Leading Question

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=st5hqjt4dak4cak73&w=sj4h952dj852cqJ42&n=saq6hak63dqt6c856&e=sk98732h87d973c109&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1hp2n(heart raise, FG)p3c(natural)p3hp4c(first-round%20control)p4np5sp6hppp]399|300[/hv]

IMPs. Dealer South. North-South were playing fairly simple methods, with 4-card majors and a weak NT. 2NT agreed hearts, and they were soon in slam. 5♠ showed 2 key cards plus the queen of trumps; cue-bidding style was first-round controls. West led the jack of spades, on the basis that South had not cued spades. South, our friend who was in 5♣ on another thread only the night before, and who has impeccable ethics, asked about the lead and was told by East that it promised the 10 or shortage. "Could it be an internal sequence?", asked South, and was told by East "No, with KJ10 we would lead the 10". Declarer hopped up with the ace and played back a low spade from dummy. East had a nasty guess, and played low. Declarer claimed a bit later when trumps were 3-2. "Why did you ask about the internal sequence?" asked East. "I had not looked at my precise spade holding before asking," replied South, "and I don't think I should ask a different question depending on my spade holding; that would give you information to which you are not entitled; I have every right to know all aspects of the lead style, regardless of whether it matters on this hand. If you had given a full explanation initially, the problem would not have arisen." The TD was called. How would you rule?

[gordontd]

We have case law that when an RKCB 5♥ response was explained as "two key-cards", an opponent was entitled to ask whether it denied the trump queen even though he held that card. Now we can consider whether or not we think this case is the same :)

[jmcw]

Looking at the 10 in hand, South is well aware that the lead is not from an internal sequence...that much is obvious.

 

South's motives are unknown, but certainly appear quite suspicious to me.

 

He could easily have avoided this dilemma by phrasing his question " from which holdings can a Jack be led according to your agreements". By specifically asking if it could be from an internal sequence could easily be construed as an attempt to mislead East.

 

However, had the question not been asked should/would East play the King at trick 2?. I know I would not, although as we can see it is the winning defense.

 

I would let the result stand! mainly because I think the correct play at trick 2 is a low ♠.

[Bbradley62]

South is an ass, but is right.

 

PS: I hope he didn't describe North's 2NT as Jacoby, since his 3♣ rebid is clearly not consistent with that explanation.

[Bbradley62]

He could easily have avoided this dilemma by phrasing his question " from which holdings can a Jack be led according to your agreements".

It appears that this is exactly how the conversation started.

South... asked about the lead and was told by East that it promised the 10 or shortage.

He only followed-up with "Could it be an internal sequence?", when he supposedly thought he might have been given an incomplete answer which, it turns out, he wasn't.

[aguahombre]

South is an ass, but is right.

 

PS: I hope he didn't describe North's 2NT as Jacoby, since his 3♣ rebid is clearly not consistent with that explanation.

First, the P.S.: hopefully we are getting away from names in explanations. Though not relevent to the problem at trick one, it is a problem. If naming 2NT implies what the opening bidder will do next, rather than just what responder's bid means, then clearly opener should merely state that 2NT shows whatever strength and heart support.

 

As to South is an ass: Obviously leading the J from KJ, if it had happened, would not have been part of their lead agreements anyways; so, the question while looking at the ten did not have any reason to be asked at all, unless "Leads and carding?" is his standard question applied consistently. Up and back at trick two is a good play which South tainted by asking for more specific information which he didn't need to know.

 

 

Result stands, but OP might change his thoughts about "impeccable ethics".

[lamford]

It appears that this is exactly how the conversation started.

He only followed-up with "Could it be an internal sequence?", when he supposedly thought he might have been given an incomplete answer which, it turns out, he wasn't.

The explanation should have been "promises the 10 or shortage; if it has the 10, denies a higher honour." So it was incomplete.

[ggwhiz]

We have case law that when an RKCB 5♥ response was explained as "two key-cards", an opponent was entitled to ask whether it denied the trump queen even though he held that card. Now we can consider whether or not we think this case is the same :)

 

I'm very surprised by this.

