Zelandakh, on 2019-October-17, 10:28, said:
I think this is one of your weaker efforts Paul. There are so many reasons to rule against SB here that I cannot imagine any reputable TD thinking otherwise. There are not only the procedural points raised by CY et al but also the rather practical point that while the theoretical agreement is that it shows a void, the actual partnership agreement in practice is that it is a normal 0 or 1 splinter. I think you would have been far better served to have told the story the other way round, with RR having (incorrectly) bid 4♣ with a singleton and SB getting in the lead before ChCh could add the part about RR always forgetting after providing the correct explanation with a subsequent claim by SB of a CPU.
The AC comments:
a) SB stated that Law 41A and 41B do not require ANY interval between the face-down opening lead and the facing of the opening lead, and it is NOT an infraction to lead face down and then face up in one movement, as he often does. It cannot benefit the leader, as any question by his partner can only benefit the defenders, and can be asked after dummy is viewed. The leader cannot change the opening lead (except on the instruction of the TD hence the infraction by ChCh in not calling him), so there is no purpose to any interval. Questions can still be asked by the declarer after dummy has been faced, so the declarer can never be damaged by the lack of an interval.
b) SB had, prior to the hand, already reasearched trump leads when dummy has a void in a presumed nine-card fit in comparison with trump leads when dummy had a singleton which is why he asked the question. The former worked (where anything worked) 41% of the time and the latter only 17% of the time in his survey of 3,176 hands on Bridgebase. He brought all this analysis to the AC.
c) The AC polled extensively with the correct information. Nobody led the queen of spades, so that (self-serving) claim by SB was rejected. However, 4 of the 10 polled led a small trump and 6 led a heart anyway. The AC did not consider it relevant what pollees would have done with the incorrect information. None of those polled found the winning line of play after the low trump lead.
d) The NS convention card was presented: 4C/4D/4H were shown as voids, and 3NT as any SPL. RR often plays three weak twos but forgets which three suits. If he announces 2C as "weak" this would still be MI, even though he often forgets. The theoretical and actual agreement was found by OO to be as per the CC.
e) The only clear infractions were by RR and ChCh, the former in answering when he should have not done so, and the latter in not calling the TD.
For what it is worth, I completely and unequivocally agree with the AC decision. They did a good job, and there was a "clear and obvious error" by OO who ruled no adjustment.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar