Presumed play following a mistaken explanation
Defending a 3 no trump contract, a natural bid is incorrectly explained as a transfer the consequence being that N, who has 5 cards in the suit incorrectly named, does not lead from that suit. 75.3 states that "The director awards an adjusted score based on the likely outcome had the opponents received the correct explanation in a timely manner." N/S have 5 tricks in the suit that would probably have been led; however some care is needed as S has to unblock the 10. In the room (club of only moderate standard) one pair led the right suit but still let the contract through. Another North led a different suit, as North has a 5-5-0-3 distribution. Three pairs got the contract 1 down, successfully taking their 5 tricks.
The question then: to what extent should the director presume that the defence would have found the best line of play had they received a correct explanation?
Tim
Comments
We should resolve questions of doubt in favour of the non-offending side, but in this instance we can give a weighted ruling, using what is known as "sympathetic weighting" to give effect to our favourable resolution. From what you have said, I would expect to give them 70-100% of getting the contract down, depending on the standard of the player who needs to unblock.
Many thanks Gordon.