Appeal… ing European Style
There were nine appeals at the European Team Championships (picking teams for 2011). There is some chat and statistics in the Final Bulletin suggesting that the trend is down. The ninth appeal is an interesting one (and also described in the Bulletin). It is from the a late round (27) of the Open Teams, Board 6 in the Netherlands versus France match.
| Dealer: East
Vul: East-West |
North
♠ A83 ♥ QJ9652 ♦ 64 ♣ J9 |
|
| West
♠ KJ4 ♥ A873 ♦ AKQ ♣ K72 |
 |
East
♠ Q109 ♥ 4 ♦ 109753 ♣ A1085 |
| South
♠ 7652 ♥ K10 ♦ J82 ♣ Q643 |
| West | North | East | South |
| pass | pass | ||
| 2NT | 3♥ | DBL | pass |
| 3NT | all pass |
The contract was 3NT played by West and North led the ♥2. After that lead East-West were held to eight tricks. The problem was that South’s final pass came after an agreed hesitation. At the end of the hand the director was called. West claimed that the hesitation suggested that South had hearts and influenced South to lead a small heart rather than the ♥Q. Leading a top heart allows declarer to make the contract while leading a small heart defeats it. The table director consulted some experts who all said that they would have led a small heart without the hesitation but that the hesitation did suggest that South had some hearts and made the choice easier. Based on this the table director allowed the result to stand. At the committee meeting South said that he was considering bidding 4♥ and if North had deduced this than a high heart was called for since South could easily have three little. Nevertheless, the committee overturned the ruling finding that the lead of a high heart was a logical alternative.
This is one of the few times that I have seen a ruling rollback a lead based on a hesitation during the auction.
So is leading a high heart a logical alternative. I think it is. But for interest let’s check the players on Vugraph. In the Poland-Italy match North did not bid over 2NT at the table where Italy was East-West. East showed some interest in minors and West (Duboin) bid 3NT. North led the ♥Q. At the other table the Italian North also led the ♥Q after North overcalled 1♥ in a strong club auction. In the Turkey-Russia match, where North overcalled a strong club with 1♥, West rebid 1NT and East 3NT. West led the ♥Q. In the Closed Room where Russia held the big hand, they had an uncontested auction exactly the same as the Italian auction, North led … okay you guessed it, the Q♥.
In the Netherlands-Fance match West went down in 3NT. Paulissen of Sweden after overcalling 2NT with 3♥ did in fact lead a small heart. At the other table they played 5♦ a contract that is cold on the lie of the cards (and definitely the best spot). In the Israel-Bulgaria match that I happened to be watching there was no opposition bidding although the Israeli East did suggest that he had a problem in hearts (and I admit that changes things) the ♥Q was led against 3NT. In the Open Room, Israel played 3♥ doubled after interferring in a forcing club auction (for -500). And finally in the England-Iceland match 3NT was defeated at both tables. In an uncontested auction the English West had suggested some problems in hearts and Haraldsson lead a small heart. In the other room Gold, for England led a small heart. He had shown an unspecified major over a forcing club.
What does all this prove? A high heart is probably somewhat more likely than a low heart but there is certainly ample evidence that the ♥Q is a logical lead! I think that the director may not have asked the rigth question when consulting the experts. He asked them what they would have led and from that drew the conclusion that the ♥Q was not a logical alternative. Perhaps he should have asked them what they considered leading and whether a top heart was a logicial choice. In any case, asking a few experts what they would hypothetically lead was not enough to establish the needed information. One problem is that once the director presents this to you as a lead problem I think you are more likely to pick a small heart.
Pehaps the more interesting argument and one that doesn’t seem to have been discussed by anybody was did the hesitation really suggest a heart. The committee seems to discount the idea that South might have been thinking about doubling for a spade lead. In any case I think the committee got this one right.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Just to note that this was an important appeal as it decided eleventh place between France and England. I appreciate that eleventh may not seem important, but it is the final qualifying place for the European Champions Cup in November.
I was really surprised by the Director’s initial ruling. I agree that the committee got this right.
Thanks Paul. I had no idea that the appeal was important
Hi Linda,
Thanks for bringing important, so called high-level world appeals, up for scrutiny.
My view is that leading a high heart would certainly be chosen by at least some top players, making it a logical alternative. Therefore, according to the rule, to which I am lukewarm about, I do agree with North, after the BIT, not being allowing to choose a low heart.
At least to me, there is a significant problem and especially at a high-level (which the European Championship certainly represents), when a player, in such a sensitive situation, hesitates before finally passing. Can anyone, especially an experienced player, not realize that by hesitating and then passing, partner will be privy to unauthorized information, whatever he figures it out to be, which may in fact, cause him to rethink his lead?
There are too many good players who cry from the rooftops that “hesitating is not against the rules of the game and should therefore be permitted without rancor” and then are prepared to argue (using as much clout as is possible, together with worn out arguments), along with their likely positive reputation as an excellent player together with their various friendships, not to mention social leverage, which sometimes include committee members or maybe even their reputation with the tournament director who makes the original decision.
To me that process needs to be scrapped, by tough words and actions directed toward those players who attempt it.
Even if one argues that what I am talking about above rarely happens and does not need to be considered, I am saying that if it happens only once in ten or fifteen times, when it does happen, it sets our process back enough so that it will never get entirely out of the mix. Until it does, appeals will never get the consistency we all (at least most of us) crave.