 

I had the exact Q question situation a few years ago and was awarded an adjustment at the speed of light. The perpetrator was a very good and ethical player who blushed and apologized profusely.

 

I would have thought we are required to disclose "2 keycards with the Queen" in the explanation with the opps protected from MI if we don't.

 

Therefore the question about the 10 (it is the same situation) could have been known to mislead since you should at least know you have it.

 

Otherwise you take an inference at your own risk which means expressing a strong opinion on the players ethics. Putting that onus on a player just seems wrong.

[Free]

This is a classic trick, South definitely deserves some penalty. But I agree with the other posters to let the result stand, because the normal play is ♠A followed by small ♠, and East has a guess. West ruined their good score by leading from Jx against slam. I think NS deserve a procedural penalty, this is no way to play this game.

[gnasher]

Did EW have a convention card which described their leading methods?

[bluejak]

It is a pity that people who commit infractions should be considered non-offenders. I really dislike the approach of blaming a player, whose opponent has given a wrong explanation, from trying to make sure what the correct explanation is.

[aguahombre]

It is a pity that people who commit infractions should be considered non-offenders. I really dislike the approach of blaming a player, whose opponent has given a wrong explanation, from trying to make sure what the correct explanation is.

That point would be a good one in another context. In this case, the infraction of providing a lead explanation which might have been less than perfect was not damaging; and was sufficient for a person who held the ten.

 

Only a total Sec Bird or someone trying to do a number would inquire further.

[bluejak]

That is certainly not true. People get into habits, and one habit I have run into it that some people who get clearly insufficient explanations ask for clarification whatever the situation.

 

Whether you feel you should adjust or not please do not impute motives that may clearly be absent.

[aguahombre]

That is certainly not true. People get into habits, and one habit I have run into it that some people who get clearly insufficient explanations ask for clarification whatever the situation.

 

Whether you feel you should adjust or not please do not impute motives that may clearly be absent.

I chose no on adjustment, and kept to impuning. Unnamed culprit, and I am not a TD; so I took the liberty on a forum.

[ggwhiz]

It is a pity that people who commit infractions should be considered non-offenders. I really dislike the approach of blaming a player, whose opponent has given a wrong explanation, from trying to make sure what the correct explanation is.

 

I don't disagree at all but if the correct explanation has been given by you, where is your protection?

 

The follow up question is misleading, especially since the questioner is now afforded protection should the first answer contain MI or have been incomplete/flawed in a damaging manner.

 

An adjustment here need not impune anyones motives, just their form. If you are asking about an interior sequence when looking at the ten you are gaming or having a brain fart but I'll call it the latter...... this time

[nige1]

This is the second lamford problem where many posters would rule in favour of a player who seems guilty of gamesmanship (at least). When declarer asked "Could it be an internal sequence?", he ...

• Could tell from his own hand that it was not from an internal sequence.
• Had no legitimate bridge reason for asking, in the context of this hand.
• Could have known that his question would mislead RHO.

IMO, the director should adjust the score and impose a PP.

[jmcw]

This is the second lamford problem where many posters would rule in favour of a player who seems guilty of gamesmanship (at least). When declarer asked "Could it be an internal sequence?", he ...

• Could tell from his own hand that it was not from an internal sequence.
• Had no legitimate bridge reason for asking, in the context of this hand.
• Could have known that his question would mislead RHO.

IMO, the director should adjust the score and impose a PP.

 

There is no basis for an adjusted score since the play of a small ♠ at trick 2 is the percentage play.

 

A procedural penalty seems wrong to me, since it is far from clear that South's motives were intended as devious.

 

I understand some may consider South's motive could be an attempt to deceive, but if I were the director I would be guided by my knowledge of the player in question.

 

If I'm not mistaken, the opponent said he had "impeccable ethics" thats good enough for me.

[alphatango]

(For reference, I would not adjust in the other thread.)

