An appeal - withdrawn

I completed this appeal form but the appeal was withdrawn because it did not affect the result of the competition.

Cross IMPs		A K Q
Teams of 8		K J 10 4
Dealer N		6 4 2
N/S vulnerable		K Q 6
	8 6 4		J 9 7 3
	A 8 5 3		7 6 2
	K 10 9 8 5 3		Q
	—		J 10 9 7 3
		10 5 2
		Q 9
		A J 7
		A 8 5 4 2

W	N	E	S
	1CA	1HA	2H		1C: strong club; 1H: two suits of the same colour
Pass	4H	All Pass			N asked about 1H before bidding 4H

4H made 10 tricks, on a spade lead, N/S +620. TD ruling: table result stands, N/S fined 0.5VP.

TD was first called at the end of trick two.

Director's statement of facts

When West had lead face down, East asked about 2H — told "natural, 9+". After West had won trick two, South said 2H was "9–11 balanced, no heart stop". North disagreed with the explanation, claiming that she had got the system right. The spade lead was won by the ace and, at trick two, a heart was lead to Queen and Ace.

I was recalled at the end of play, N/S making ten tricks. E/W said that with the correct explanation of 2H the lead might be different; and East might duck HQ and declarer may lead a club to dummy (when in with DA) in order to draw the remaining trumps, and would suffer a club ruff.

Adjusted Score/Procedural Penalty Awarded

Score stands (no adjustment). Standard 0.5VP Procedurary Penalty against N/S.

Details of ruling

1. With the correct explanation of 2H, West will lead a spade. Law 47E2(b).
2. On the line:
   • SA,
   • HQ ducked,
   • HA,
   • DxxQA
   South will not play a club.
3. South should have corrected the failure to alert 2H, and the explanation of 2H, before the opening lead. Law 20F5(b)(ii).

Director's comments

I discussed the hand as a lead problem with six players; with South's explanation of 2H they still lead a spade, even when they decided N/S had had a misunderstanding. No one lead a diamond.

The problem only arose because South did not correct partner's explanation of (and apparent failure to alert) 2H. This failure is worthy of a procedural penalty.

Subsequent Issues (not on the form)

1. Should I have set the opening lead problem in the context of both explanation, so that it was clear that N/S were having a misunderstanding? This would have been the position if South had corrected the explanation at the right time.
2. Should I have awarded an adjusted score with a (small) percentage of 4H-1, corresponding to declarer playing a club to dummy at trick five (on the line in 2. above).
3. I should have allowed West to change the HA at trick two, under Law 47E2(a). This would have avoided the second part of the ruling, as the defence would have been able to set declarer this problem in actual play.