Aardv

Why is this rule reasonable, as clarified by what I consider to be an unfunny minute? I'll answer that: 1) We have an elaborate penalty card rule, designed (50D in particular) so that in most circumstances a pair can't benefit from its own penalty card, and with a catch-all (50E3) to cover anything it misses. Perhaps you wouldn't write it like that if you started from scratch today, but there it is. 2) However, we do not want this rule to be punitive in itself. (In this respect, it's unlike the revoke law, which is usually punitive, and rightly so because revokes can easily go undiscovered and we don't want to put temptation in the way of any unscrupulous player.) 3) Because the rule is not intended to be punitive, we don't want it to force a defender to make a ridiculous play, like crashing honours or leading a card for partner to ruff when he's not allowed to ruff it. So we allow the defender to know the identity of the penalty card. This is specified, albeit somewhat ambiguously, by 50E1. 4) The concession to the offending side in 50E1 would make it more likely that the non-offending side would be disadvantaged by the penalty card, for example if the penalty card were a singleton honour which might have been crashed anyway, but we needn't worry about that because we have the catch-all 50E3. 5) Noting the ambiguity of 50E1, the WBFLC has issued its unambiguous and unfunny minute. I understand that some people prefer a different reading of 50E1, and therefore object to the minute. But I think they go too far in protesting that the minute contradicts 50E - it's not a strain to read "the requirements for playing a penalty card" as including the identity of the penalty card. I strongly object to lamford's suggestion that a player should suffer a procedural penalty for following the law as clarified by the minute.

Due respect for dburn and lamford, in the absence of false modesty, demands that I acknowledge that there are two readings of all this which intelligent people might reach. I disagree that the later minute is at variance with the Law itself. I read "Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card..." as including the identity of the penalty card that partner is required to play. And so, I submit, does the WBFLC, or its later minute would indeed be an aberration. And we should assume that the WBFLC is making sense unless the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. Which raises two questions: first, of these two possibilities, what we would like the Law to mean? And second, once we agree what we want the Law to mean, how would we word it? Perhaps these are questions for another forum.

The director should ask East why he bid 3♥. Evidently he thought West had the reds: it's very possible that he owed N-S some information about partnership experience. However, unless N-S are very inexperienced, they should realise anyway that East thinks West has the reds.

Yes, there may be UI from the fact that two cards were dropped that the lead was a singleton. No, the fact that the penalty cards are in hearts and diamonds is AI. The WBFLC minute makes that crystal clear. I don't understand why you are asserting the opposite. You are allowed to conduct the defence on the basis that partner has ♥10 and ♦10 as penalty cards. In other respects, you are not allowed to conduct the defence on the basis that partner has ♥10 and ♦10.

Repeating myself, I think the intention of both Law 50E and the WBFLC is plain: you ARE allowed to mitigate the effect of the penalty card, you are NOT allowed to defend better than you would have done had the card never become a penalty card. The WBFLC minute saying "may lead small from K Q J x when partner’s penalty card is the Ace" is intended to give an example of that - they mean that you're not obliged to crash honours with partner's penalty card. However, if partner's penalty card turns out to be a singleton honour which you might have crashed even if it weren't a penalty card, or if the honour underlead advantageously unblocks the suit (cashing out KQx opposite Ax for example) the director may adjust under 50E3.

That makes no sense to me, the WBFLC has the authority to issue guidance on interpretation of the Laws, so it can be wrong only if it directly contradicts them. The intention of both the Law and the minute is plain to me: for the purpose of mitigating the effect of the penalty card, a player is allowed to know that his partner has the penalty card and must play it. For purposes of improving the defence otherwise, he's not allowed to know. For a small card, that usually means in effect that he's allowed to know his partner has the card. For an honour, some doublethink is required; hence the minute.

What are our opening lead agreements? What are our signalling agreements? If we play reverse attitude here, it seems obvious to play partner for x AKxx QJxxx J95, declarer KJxxxx xx Kx AQx, and switch to a heart. (I'd have led one at trick one.)

Does anyone want (for the purpose of E-W's score) to forbid North to play a club, win the (compulsory) heart return, and give South a diamond ruff?

Pardon? If declarer forbids a heart lead, the ♥3 is no longer a penalty card, so South can ruff a diamond lead. The only route to 2♠= would be for declarer to opt to retain the penalty card and for North to lead either a small heart or a diamond, in either case knowing that South has to play ♥3 on it. I'm supposed to give any non-offending side "the most favourable result that was likely", but I can't see that any result was at all likely other than 2♠-1. (My reading of 50E is that North is allowed to know that his partner has ♥3 and is obliged to play it, but not allowed to know that he would have led it had it been his lead.)

Three reasons why I think he would get it right after a club switch with the hand I was talking about - J KJx AK AKJxxxx i) It's inconceivable that you (I mean the defender) wouldn't switch to a heart from Qxx, beating him trivially. ii) Declarer will cash his five minor suit winners, then exit with a club, and partner will give him the heart guess. Declarer won't know about your fifth spade. iii) At the end of the previous hand, your partner (I am told) had remonstrated vigorously with you, which might explain any apparent reticence on your part in the bidding of this one. I'm not sure about that: declarer would have every reason to suspect that he'd be swiftly one off if he played a club, so he'd run the diamonds instead, and your hand would be squashed - you have to keep all your spades, so either bare the ace of hearts or throw both clubs. Declarer makes if he guesses which.