 

It seems to me that if opponents have been damaged (and I express no opinion about that yet), this hand requires an adjustment. Declarer's "demonstrable bridge reason" relies on him always asking the follow-up question -- if he does that, I would argue that it is unusual enough that it should have been disclosed to opponents (perhaps on the system card).

 

Regardless, I might well check with other opponents, etc., to find out whether he really does always ask. That would be relevant to the question of a PP.

[lamford]

If I'm not mistaken, the opponent said he had "impeccable ethics" thats good enough for me.

The OP stated that, not the the opponent. I also stated that he was the person that had broken tempo with a singleton opposite KQ10x in another thread, so there was an element of sarcasm in the phrase. And the other main issue is that a player that is not "innocent" does get any redress from being misled under 73F. East committed an infraction of 40B6: "a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement". So he wasn't "innocent". Therefore he does not get redress, even if South deliberately attempted to mislead him, and admits that. So SB can seemingly exploit any breach of any rule to pull the wool over someone's eyes. Not my way to play bridge, but the SB enjoys it, and we can still give him a PP.

[lamford]

West ruined their good score by leading from Jx against slam.

Just like the defender that did not put in the jack of spades on the other thread. We should have a game sometime; it would be nice to have a partner that leads and defends perfectly, and is good at hindsight analysis.

[gnasher]

There is no basis for an adjusted score since the play of a small ♠ at trick 2 is the percentage play.

Is it?

 

So far as I can see, a spade winner is useful to declarer in only two situations: (1) he has ♦Ax and can't throw dummy's diamonds on the spades; (2) he has ♦AK with two club losers, one of which goes on a diamond and the other on a spade. Therefore playing ♠K costs only against some (most?) 1624 shapes.

 

Playing ♠K gains against four times as many shapes - 2434, 2524, 2515, 2614, but only if partner has led from Jx. Whether that's more or less likely depends on your knowledge of partner's leading habits.

[campboy]

Wait, East gave an incomplete answer and then tried to work out declarer's holding from whether or not he asked a follow-up question, but people are questioning South's ethics?

 

If South had not asked the second question, and East had gone up with the king, would you have adjusted the score? Do you expect South to be confident that you would?

[gnasher]

If we would have adjust when East had given a correct explanation, we should also adjust when East has given an incorrect explanation.

 

The misexplanation doesn't mean that South is no longer bound by the laws. South apparently didn't know that he had received a misexplanation, so it has no bearing on South's reasons for asking his followup question. Nor does the misexplanation make South's second question any less misleading.

 

Should we adjust? I think it's clear that South's second question misled East, South could have known that it would mislead, and he had no demonstrable bridge reason for asking it (unless he can demonstrate that he always asks both questions on any jack lead, and had made the opponents aware of this in advance).

 

Is that sufficient to consider an adjustment under 73F, or do we first have to be satisfied that it was a breach of 73D2 (ie deliberate)? I've never understood this bit of the Laws.

 

Finally, we'd have to decide whether there was damage. I'd want to hear East's explanation of why he would have played the king.

[Free]

Just like the defender that did not put in the jack of spades on the other thread. We should have a game sometime; it would be nice to have a partner that leads and defends perfectly, and is good at hindsight analysis.

I never said on the other thread that West should've played the ♠J at some point, that's too far fetched imo. But leading from Jx against slam is just wrong.

[Free]

There is no basis for an adjusted score since the play of a small ♠ at trick 2 is the percentage play.

Is it?

 

So far as I can see, a spade winner is useful to declarer in only two situations: (1) he has ♦Ax and can't throw dummy's diamonds on the spades; (2) he has ♦AK with two club losers, one of which goes on a diamond and the other on a spade. Therefore playing ♠K costs only against some (most?) 1624 shapes.

 

Playing ♠K gains against four times as many shapes - 2434, 2524, 2515, 2614, but only if partner has led from Jx. Whether that's more or less likely depends on your knowledge of partner's leading habits.

Declarer's play of a small ♠ at trick 2 is percentage... :rolleyes: It's basically his only chance.