jahol Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 After simple bidding 1NT - 3NT the first lead is yours. With QJ87xx in clubs, you put the queen on the table (do not persuade me, that I should have led small, I do not believe in that since in 5 occasions from 6, I have met something like K10 --- Axx, 10x---AKx, Kxx --- A10 in declarer´s hand and dummy (yes, I know the argument about blocking the suit, but this happen far less frequently, at least in my bridge matches). But this is not my problem in this board anyway. So, I led CQ and small club doubleton appeared in dummy (no doubleton ten... :-). The declarer asked about the first lead in general manner and then more specifically: "What would you lead from QJ9xx?" After that he played low from the table followed with 10 from my partner and small from the declarer. I continued with the smallest club (I had probable input into my hand in diamonds) and the declarer made trick with club 9 in his hand (my partner had got singleton 10). The questions:Is the declarer allowed to ask intentionally about first lead from card combination, he knows, you can not have (because he is holding some card(s) from that combination)?Is the defender allowed to use the implicit information taken from such declarer question ANYTIME (on his own risk)? What should the tournament director do after being invited to the table in such situation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_20686 Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 just out of interest why didnt you continue with the J, partner will work out to unblock from T9x right? But yes delcarer has actied a bit unethically i think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 As always, I begin with announcing that I am not a bridge lawyer. That said, I'll give me thoughts. 1. Asking you about your lead is odd. He might ask your partner, or better look at your card. 2. Yesterday I was invited to play in a club game. I declared 3NT, the lead was the ten of diamonds, A9x hit in dummy, xxx in my hand. What's that 9 doing in dummy? No cc on the table, a couple of elderly ladies, I'm a guest. I asked: Are you paying standard leads? Yes, I was told. I thought a bit more and put up the K, holding. The lead was from AJTx. Not a standard lead, but a common agreement. It would not have occurred to me to give her a hypothetical holding and ask what she would lead from it. 3. Liking to think the best of people, I offer the following: You partner produces the ten, declarer holds the 9. Following you directive I will not say what you should lead from your holding, but it is true that many would lead small. When the ten appears,from your partner, declarer knows that you have led the Q holding neither the ten nor the nine. He could be (as I say, this is an effort to think well of him) trying to judge the chances that you have led from QJx or some such thing. But the the play of the ten would make little or no sense. 4. The question is odd, damn odd. 5. I am happy not to be directing. I have no idea what to do in such cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Recorder form insta conduct hearing. Nobody will convince me it's legit to ask the specific question what do you lead from QJ9xx when you hold the 9. That is sooooooo shady. edit: Can we move this to the laws forum, I wanna know what blackshoe and bluejak think since they know everything, and I think it belongs there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babalu1997 Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 You alert agreements, not your hand. IE he is only entitled to know what your partner knows. this is like asking, would you play 3rd hand high if you hold KJX? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooltuna Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Recorder form insta conduct hearing. Nobody will convince me it's legit to ask the specific question what do you lead from QJ9xx when you hold the 9. That is sooooooo shady. edit: Can we move this to the laws forum, I wanna know what blackshoe and bluejak think since they know everything, and I think it belongs there. While I agree it is shady, I believe he has the right to ask the question. Any inference you take from him asking the question is at your own risk although I think it is clear he was trying to induce you into leading the suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdaming Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 I completely disagree. I think he has no right to ask the question unless he needs information that could be learned from the question. I am all for asking questions but when you ask a question that you know the answer to it is no longer a legitimate question. To me this is nearly the exact same thing as stalling an "extra" long time when you have no decision just to give the declarer the impression that you are thinking. It really just comes down to are you allowed to do something at the bridge table (other than normal play of the cards) intending to deceive your opponents and everything I have encountered so far says no. I have no law to specifically back me up on this but it is my feeling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoAnneM Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 He is not allowed to ask opening leader the questions! He must ask partner and that would be my reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Recorder form insta conduct hearing. Nobody will convince me it's legit to ask the specific question what do you lead from QJ9xx when you hold the 9. That is sooooooo shady. edit: Can we move this to the laws forum, I wanna know what blackshoe and bluejak think since they know everything, and I think it belongs there. While I agree it is shady, I believe he has the right to ask the question. Any inference you take from him asking the question is at your own risk although I think it is clear he was trying to induce you into leading the suit. He doesn't have the right to ask the question simply to fool you when the answer makes no difference to him! You can ask questions about holdings you know the opponents can't have (such as whether they have shown/denied the queen with their keycard response when you hold it because you need to know what they knew when they chose the contract) but only if you need to know the answer for bridge reasons! You take inferences at your own risk, but in this case declarer should get his score adjusted, which I have rarely if ever believed should happen in cases like this. By the way, this is your second post lately that shows you think it's ok to do anything to fool anyone at any time as long as your intent can't be proven. You might want to rethink how you look at this game... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jahol Posted October 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Just to understand each other, I put one thing wrong. Of course, the declarer asked my partner, not me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 That makes it, perhaps, marginally better. But really I don't much like questions such as his even if he does not hold the 9. Perhaps if I am playing against Meckwell or some similar pair it is reasonable to expect detailed answers to questions about lead style but I assume that when partner, or any opponent I am likely to meet, leads the Q against NT he will usually have it backed up by the J and either the ten or the nine. If he doesn't, well then he doesn't. Therre is a great deal of variety in bridge and sometimes partner leads a different card than I would. It happens. If a partnership is playing Rusinow leads or some other conventional agreement then of course I should be told. But here I think that expecting partner to say "Well, he might be leading the Q from six cards headed by the QJ8 is nuts. Sometimes a queen is just the card he thinks it is best to lead. I want to know if the opponents are playing standard leads. If so, what they actually are leading from on this hand is up to them. This can be taken to far, but I think it makes sense for most situations. You lead th Q, your partner produces the ten, declarer holds AK9x. He might think bit, ask if leads are standard, then he should play a card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill1157 Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 just out of interest why didnt you continue with the J, partner will work out to unblock from T9x right? But yes delcarer has actied a bit unethically i think. Partner with T9x leaves declarer with AK doubleton, so he couldn't have ducked trick 1... Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooltuna Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 He is not allowed to ask opening leader the questions! He must ask partner and that would be my reply. oops I stand corrected. In RLB you have to ask the partner what the agreements are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooltuna Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Recorder form insta conduct hearing. Nobody will convince me it's legit to ask the specific question what do you lead from QJ9xx when you hold the 9. That is sooooooo shady. edit: Can we move this to the laws forum, I wanna know what blackshoe and bluejak think since they know everything, and I think it belongs there. While I agree it is shady, I believe he has the right to ask the question. Any inference you take from him asking the question is at your own risk although I think it is clear he was trying to induce you into leading the suit. He doesn't have the right to ask the question simply to fool you when the answer makes no difference to him! You can ask questions about holdings you know the opponents can't have (such as whether they have shown/denied the queen with their keycard response when you hold it because you need to know what they knew when they chose the contract) but only if you need to know the answer for bridge reasons! You take inferences at your own risk, but in this case declarer should get his score adjusted, which I have rarely if ever believed should happen in cases like this. By the way, this is your second post lately that shows you think it's ok to do anything to fool anyone at any time as long as your intent can't be proven. You might want to rethink how you look at this game... I see! I am not allowed to have my own ethical standards I have to have yours? As far as this hand goes it wouldn't even occur to me to ask but thanks for the vote of confidence. <_< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Maybe partner should have said "The lead of the queen asks me to drop the ten if it's stiff" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Recorder form insta conduct hearing. Nobody will convince me it's legit to ask the specific question what do you lead from QJ9xx when you hold the 9. That is sooooooo shady. edit: Can we move this to the laws forum, I wanna know what blackshoe and bluejak think since they know everything, and I think it belongs there. While I agree it is shady, I believe he has the right to ask the question. Any inference you take from him asking the question is at your own risk although I think it is clear he was trying to induce you into leading the suit. He doesn't have the right to ask the question simply to fool you when the answer makes no difference to him! You can ask questions about holdings you know the opponents can't have (such as whether they have shown/denied the queen with their keycard response when you hold it because you need to know what they knew when they chose the contract) but only if you need to know the answer for bridge reasons! You take inferences at your own risk, but in this case declarer should get his score adjusted, which I have rarely if ever believed should happen in cases like this. By the way, this is your second post lately that shows you think it's ok to do anything to fool anyone at any time as long as your intent can't be proven. You might want to rethink how you look at this game... I see! I am not allowed to have my own ethical standards I have to have yours? As far as this hand goes it wouldn't even occur to me to ask but thanks for the vote of confidence. <_< I think you can have whatever standards you like! But if you ask the question declarer did when I'm directing, you're probably going to be on the wrong end of an adjusted score per 73F(2). "If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score." You draw inference at your own risk when the other side had a legimate reason for the (whatever it was) that led to the inference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MFA Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Adjusted score (for both sides) and a warning to declarer to be more careful in the future. Since we surely don't think he did it on purpose, do we? <_< Lead small from this holding and blow your trick instantly like a man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattieShoe Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 I've never played OTB duplicate so I'd never have asked such a question, but if I was going to, I'd ask about a hypothetical, impossible holding rather than a possibly real one. If it were me asking the quesiton, you could have intuited that I held the 9. This is the sort of