditions I would much rather err in favour of the non-offending side than err in favour of the offenders. Therefore any benefit of doubt should go with the non-offenders.

[FrancesHinden]

Cascade, on Jul 19 2009, 01:44 AM, said:

gambit, on Jul 19 2009, 12:29 PM, said:

The questions are - was there misinformation, and if so, were the opponents damaged? It seems to me to be a case of sour grapes, not everyone bids these slams and when they do, sometimes the wrong lead is made. Making an unfortunate (if logical) lead is not negated unless the opponents were given MI which caused them to go astray. Looks to me like they want a get out of jail free card. No adjustment.

To me the reasoning should be more like:

1. They were given MI

2. They might have led something different given the correct information

3. Leading the ♦K was not an egregious error

4. They deserve some sort of adjustment

Under these sort of conditions I would much rather err in favour of the non-offending side than err in favour of the offenders. Therefore any benefit of doubt should go with the non-offenders.

1. First of all, you have to decide what the MI actually was, which we aren't told.
It's not at all obvious that the TD has decided that the correct explanation was "last train". From the description, it seems that the correct explanation was "it's either last train or shortage, we have two conflicting agreements and it's not clear which applies here"

2. Be careful how you put this. You only think of adjusting, not only if they 'might have led something different given the correct information' but if the different lead would be a consequence of being given the correct information. The player concerned needs to explain why he was damaged i.e. why a spade lead is more likely to be correct without the MI.

I agree with greenender about the type of questions the TD needs to ask (although as above, not the exact question).

3. Even if leading the DK is a serious error unrelated to the infraction, if you think an adjustment was right you still adjust against the offending side.

4. As others have pointed out, North seems to want to choose his lead in the knoweldge that EW have had a misunderstanding. All he is entitled to know is their agreements... admittedly if there agreement is "there are two possible interpretations" that does make it more likely that two tricks are cashing, but it becomes less likely that they are spades rather than diamonds.

My inclination is not to adjust. But I want to ask North why he is more likely to lead a spade with the correct information. He might have a good answer, that on my quick read of the problem I haven't thought of. If he has no good answer, no adjustment.

[cherdanno]

A frequent forum poster gave me more sympathy towards an adjustment in about 3 lines of chat than the 10 or so posts by the poster in this thread arguing in favor of N/S.
If 4♦ was last train, declarer denied a spade control, and East didn't stress having one, so there is a good case to be made for trying to lead dummy's ♠Kx(x). If 4♦ showed shortness, then declarer implied a spade control by his bidding, and opening leader might prefer the safe diamond lead.
I don't really agree with these conclusions, but if this is the case North had made to the TD, would you rule in favor of him?