If declarer has: J KJx AK AKJxxxx we can do anything except switch to clubs (declarer will get the eventual heart guess right) J KJx AK AKQxxxx simplest is to cash a spade, squeezing him. Or we can switch to ♥10. J KQJ AJ AKQxxxx we can lead anything except for a small spade or ♥10 (which we need as a squeeze menace in some lines) J KQx AJx AKJxxx we have to switch to a club or ♥10 J KQx AKx KQJ8xx a diamond, ♥7, or ♣10 are ok. J KQx AKx KQJ9xx we have to switch to ♥7 If partner has given suit preference here, you can rule out the third and fourth holdings.

I held the balanced hand at the other table: we got a 3♦ overcall. You might want to suggest an auction from there - ours ended in 6NT.

I didn't express a view because I recognized the hand. But it seems to me that partner couldn't possibly read me for these three aces unless (s)he had the three kings. Singleton king of diamonds is in fact a likely holding. And a small diamond is the right lead, because the alternative is to lead the round suit dummy isn't short in, and that's just a guess. All these things are of course more obvious when you know the hand.

If you think partner's got a diamond void, why not lead a low diamond? Declarer might have ♦Kxx.

We might want to play a trump or possibly a diamond through next, so let's put partner in. Partner must have ♥K and ♣K, and probably ♦K as well. There's no reason to place declarer with a void anywhere, so let's assume he hasn't got one. There's every reason to place dummy with a singleton or void somewhere, so let's not lead that suit (if only we knew which) lest it facilitate ruffs in dummy. So my answer is that we should underlead an ace to put partner in. We shouldn't underlead hearts in case dummy's short there. We shouldn't underlead clubs for the same reason. And we shouldn't underlead diamonds in case partner hasn't got the king. By a process of elimination I'll lead a trump.

Congratulations

2♦X making by West looks possible to me, depending on the North-South methods. But the traveller says that anything better than 110 is a top anyway.

You have to be careful with the conclusions you draw from comparing results from different choices of opening bid. Suppose you do some research on results after a non-vulnerable 1NT opening on balanced hands, compared with opening one of a suit. You find that opening 1NT in the range 10-12 results in a net gain. Also opening in the range 12-14. And in the range 15-17. (I don't know whether this is true.) Do you therefore decide to play a 10-17 1NT opening non-vulnerable?

Against anyone who knows and remembers Rosenberg's rule - always play the nine unless you must - 9 from 9x is an automatic false card here, so you should finesse on the second round. However, that's a small subset of the bridge-playing population.

It's not a technicality. 1) Consider an agreeable and law-abiding West who believes his opening lead agreements to be normal. If asked a well-formed question, being a law-abiding chap he'll give an answer entirely in accordance with the Blue Book's prescription. But if North asks him "normal leads?", being an agreeable chap he'll say yes. 2a) Consider a different but equally agreeable and law-abiding West who realises that his partnership's style may not be entirely normal. If North asks him "normal leads?" here, then realising that his partner has led from five small he'll see the problem and say "normal, but we lead fourth from five small". 2b) Consider a third, but again agreeable and law-abiding West who realises that his partnership's style may not be entirely normal, the difference being that he's been dealt 10xx of spades. This time he knows his partner has led from Qxxxx. It doesn't occur to him that xxxxx is a possibility from declarer's point of view, so when asked "normal leads?" he says "yes". I'm surprised that some commentators think it right to adjust to North's advantage and West's disadvantage in (1), and to allow this ill-formed question to give North an edge in distinguishing (2a) from (2b).

I suppose that the Blue Book follows the established usage in the Laws, and hence that North has jeopardized his rights.

(that in the context of calls, but I suppose the advice applies generally)

No adjustment, because North caused the problem by wrongly asking "normal leads?". If North had asked "what's you lead style?" and received the inadequate answer "normal" then I would adjust.

OK, the correct information. The partners have agreed to play Widget, as defined by their shared knowledge and experience. And they plainly haven't agreed to play what's written in a document somewhere neither of them has seen. Their opponents are therefore entitled to know that they've agreed to play Widget (there's no requirement to give the name), and to have the shared knowledge and experience of the convention revealed to them. In this case the shared knowledge and experience would presumably include the motivating considerations behind the convention, and any points of agreement between A and B, and the fact that there is expected to be agreement about any points on which they in fact disagree. It does not include information as to which partner believes what. eg. Explanation: "we use 2NT in this sequence to distinguish between forcing and competitive bids at the three level, with one range going through 2NT and the other bidding directly" Follow-up question: "which is which?" Answer: "no agreement"

You have to tell opponents what you think you've agreed, without relying on convention names. Therefore an explanation "Widget" is insufficient. So you have to tell them A. You may express any uncertainty you may feel (that's often unhelpful to your opponents, but the truth is what they're entitled to). Your partner has to correct that to B (but he may say that having heard your explanation he's in some doubt about it). The TD may have to sort out what misinformation has occurred. The true explanation was "we agreed without realising it to play A from my side and B from partner's", so if opponents have been damaged by not knowing that they're entitled to redress. C is irrelevant. Opponents are not entitled to have you tell them the contents of some online document you've never read.