c_corgi, on 2013-April-03, 10:38, said:
You mean declarer told North that he didn't expect that dummy? That hardly seems damaging. Regarding the signalling issue, that can of worms has been opened elsewhere and with sufficient vitriol to not want to open it here.
There is another issue. South was entitled to the information that either opponent
or both could have four spades. I polled several strong players with this information, and one led a heart, three a diamond and one a club. They were all reluctant to lead from AQxx into the 18-19 hand. On a diamond lead, declarer will play a top spade at some point, and South will give reverse count. The defence is easy from then on.
If a diamond lead is reasonable, then 3NT-1 is the most favourable result that was probable. I think the AC was right to criticise East for failing to inform South that he had been misinformed. I think a PP was appropriate for a player of this level of experience, but the AC decided that not many people would be aware [of 20F(b(ii)]. On reflection, in view of the different screen rules, I agree.
On that note it is unclear to me how, with screens, declarer can know to inform an opponent that he has been misinformed. Perhaps those familiar with screen regulations can clarify this. On this occasion, East should have asked his partner how he explained 3D and 3NT.
This post has been edited by lamford: 2013-April-04, 10:55
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar