Rule on this

[bluejak]

The way to do an effective poll is to give the auction, but describe the double as DONT, ie a 1-suiter, and ask people what they lead.

[lamford]

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

Then what did the 2S bidder have for volunteering 2S? He has little enough room in points for that without you taking away his entry!

 

And don't forget the fact that he bid 2S opposite a CAPP double is authorised to declarer but not to you.

[bluejak]

Sure: it is unlikely any lead will beat it. But your idea that declarer will never go wrong seems very pessimistic, and when you think a contract is likely to be making, you need optimism not pessimism.

[lamford]

Leading a spade is quite optimistic; one layout where it might work is dummy Hxx opposite declarer Hx in spades. Declarer may not duck in both hands.

 

I tried a few very strong players on the authorised auction 1NT - Double (DONT) - 2C (Stayman) - 2S - Pass - Pass - 4NT and they all thought a diamond was hopeless; partner is almost certain to have a singleton when opponents have not bid a suit natural and forcing. The actual layout was a bit of a miracle really

[mycroft]

I don't know about anybody else, but when I bid DONT (even the one-suiters), I'm bidding obstructively. Sure it's a 6-card suit, but AJxxxx is pretty good. JTxxxx isn't unreasonable; the whole point is to get them off their nice simple system (and yes, I know "ignore the double". It's one of the reasons I don't completely *like* DONT).

 

If I double DONT and partner bids his suit, it *will* play better opposite a singleton than mine - and a singleton in my suit is what I can expect; zero is more likely than two, frankly. Opposite my void, we're dead anyway, but 2S-4 is still better than 3Dx-2. I know people unauthorized-panic to the 3 level, but that's all it is.

 

What that does to the ruling in question I don't know, but that's the facts.

[jallerton]

[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.

Yes, the Law refers to "significant proportion". In England, the following guidance has been given by the Laws & Ethics Committee:

 

What is a “significant proportion”?  The Laws do not specify a figure, but the TD should assume that it means at least one player in five.

 

I found some TD guidance on the ACBL website, but the guidance on Law 16, logical alternatives just refers to "significant proportion" ; so presumably ACBL TDs are given some latitude in interpreting this phrase.

 

In the actual case, I agree that a spade lead appears to be demonstrably suggested {maybe some DONT players can confirm how they play, but I would presume that 2♠ says: I don't care what your suit is, I want to play in 2♠ rather than being some 'pass or correct' bid}. Over a penalty double a non-forcing 2♠ bid would tend to suggest a weaker suit.

 

I agree with everyone who says that a poll is needed to determine whether a spade lead is a logical alternative. My feeling is that it certainly ought to be as one of the plausible layouts where it goes off is where partner has ♦Qx and either ♠A or ♠K over dummy's ace.

 

The original poster asks whether the appeal has merit. To answer this type of question, we need to know the basis of the TD's ruling. For example, if the TD had already taken a valid poll, from which he had concluded that a ♠ lead was a logical alternative, then the appeal would indeed be frivolous.

 

I am unimpressed by:

 

EW appeal, arguing that West knew from the 4NT bid that a spade had no chance to defeat 4NT, so had to lead a diamond.

 

Does West never lead partner's suit when he knows that dummy has a stop? An alternative theory would be to assume that neither North nor South can have particularly strong spade holding as neither has seen fit to double 2♠.

[Apollo81]

Apparently the director in charge did not poll anyone, so I guess there would have been merit to an appeal here.

[bid_em_up]

..