Explanations about lead and more

[olegru]

ACBL, BAM

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj93h6dq92ckt632&w=sk2hkt94da8765cj4&n=sat64haq85d4caq85&e=s875hj732dkjt3c97]399|300[/hv]

South declarer in 4 ♠

During the bidding West shown exactly 4 cards in ♥ a d at least 5 in ♦

Lead 10♥

I (east) asked by declarer what is our leads agreement and explained that we are using attitude leads - small promise honer.

Declare played Ace, ruffed 3 ♥ in his hand and end up with 12 tricks. Well done.

Not good enough decided declarer and called the director because my explanation did not fit with partner's lead.

Director asked us about agreements.

The main agreement is "small promise honer" as I said. Partner lead 10 because of internal secuence K109x, that is permited by our agreements. My fault, I so much get used to our specific understanding that forgot about this standard exception. By the way, should player really give all possible holdings if he asked or just say tha main idea?

Anyway, after discovering our agreements director did not talk about that board anymore and just walked away to think.

There is not to much to think for my opinion. Even if finness is taken number of tricks stays the same - 12. At least I see no way to take 13 tricks with finess or without. But nobody asked me about it.

There were 3 more round until the end of game and director never come up to any members of our team to say there is adjustment. We did not qualify for final and left in 10 minutes after tournament completed. Nobody informed us about adjustment, gave opportunity to argue or apeal. I discovered adjustment the next day after final completed. There is absolutly no diference for my team. But what if that 0.5 of points made some difference for other teams standing?

 

Now questions:

1. If director called to the table when he supposed to make a decition to adjust result or not? If director could pospond the decicion after all games end does he suppose to inform affected team that change is possible and ask them to wait or it players responsobility to get informed?

2. Does player affected have rights to provide his point of view to director, or he supposed simply answer on questions asked by director and let him figure out the rest (and apeal director' decicion if not agree).

3. How much should be probability of the winning action to adjust to it. (Lets pretend finess actually could give the 13th trick to declarer. Even after the full explanation it is way under 50% (declarer knows ♥ is 4 -4 and K109x is the only holding for West to have the King. Taking loosing finess declarer immediatly loosing 2 tricks. should director adjust to 13 tricks in that teorethical case?)

[bluejak]

First of all, your answer to the question is not really correct. Most people have agreements over small card leads, and agreements over honour leads: it sounds as though you have. If asked about your leads you should generally answer both. More importantly, if asked about your leads after the lead of an honour you should certainly tell declarer about your honour leads.

 

Second, when a TD is asked for a judgement ruling, as here, it is perfectly normal and correct procedure for him not to answer immediately. He should go away, consult and consider. However, he is required to give the ruling to both sides, so if he did not give the ruling to you, and explain it, then he has gone wrong.

 

Third, when we consider rulings at a table, we do not worry about their effects on other tables. They are no more relevant than everything else at this table, like leading the wrong thing, taking a wrong view, and so on. So, as a general principle, TDs and ACs do not consider other tables. Of course that does not affect that the ruling should be correctly made and correctly given to the players.

 

Fourth, when investigating, it is normal and good TD practice to make sure everyone has their say. So you should certainly be allowed to have your say, in addition to answering questions.

 

Fifth, in the ACBL Law 12C1E covers adjustments. This gives standards for adjustments and the probabilities you ask about decide whether to adjust and what to, and need not be the same adjustment for each side. If the finesse is considered 20%, for example, the TD might give you 13 tricks but your opponents 12 tricks. However if he considers it 30% he might give each side 13 tricks. If he only considers it 10% he will probably not adjust.

[Finch]

Fifth: 13 tricks are fairly easy if declarer finesses: HQ, HA, H ruff, Q of spades (covered or not), Jack of spades to the king and ace, heart ruff, club to dummy, A of spades, run clubs.

 

this isn't terribly relevant to the rest of your questions

[blackshoe]

>Sigh> I've got to learn to either type faster or be more concise. Or perhaps stop falling asleep at the keyboard. B-)

[bluejak]

>Sigh> I've got to learn to either type faster or be more concise. Or perhaps stop falling asleep at the keyboard. B-)

Ok, I'll bite. What are you talking about?

[blackshoe]

I had built a nice long reply to the OP. Before posting it, I looked at the thread again and discovered that you and Frances had already covered everything I was going to say. :lol:

[mgoetze]

It is my experience that the lead of the ten is one of the most interesting and varied aspects of a pair's leading agreements. If I asked about a ten lead and got a useless answer like "small promises honor" I would certainly ask again for a more complete explanation, but maybe that's just me.

[olegru]

Thanks for replies. My original message definitely was not well put and well thought (new year eve). Thanks Frances, for point out on how to make 13 tricks, I believe it make questions even more interesting.

At first. I put meta agreement “small promise honor” in the message just to make it shorter. In a real life declarer got a good description: no coded tens, all standard stuff except we are not playing quantitative leads and lead top small card deny interest to suit leaded, 10 usually promise 9. After request was clarified that lead small guaranties at least one of 3 top honors. Believe me description was nice and long and I say whatever I thought I know, but (unfortunately) my answer did not include possibility of internal sequence. (Mainly because I sincere did not expect my partner could lead ten from K109x. We are not playing now often enough and some of agreements are moot. My partner thought he could (not should), and we did not have anything in CC to prove one way over another.)

Second. I am completely aware that director should not answer immediately. My question is when he should answer. I was under impression that it is a director responsibility to make sure both sides get informed about the ruling. (Meaning: if before session ends director still was not yet able to make his ruling he should ask both sides to wait for ruling.) Procedure when team was not informed about ruling because nobody asked them to wait after completion of the session and they left before ruling made does not feel right for me.

Third. By effect on another tables I meant following. A team in competition would wait for final standing. Director will be able to give them ruling made after session end and before score completed. They will be able to present their point of view and appeal if don’t agree with ruling. The rule ”audiatur et altera pars” will be followed.

As it happened our team was far below to have a chance to qualify and we left as soon as we saw the results (5-7 minutes after session completed). I guess at that point our opponents remind director about the call and he made his ruling after listening only one side with second side unable to present their view and appeal. Losing team is not really interested in this ruling anymore but giving one sided ruling with nobody to apeal is dungerous because it could affect other teams standing.

Fourth. I understand theory how adjustment should be made, but could you look at the actual board and give your opinion for this particular case? Declarer knows that H is divided 4-4, both opponents in passed hands and West has at least 5 diamonds.

Note: it is ACBL land and Board-and-Match tournament.

[barmar]

As it happened our team was far below to have a chance to qualify and we left as soon as we saw the results (5-7 minutes after session completed). I guess at that point our opponents remind director about the call and he made his ruling after listening only one side with second side unable to present their view and appeal. Losing team is not really interested in this ruling anymore but giving one sided ruling with nobody to apeal is dungerous because it could affect other teams standing.

What's he supposed to do? You shouldn't be able to prevent a ruling just by leaving.

[blackshoe]

Generally speaking, if I as a player leave an event while a ruling is still pending, I've forgotten that a ruling is still pending. More often, if I'm ready to leave and haven't received a ruling, I ask the director to give it. If I ever have a director then say "oh, I already gave the ruling to your opponents" I will ask her — pointedly — when she intended to tell my partner and I, but it hasn't happened yet.

 

If, as a director, I have a pending ruling to complete, and cannot find one or both contestants to inform them, I make the ruling anyway. If a contestant leaves before getting a ruling, that's their problem.

[mink]

... and we left as soon as we saw the results (5-7 minutes after session completed).

As a player, I would guess that when the results are there and the session is completed, the director has ruled score stands and did only have time to tell this to the side that might like to challenge this ruling.

 

As I director, I certainly would not publish results before having completed all rulings and informed all players affected by the ruling and made the resulting adjustments, if required.

 

About the judgement: Declarer was not informed that 10 might be top of inner sequence. Defenders were not sure if this was included in their understandings or not, so we assume it was included. On the other hand, olegru did never state that the 10 denies an honor. If I was declarer, and if I was thinking about the ♥-finesse, I would have asked. But defenders cannot rely on the assumption that declarer will ask what they forget to mention. So yes, there was misinformation.

 

The other question is: Even if I know that West might have ♥K, is it more likely that the finesse will gain another trick or is it more likely that we lose another trick if it fails? With the current distribution the finesse works fine, but only because the ♠ finesse is also on. If both major kings are offside, it is quite obvious that the finesse results in 10 tricks, and not taking the finesse yields 11 tricks, as you can ruff in ♥ 3 times. If my analysis is correct (not quite sure) you get always 11 tricks if the kings are in different hands, no matter if the ♥ finesse is taken or not. Probably the bidding showed that West is the stronger opponent, and therefore the current distribution is a lot more likely. So it is reasonable to take the finesse, and the director should award 13 tricks.

 

Karl

[pigpenz]

I had a ruling like this at regional in Santa Rosa in Flight A teams

lead from interior sequence like that was not what was marked on card.

committee ruled that I was experienced enough to sort out if it was problem or not, and their

partnership was allowed to break from what was on their card for leads.

[blackshoe]

I had a ruling like this at regional in Santa Rosa in Flight A teams

lead from interior sequence like that was not what was marked on card.

committee ruled that I was experienced enough to sort out if it was problem or not, and their

partnership was allowed to break from what was on their card for leads.

When was this? Can you clarify that last bit about being allowed to break from what was on their cards?

[pigpenz]

When was this? Can you clarify that last bit about being allowed to break from what was on their cards?

Flight A teams Santa Rosa Regional 1992

one of my partners was on the committee, Jean Michell from Orinda,CA

 

opp lead 10 from KJ10x(x)

their leads were marked as standard.....so J was circled for this holding

 

any way result was down two instead of one

 

at time of lead asked if leads were standard and they said yes.

 

 

Jean...at dinner told me committee felt that a player of my level should have been able to handle

the situation, and that it was ok for a partnership to break from their understanding....say

leading J for QJ to fool delcarer

[blackshoe]

Falsecarding is certainly legal, but as the table TD I would have asked the leader why he lead the 10, and if told he was falsecarding, asked how often he does that from this kind of holding. Frequent falsecarding can establish an implicit partnership understanding, just as frequent psyching can. As for "you should have been able to handle the situation" I'd ask the committee just what they meant by that — how they expected me to "handle it".