Rule on this

[campboy]

The auction just indicates that someone doesn't have his bid. Why should that be partner?

[ggwhiz]

intended as DONT, alerted as CAPP, partnership had agreed to play CAPP

 

Under the current laws, there is nothing wrong with a mis-bid as long as the correct explanation was given.

 

Bobby Wolff would like to see convention disruption penalized but it does NOT exist in the laws today. The 4nt bid is authorized information and all that is needed for east west who are allowed to get lucky.

 

The Director ruling is bizarre and (s)he needs to do some reading.

 

Norths bidding largely created the poor result, blowing off the heart fit. Could or should redouble first time, definitely cue 3s instead of 4nt etc. Arguably severing the link to damage.

 

If the successful lead was a spade instead of from a crummy long diamond suit, would he not also complain?

[bluejak]

The auction just indicates that someone doesn't have his bid. Why should that be partner?

Not sure I understand this. The auction indicates that North and South have points, and East has spades. That all seems credible, and means a spade lead is useless. It is only if someone does not have his bid that a spade lead becomes a possibility.

[lamford]

Dummy ♠ KQ ♥ KQxx ♦xxx ♣KQJx opposite ♠Jx ♥AJxx ♦KQx ♣ATxx is one layout where everyone has their bid, and a spade lead is necessary, and a diamond lead is hopeless. Come to think of it, this is quite likely, as partner volunteered 2S with a bad hand.

[campboy]

The auction just indicates that someone doesn't have his bid. Why should that be partner?

Not sure I understand this. The auction indicates that North and South have points, and East has spades. That all seems credible, and means a spade lead is useless. It is only if someone does not have his bid that a spade lead becomes a possibility.

I would think East should have more like a 10-count to bid 2♠ from West's point of view (ie, if double does not show a strong hand). The UI suggests he may have significantly less, since he thinks double did show a strong hand.

[ggwhiz]

I would think East should have more like a 10-count to bid 2♠ from West's point of view (ie, if double does not show a strong hand). The UI suggests he may have significantly less, since he thinks double did show a strong hand.

 

East has a 10 count opposite a strong hand and wants to play in 2 only spades without allowing for a penalty double somewhere????? Not on this planet.

 

Where did the 4nt bid come from? That is authorized information and North dug this hole.

[campboy]

I said from West's point of view. West does not believe he has shown a strong hand, so would expect partner to have some values in order to compete.

 

Of course, the UI that East believes West to have a strong hand indicates that East is likely to be much weaker than that (as I also said in my previous post).

[lamford]

I would think East should have more like a 10-count to bid 2♠ from West's point of view (ie, if double does not show a strong hand). The UI suggests he may have significantly less, since he thinks double did show a strong hand.

Indeed, the more I think about it, West's contention that a spade lead won't work is similar to those players who field a psyche on the basis that the vulnerable opponents surely have their bids, and partner's 1NT overcall is probably comic. He is trusting the opponent's bidding and ignoring partner's bid.

 

IMHO the pollees who would reverse the director's decision are making the worst decision I have ever seen on here, and I hope they do not get on to any AC. Indeed I would impose a PP for the diamond lead.

[lamford]

The Director ruling is bizarre and (s)he needs to do some reading.

People often find faults in others that are most prominent in themselves.

[ggwhiz]

What a hoot!

 

When partner has either shown or denied values (take your pick), the natural lead (It's in all the books) from your longest and strongest against notrump is a crime? umm only if it works?

[lamford]

What a hoot!

 

When partner has either shown or denied values (take your pick), the natural lead (It's in all the books) from your longest and strongest against notrump is a crime? umm only if it works?

It is when you are obliged to carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI that partner thought you had made a penalty double of 1NT. Leading a diamond will only work when partner has Kx of diamonds, extremely unlikely with the AI. He bid spades, vulnerable, when he could have passed, opposite a DONT double. He would normally have competitive values AND A GOOD SUIT for this action, as he is forcing you to three-level when you have a singleton spade and another suit. I would expect partner to have something like AQJxxx for this action normally, except then the opponents points don't add up. Maybe the NT bidder has tried something eccentric with long clubs.

