A leading question

[jvage]

As most of you will guess this is another ruling issue, but in an attempt to get unbiased opinions I'll start with an opening lead problem. The event is the National Teams Finals (expert players), with none vul you hold in second hand:

T986

KJT74

Q2

K6

 

With your side silent the bidding goes (starting with RHO):

P 1♣

1♠ 2♦

2♠ 4♥

4♠ All pass

 

Opponents play a relatively standard system, 2♦ was a strong revers, I don't know if 2♠ was forcing (my guess is that it wasn't). Your screenmate (RHO) alerts 4♥ and explains it as "Exclusion Blackwood" and 4♠ as 0 keycards. What is your opening lead and do you consider it clear?

 

Would you consider another lead if 4♥ had been explained as "splinter"?

 

John

[Finch]

It's a horrible lead problem, and it's not clear whatever RHO's 4H bid meant.

I think I lead a diamond either way.

The explanation of the 4H bid does not change my choice of lead.

[Sambolino]

on a first glance i was about to choose a trump but the more i look at it the more it seems to me that winning play might be to force dummy to ruff with high trumps. singleton/void issue would not have much impact. i lead ♥ definitely

[vang]

I lead a small trump in both cases.

[jvage]

Thanks to those who replied. The poll-sample is small, but it did give an indication. The 3 posters chose 3 different leads and none changed their lead with a correct explanation. This was the full hand:

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sak3h5dak43cajt93&w=st986hkjt74dq2ck6&e=s4haq82djt95cq742&s=sqj752h963d876c85]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

The actual lead was a small club (the only lead not suggested by any posters!) and declarer made 10 tricks. A spade or diamond-lead would probably have defeated 4♠, but a heart-lead is clearly the most effective.

 

When the TD was called he polled several good players (including a Bermuda Bowl champion). All of them led hearts (one considered a spade) after both explanations and most considered this lead "clearcut". The reason I started with a small poll was that I was unsure about this conclusion, suspecting that some of the players may have been influenced by knowing the deal, having just played the same set.

 

The then TD ruled that the lead was not affected by the explanation, that the non-offending side was not damaged and that the result stood. Do you agree?

 

John

[cherdano]

I would have led a heart with either explanation.

[bid_em_up]

With either explanation, be it splinter or Exclusion KC, dummies heart shortness is indicated. In either case, either a trump or a heart lead is called for. The failure to lead either of these, then complaining that a club resulted in a bad score defies any bridge logic.

 

This is, I think, what the director means when he says, "the lead was not affected by the misexplanation". The auction says, lead a trump or lead a heart, and yet the guy chose to lead a club anyway. Too bad.

 

So, yes, I agree with the directors ruling.

[Vilgan]

I agree with the ruling.

 

I probably would have led a spade on the auction given, regardless of whether 4♥ was exclusion or a splinter. A club seems strange regardless of which explanation 4♥ gets, and I don't think that "oh no, it was actually a splinter" is enough of a difference to change a strange lead to a more sensible one.

[pclayton]

Sorry I didn't respond. I saw this yesterday and thought a heart was clear. We'll either tap dummy's high trump, or at least create a board-lock.

[Finch]

I think everyone is agreed that a club is silly.

 

But I'm surprised I was the only diamond leader...

Why can't the layout be, say,

 

Axx

A

Kxx

AQJ10xx

 

opposite

 

KQxxx

xxx

xxx

xx

 

or similar

 

If dummy were known to have four trumps a diamond would be obvious. I agree it's much tougher with only three in dummy as the tap is more likely to work.

[cherdano]

Well in my version of standard dummy has promised exactly 3 trumps, as with 4 trumps he would make a direct raise (a splinter I assume), and 2♦ denies 4-card support.

 

I am tempted to lead ♥K given the splinter explanation, and a low heart given the exclusion (or a void splinter) explanation.

[Rossoneri]

Agree that the ruling is reasonable.

[JoAnneM]

Isn't leading low from a doubleton honor rather unusual? I know you are allowed to lead any one of your 13 cards but there are some pre-alert requirements if you do this often with this partner.

 

Just asking.

[Finch]

Isn't leading low from a doubleton honor rather unusual? I know you are allowed to lead any one of your 13 cards but there are some pre-alert requirements if you do this often with this partner.

 

Just asking.

Was that aimed at me (the diamond leader)?

 

I didn't specify which diamond I was leading (Actually I hadn't yet decided which diamond I was leading.)

 

As for whether low from Hx is unusual, I think that depends on your country, it's more common in some places than others. Jvage is from Norway (I think), they may not have lead pre-alert requirements at all. Certainly where I play, it would be marked on the convention card but we also do not have pre-alert requirements.

[Apollo81]

I'd have led a spade and I think the explanation is irrelevant.

[blackshoe]

Isn't leading low from a doubleton honor rather unusual? I know you are allowed to lead any one of your 13 cards but there are some pre-alert requirements if you do this often with this partner.

 

Just asking.

True, in the ACBL, but if I'm not mistaken, the OP is in Norway. The alert regs on this point may be different there.

[Hanoi5]

A heart with either explanation.

[awm]

There is a difference between having an agreement that "if I lead from doubleton, I always lead low" and leading low from ♣Kx on this particular hand and auction. The first certainly needs to be marked on a convention card, is non-standard in many parts of the world, and requires pre-alert in the ACBL. The latter is just bridge; fairly often if you decide to lead LHO's long, strong suit then it is better to lead low from a doubleton honor in order to give declarer a chance to go wrong (i.e. play you for singleton).

 

Anyway, I agree that a heart or diamond lead seems best here and that the mis-explanation is unrelated to the lead chosen at the table, so result should stand.

[Guest Jlall]

I would have led hearts.

[jvage]

I was consulted in relation to the appeal.

 

The club lead was non-standard, he was hoping for a misguess from declarer, playing him for a singleton.

 

It seems most (all?) posters agree with the TD that there was no damage from the MI (Misinformation). I agree that the differences in the distributions of the North and South hands with the 2 explanations are rather insignificant, North's most likely distribution in both cases is 3046. It probably rarely makes much difference for the best defense wether North got a singleton or void in hearts.

 

There is however a subtle difference in the indicated honour location. If you accept the Exclusion RKCB explanation North asked for aces and abandoned slam when South showed none. This means opening leaders partner got a non-heart ace, which in turn indicates that North's suits are more solid and that South is more likely to have heart-values. The club-leader may have played for for something like this:

KQJ

-

AKxx

AQJTxx

 

xxxxx

AQx

xxx

xx

 

If this is the distribution (no need to complain about South rebidding 2♠, it is just an illustration :D ) declarer may be tempted by the safetyplay of winning the ♣A. From declarers side this is safe if trumps are 3-2, guarding against a singleton lead and the following trump-promotion. If partner finds the heart-shift when winning the trump ace you will have defeated an unbeatable game (at least one that makes on a heart-lead and continuation).

 

While we can probably agree that the club-lead was somewhat speculative, the layout where it may be winning is somewhat indicated by the MI. Is this reasoning too farfetched?

 

John

[JoAnneM]

You actually stated that a small club was led. Perhaps I have the wrong hand in the lead. I didn't bother to write out a diagram of the bidding.