situation that makes me glad I don't play OTB duplicate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peachy Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Adjusted score (for both sides) and a warning to declarer to be more careful in the future. Since we surely don't think he did it on purpose, do we? <_< Lead small from this holding and blow your trick instantly like a man. It does not matter if he did it on purpose or not. The Law is applied the same way. Even trying to discover the intent will lead to an insolvable mess and perhaps come across as accusing him of cheating if he confesses intent to mislead, and of lying if he denies intent to mislead. I have no doubt he tried to mislead with his questions, the TD likely has no doubt he intended to mislead with questions, but the TD just applies the Law and leaves any investigation of intent out of it. Opponents should file a recorder form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooltuna Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Adjusted score (for both sides) and a warning to declarer to be more careful in the future. Since we surely don't think he did it on purpose, do we? <_< Lead small from this holding and blow your trick instantly like a man. hardly partner did have a stiff T after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barryallen Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Adjusted score (for both sides) and a warning to declarer to be more careful in the future. Since we surely don't think he did it on purpose, do we? :rolleyes: Lead small from this holding and blow your trick instantly like a man. hardly partner did have a stiff T after all. ;) Who is at fault here? declarer for asking the question or the opposition for trying to take advantage of the question? The very fact that question was asked prior to any other cards being played would only lead me to believe this was more in line with the use of coded 9 or 10's. The fault here lies with not having a full written description of leads, something that can be easily passed to the declarer with no questions required. If anyone were to pose the ethics of the situation, I would lay this squarely on the opening leader for trying to take advantage of the situation. Only mitigated if a full description of your leads were available. Because an obvious inference has been made in trying to take advantage of the situation, otherwise why behave as if your nose had been put out of joint? Just to underline the whole absurdity of declarers plot, he has to mind meld with the opposition to identify the Q was led from QJxxxx (whilst holding 4 and dummy 2) and that his partner held the singleton 10 for this devious plan to bear fruit. Furthermore the fact the question was asked, whilst holding 6, would suggest that declarer has options and that the probability of the 10 being a singleton has increased significantly. Any TD worth his salt would have a wry little smile and suggest a chat at the bar after the session. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggwhiz Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 I witnessed a similar thing years ago and it was covered in the laws along the lines of a "comment, question or play that MAY be meant to mis-lead the opponents". Covers the Alcatraz coup as well. I can't remember the exact quote but an adjusted score was given at the speed of light after a defender asked about the entire auction including "does the 5h bid show or deny the spade queen" while looking at it. 6 spades down one was adjusted to 6 spades making. HOWEVER, the player that did this is extremely ethical but a bit of a space cadet. When he realized what he had done, he actually blushed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 The spade Q issue reminds me. When I first began to encounter rkc but before I began to play it, I would run across it at first only rarely, I remembered that there was something about the Q involved. I figured out that asking whether a bid denied the Q when I didn't have it, but not asking when I did have it, was not in my best interest. Fortunately the 5H/S response is played the same way by everyone, so this particular problem was solved easily, I just learned the convention so that I did not have to ask. In the best of worlds. ccs are filled out and a broad question gets fully disclosive answers. For example: A spot card is led against a suit contract. Declarer says "leads?' and I say "We lead third and fifth from length to an honor, holding only spot cards we usually lead the second highest." If declarer asks for more, I am tempted to tell him that I cannot say more without making it up. Problems are often created, I think, by answers that are far from fully disclosive. There was a ruling published during the nationals that I was not entirely happy about. Opponents opened 1C, alerted, and explained as "Could be short" An inquiry was made about when a short club might be bid. The response was "We play five card majors". After some more questions, it turned out that a hand with four diamonds and two clubs is opened one club. Opening 1D promises five. I dont know what they do with a stiff club and four diamonds. Anyway, extracting the information was anything but easy. Later, the partner of the person asking the questions made an admittedly brash balancing double. Whose fault is this? Maybe the balancing double was, as the committee decided, beyond the pale but I thought that the opponents should have been told that if you don't want a lot of questions, try giving a fully disclosive answer the first time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 A former partner of mine asked about opponents leading agreements after having received a jack lead against 3NT. His holding in the suit was AKQ. Opps were furious after the board, claiming he had tried to fool them to continue the suit. The fact was that this information was important to him, both in deciding which card to win the opening lead with. But more importantly, to plan the rest of the play, since he needed to know which offender was most likely to continue the suit later in the play. (Opps didn't have a system card.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MFA Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Adjusted score (for both sides) and a warning to declarer to be more careful in the future. Since we surely don't think he did it on purpose, do we? :lol: Lead small from this holding and blow your trick instantly like a man. hardly partner did have a stiff T after all. Yes I know, but I wasn't really talking about the actual layout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.