Matchpoints
This was the flattest board of the evening at the North London club this week, with one exception, the board where RR was East. He led the nine of clubs out of turn against SB, South. "DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR", yelled SB, who had been told not to bellow when summoning the official. "Can't you follow simple auctions, RR?" SB asked, "after all you are simple enough." "Sorry I thought it was my lead against 4H", RR replied. "That was the previous board, and that remark is UI to your partner," SB responded, "are you retarded?" "No, I still have a few months to go before I reach 65, so I am still working part-time", RR answered.
The TD, OO, arrived and read out the full text of Law 54 and Law 50, although SB already knew them both by heart. "I will prevent a club lead," responded SB, who was looking forward to a lead into one of his tenaces. The nine of clubs was picked up. West, ChCh, cashed his three aces and was still not able to switch to a club, but whatever he exited with declarer could only make eight tricks, as it could never gain West to split on the first round of clubs, even without the UI that his partner had the nine. At all 11 other tables where this board was played 3NT had made on the lead of the queen of clubs as declarer could build a third trick in clubs, and East had no entry, so this was a complete bottom for NS, which they could do nothing about."
"I don't think I can adjust I am afraid", replied OO. "It was a curious hand", he continued. "The only way to beat 3NT by South was for East to lead his singleton against 4H." The Rabbit blushed, unsure whether he was being ridiculed or complimented. OO resumed "I think SB might have made the hand by leaving the 9♣ as an MPC and allowing West to lead what he liked. If West then led a low club, I could adjust under 50E4. It is not clear to me what would happen if an astute West (and there are few astuter than ChCh) worked this out and adopted the same defence of cashing all three aces and exiting again".
SB was unhappy. He recited Law 12B without pause for breath:
1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.
Also, he continued, "RR could have been aware that leading a singleton out of turn against 4H could work to his advantage. The fact that the contract was 3NT should not prevent a Law 72C adjustment."
How do you rule?