After the final match on Sunday, the director comes up to us and wants our opinion about a ruling and possible appeals case. We suggest that if there will be an appeal, he should just do it now before we leave. "No," he says, "it will have to be after the session." "We are not willing to stay here for sixteen more boards just in case there's an appeal, sorry." "So you might as well look at the hand."
We do. Fortunately, he's overlooked a law that massively simplifies the case; it's really not a case of judgment at all, but a straight laws ruling. I supply this argument; the director says, "of course." I add, referring to the potential appellant, "besides, he misdefended. He should have beaten the hand anyway." This was the hand:
All at once, the group replies to my claim of
misdefense, "yeah, I would have led a diamond,
but that's not really misdefense." "Yeah, it is.
And a diamond works this time, but it's wrong. I'd
lead a trump. We have all the side suits controlled;
how is declarer taking tricks except with trumps?"
"He can still make it, then; he can ruff a club to
dummy and toss his diamond on the
I've never seen a play like this before. It seems straight out of a par contest, but it was really dealt.