 

Leading a diamond says, "I heard you bid 2S, pard, but that was because you thought I had a strong balanced hand - you might not have much there then, so I will play for the miracle of Kx of diamonds instead. Despite the fact it does not conform to your ethical requirements. Big time."

[bluejak]

That's a very biased description of why West led a diamond. I think it unnecessary to be quite so biased.

 

I would probably lead a diamond, but not for lamford's reason: if partner has any entry then ♦xx in his hand may be enough to beat it, but we need a lot more in spades. It would never occur to me that I was looking for ♦Kx specifically.

 

Furthermore the opposition have bid 4NT knowing about the spades. Diamonds might be a surprise.

 

A rather better approach than of pouring scorn on an obvious lead would be to take a poll.

[awm]

It seems obvious a poll is needed here.

 

I agree that West has UI (partner thought he had a penalty double at the time of the 2♠ bid) and that this UI suggests leading a diamond rather than a spade (a free 2♠ bid need not show nearly as strong a suit given that partner is assuming a strong hand).

 

So the question is whether leading a spade is a logical alternative given the authorized information. There is a coherent argument that a diamond lead is "obvious" since partner cannot have much in the way of values. The way to resolve this is to take a poll of course.

 

Another possible point of interest is west's pass over 2♠. For some reason people playing methods like DONT often get really annoyed that they can't bid their suit and stick a natural bid in at the next opportunity. If east's 2♠ bid showed serious values (which, at the point it came back around to west, was still a possibility) then it's believable that west might bid 3♦. Since west knows that east's 2♠ can be based on garbage (from the UI) it's less tempting to stick such a call in. Again, the way to resolve this is probably to take a poll and see if bidding 3♦ was a logical alternative.

[helene_t]

Another possible point of interest is west's pass over 2♠. For some reason people playing methods like DONT often get really annoyed that they can't bid their suit and stick a natural bid in at the next opportunity. If east's 2♠ bid showed serious values (which, at the point it came back around to west, was still a possibility) then it's believable that west might bid 3♦. Since west knows that east's 2♠ can be based on garbage (from the UI) it's less tempting to stick such a call in. Again, the way to resolve this is probably to take a poll and see if bidding 3♦ was a logical alternative.

I don't think passing 2♠ was suggested by the UI.

 

Opposite a DONT double, 2♠ shows a 6-card suit. Opposite a penalty double it might only be 5. It is possible that West thougt that his ethical obligation was to pass rather than to bid 3♦. Of course it could also be argued that 3♦ would show a very strong hand if playing penalty doubles, so the UI suggests not bidding 3♦. But even playing DONT, 3♦ now might be taken as stronger than a direct 3♦ bid, not just diamonds without spade tolerance.

 

Anyway, I don't think 3♦ is an LA. He jugded an immediate 3♦ call to be unsafe, 3♦ now would be more risky and have less to gain.

[awm]

I don't think passing 2♠ was suggested by the UI.

 

Opposite a DONT double, 2♠ shows a 6-card suit. Opposite a penalty double it might only be 5.

The issue is that partner will take a 3♦ bid as showing some huge power-double hand with diamonds and this could easily lead to some awful spot like 3NTX. The fact that partner may be quite light in points also means that 3♦X could be a stronger possibility than it otherwise would be. Basically, bidding again here in the face of a misunderstanding could lead to a huge disaster. Thus passing is indicated by the UI.

 

Of course, there is an argument that one should pass anyway, because west's hand is so lousy and he does have doubleton support for spades. But in my experience, DONT bidders often do bid this way (i.e. get frustrated and name their suit on the three-level). I do think it's worthy of a poll.

