Help
SB also played in the Tuesday Pairs for the G C H Fox trophy at Brighton, and was hoisted on his own petard on this deal on which he added a fourth as the auction had seemingly improved his hand. He was still chuntering on about his misfortune two or three days later and was correctly given the Order of the Brown Nose by gordontd.
West got off to the unfortunate lead of the king of hearts, East playing the eight, normal count, and SB won and played the two of diamonds. West played the ten, but East overtook with the queen and switched to the two of spades. SB put in the ten, West played low and declarer played low from dummy. Now SB led the jack of diamonds, hoping to get a high honour from West, and West played the ace and played another spade. SB won in dummy, and advanced the ten of hearts, ducked by East. SB now had to decide who had the long spade, and thought West was far more likely to be 3-2-4-4, so he led the king of clubs covered and ruffed by South. His plan now was to play the red-suit strip squeeze on East and he did not expect this particular East to discard the king of diamonds if it was necessary. He drew the last trump, but East played the jack of spades out of turn, while West was considering her discard. SB called the director, but to add to the amusement West discarded the three of clubs before he arrived.
The TD correctly ruled that the jack of spades and three of clubs were both major penalty cards, and that SB could bar West from discarding a particular suit, and the jack of spades obviously would still be played to this trick. The six-card ending was as follows:
SB barred West from playing a club to trick eight, and West, perforce, discarded the six of diamonds. East followed with the jack of spades and the three of clubs remained as a major penalty card. SB had now been presented with an unexpected extra option, more favourable than the strip squeeze on East which required East to have both the eight of diamonds and the queen. He exited with a diamond, expecting to force the person winning the trick to have to play a club, a line which would succeed whenever West had bid at least a four-card suit, rather than bidding a three-card diamond suit with a six-card club suit available (the response of 2♣ could have been three). Sadly, West discarded the three of clubs, and East was able to exit with a diamond beating the contract.
SB argued that the double infraction had damaged the non-offending side, in that he would have always made the contract but for the infractions. This was accepted by the Chief TD, but the wording of Law 23 required that West could have been aware the infraction would damage her side, and he did not accept this was possible. He also did not think a ruling under Law 50E was correct because it was not "information" from either penalty card that had damaged SB, but the actual existence of the MPC had given him an extra losing option. SB tried Law 12B1, claiming that damage existed because he obtained a result worse than would have been the expectation but for the infraction, but the Chief TD rejected this argument as well. He pointed out that the Laws did not permit an adjustment because rectification was unduly advantageous to one side, and he upheld the TD ruling of no adjustment and ruled that it was a matter of law or regulation and not appealable. SB thus went off in a contract that he would have made had he waived the penalty of the premature play. A salutory lesson to him, perhaps, but how would you have ruled? The traveller for the board is as follows:
https://app.pianola....4/Travellers/19
