[jh51]

---

Aside from one suit, the details of the hands are irrelevent.

West asked North about the 2♠ bid and he shrugged his shoulders and said he did not know.

At the end of the auction, I (East) asked to look at their convention card (they had only one between them) and it said 2♠ was a transfer to ♣ and 2N a transfer to ♦.

Holding ♣AKJxx, it did not make sense to lead clubs, so I tried something else and declarer rattled of 11 tricks. Dummy had 3 small clubs and declarer 2 small clubs.

South now insists that 2♠ is a relay to 3♣, pass or correct.

I called the director, since we seem not to have received correct information about their agreements and could have taken 5 club tricks off the top.

The ruling was a split, with the opps getting their +660 and us +100. Does this seem like the right ruling?

[gnasher]

jh51, on 2012-June-06, 15:04, said:

Does this seem like the right ruling?

No.

Plainly you were misinformed, both by the convention card and by South's failure to correct the explanation before you led. The misinformation led to your leading the wrong suit; without it you would certainly have led a club. Hence I would adjust to EW +100 for both sides, and a procedural penalty to South for failing to correct the explanation at the proper time.

Rewarding the offenders by giving them a good score is both illegal and shockingly bad.

[jeffford76]

jh51, on 2012-June-06, 15:04, said:

The ruling was a split, with the opps getting their +660 and us +100. Does this seem like the right ruling?

It is never the case that both sides get a good score unless there was an error by the director.

Either there was an error previously, and correcting it leads to treating both sides as non-offending, or the director is making an error now.

[blackshoe]

I don't know where it went, but earlier I replied to the OP with "No, it seems like a typical club-level "keep everybody happy" ruling". I agree with the other two posters — if we've been told everything, this is a very bad directorial error, and if we haven't, well...

[Lanor Fow]

If it's a very bad director error, do we then rule as director error (and come to the same ruling this time legally?)

Don't worry I'm not serious. Agree with the other posters. When I first read it I even misread it to be a split bad score for everyone (which I disagree with as well)

[bluejak]

jeffford76, on 2012-June-06, 16:19, said:

It is never the case that both sides get a good score unless there was an error by the director.

Not quite true: there must be an outside agency at fault, certainly, but it need not be the TD. I still have not forgiven the two senior TDs who agreed on Ave+/Ave+ for us when the organisers [!!!] had fouled the boards and they would not give me a Law 86D assigned score [we made a cold off game with the opponents cold for game!].

But the ruling here is a joke in extremely poor taste. Why not give each side +1100 to avoid them being upset and having to tell their mothers?