[ggwhiz]

That's a very biased description of why West led a diamond

 

Bottom line is that I don't think West did anything terrible except forget their documented agreement. Passing the 2S bid and then leading a diamond could EASILY be his best attempt at being ethical.

 

For example, I'll pass 2S as if pard alerted my dbl as I interpreted and I'll lead a diamond like I didn't hear pards 2S bid which I would not have heard without my screw up.

 

Rule however way you like, there are way too many issues and contrasting opinions in this thread to trash these items as being unethical.

[campboy]

Adjusting the table score is not accusing West of deliberately being unethical.

[ggwhiz]

Adjusting the table score is not accusing West of deliberately being unethical.

 

And how not? You take advantage of UI or you don't. Proper explanation in a mis-bid auction is clearly allowed to get lucky.

[blackshoe]

Law 73C says that a player in receipt of UI "must carefully avoid taking advantage from that unauthorized information".

 

Law 16B1 says that such player 'may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information".

 

In neither case is a score adjustment an accusation of cheating. It is a statement that, in the TD's (or AC's) judgment, the player, who certainly may have (and in fact is assumed to have, absent very convincing evidence to the contrary) tried to comply with these laws, has failed in that effort.

 

IOW, it's not unethical to try, but fail, though it may be ethical to fail to try. I reiterate, however, that absent convincing evidence (beyond just "he had some LAs, and he chose this one, which we can now show could have been suggested by UI") to the contrary, TD's (and AC's) do not, and should not, assume that a player has failed to try to comply with these laws.

[bluejak]

Adjusting the table score is not accusing West of deliberately being unethical.

And how not? You take advantage of UI or you don't. Proper explanation in a mis-bid auction is clearly allowed to get lucky.

If you "take advantage" of UI, you might:

• not understand the UI Laws, or
  
• not realise you have UI from partner, or
  
• not realise what partner's UI suggests, or
  
• disagree with others' bridge judgement as to what is an LA
  

In none of these cases have you "deliberately been unethical".

 

Only if you understand the UI Laws, and realise that a call you make flouts them are you deliberately unethical.

[lamford]

if partner has any entry then ♦xx in his hand may be enough to beat it, but we need a lot more in spades.

even when partner has ♦xx and an entry, you will still fail if:

a) declarer as ♦KQx of diamonds as he will just duck your jack of diamonds lead

b ) whenever declarer has nine tricks outside in the rounded suits, as on the actual hand.

 

When you lead a spade, you know that does not give them a diamond trick, and you know you have a second spade to lead if they need a diamond for their tenth trick.

 

But, we don't need to decide on the relative merits of a spade lead; all we need to decide is if:

a) around 20% of leaders (EBU guideline, I recall from Jeffrey or Frances) of people would seriously consider a spade lead

b ) some of those would actually select it.

 

Given that nobody disputes that the diamond lead is demonstrably suggested over the spade lead by the UI, the adjustment seems a no-brainer.

 

And I agree with you that we are not suggesting that the actual leader is being unethical; we don't need to do that to adjust.

[bluejak]

KQx? If he ducks and I have the only entry he has just gone off in a cold one!

 

But I do not believe a diamond lead is marked because it is likely to beat 4NT: on the auction I do not expect to beat 4NT. But if there happens to be any chance, I believe it will only be on a diamond lead, and that is why I think the diamond lead routine.

[aguahombre]

A lead would be considered to be "routine"(blue's words), in my opinion, if over 90 percent would choose it. But, as Lam points out, it doesn't take as much as 10 percent total for the spade lead to be a LA.

 

Although I agree with the diamond lead for blue's reasons, don't I have to rule against it? (and hate it while doing it)?

[bluejak]

Well, polling might be a good idea. But <10% is not really the standard I do not think, though I have seen nothing official from the ACBL since the last Law book.

[ggwhiz]

A poll might be useful in that it should include the entire auction.

 

I don't think the pass of 2s took advantage of any UI but the 4NT bid by North in light of an expected spade lead is Authorized information.