Do you have a LA?

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=s8654hj865dq6ca62&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1np4dp4hp4np5cp6hppp]133|200[/hv]

 

Before you can chose an opening lead, partner asks "what was 5 clubs?" (edited, many times)

 

Are you restricted, do you have a LA?

[TylerE]

I don't think I'm restricted, but that's assuming partner was awake enough to X 5♣ if he really wanted the ♣ lead.

[blackshoe]

If I have chosen my lead and am in the process of putting it face down on the table, I will continue with that motion, ignoring whatever partner asked.

 

If I'm still thinking about what to lead, now I have to consider Law 16, so partner and I are going to have a talk after the round if there's time, or after the session, whatever the outcome of the hand.

[jillybean]

Sorry, sorry, being too smart, too quick. OP should read "before you have time to chose your opening lead, partner asks what 5♣ is"

[Bbradley62]

I don't think I'm restricted, but that's assuming partner was awake enough to X 5♣ if he really wanted the ♣ lead.

If it's your lead, you are North, and only you had the opportunity to double 5♣.

 

Don't we have to see the North hand to determine what logical alternatives may or may not exist for leading from that hand?

[jillybean]

If it's your lead, you are North, and only you had the opportunity to double 5♣.

 

Don't we have to see the North hand to determine what logical alternatives may or may not exist for leading from that hand?

 

It's your lead, you are South and I will correct the OP again

[Vampyr]

I think that any card but a trump is an LA, and I will disallow a club.

[manudude03]

I'm somewhat confused here. The auction isn't finished yet, but if it does end in 6H, we're not on lead.

[Vampyr]

I'm somewhat confused here. The auction isn't finished yet, but if it does end in 6H, we're not on lead.

 

Ah right. I had read in another post that the diagram was fixed and we were on lead, but I can see one that this is not the case.

[jillybean]

The auction and direction are correct now :)

[pran]

North had no lead directing double of 5♣ available. Instead he uses lead directing questions before South has selected his opening lead.

 

The Director should not prohibit a Club lead, but he shall stand ready to award an assigned adjusted score if the Club lead turns out successful. (Read Law 16C carefully!)

[RMB1]

The timing of partner's question is illegal and he should know so.

If partner wants a club lead then this appears to be an illegal attempt to communicate.

I would consider a procedural penalty - even if there is also an adjustment for use of unauthorised information.

 

[ I did write "under Law 16B" instead of "for use of unauthorised information" but jillybean's TDs do not do law numbers :) ]

[gnasher]

North had no lead directing double of 5♣ available. Instead he uses lead directing questions before South has selected his opening lead.

 

The Director should not prohibit a Club lead, but he shall stand ready to award an assigned adjusted score if the Club lead turns out successful. (Read Law 16C carefully!)

I agree with the advice to read the laws carefully, but wouldn't it be better to read the law that actually applies to this situation?

[gnasher]

The obvious reason for partner's question is that he wants to know how many key cards declarer has shown. I'm surprised that people think that the question shows something in clubs, but perhaps I don't play in the right sort of games.

 

As West, I would assume that my partner had committed the comparatively minor infraction of asking a legitimate question at the wrong time, rather than a gross and extremely clumsy attempt to cheat. Hence I would assume I had no meaningful UI, and was not constrained.

 

As a director called upon to rule, I would examine East's hand, and ask him why he asked the question when he asked it. Then I'd decide whether his question actually pertained to the club suit or not, and rule accordingly.

 

It's not (yet) relevant, but I think ♣A lead is automatic.

[pran]

I agree with the advice to read the laws carefully, but wouldn't it be better to read the law that actually applies to this situation?

To the players - of course.

 

But my point was that the Director must not (for instance) forbid the lead of a Club, and my advice to read Law 16C carefully was for the Director to familiarize himself with correct procedures in situations like this.

[RMB1]

..., and my advice to read Law 16C carefully was for the Director to familiarize himself with correct procedures in situations like this.

 

I think gnasher may not think 16C is the correct law to be reading, I think Law 16B and Law 73C are more appropriate.

[pran]

The obvious reason for partner's question is that he wants to know how many key cards declarer has shown. I'm surprised that people think that the question shows something in clubs, but perhaps I don't play in the right sort of games.

 

As West, I would assume that my partner had committed the comparatively minor infraction of asking a legitimate question at the wrong time, rather than a gross and extremely clumsy attempt to cheat. Hence I would assume I had no meaningful UI, and was not constrained.

 

As a director called upon to rule, I would examine East's hand, and ask him why he asked the question when he asked it. Then I'd decide whether his question actually pertained to the club suit or not, and rule accordingly.

 

It's not (yet) relevant, but I think ♣A lead is automatic.

An equally obvious reason for partner's question at this time is drawing particular attention to the club suit. We need not say that he actually did, the point is that he could have.

 

But we don't know until after the board has been played enough to make a ruling.

 

And it is highly improper for the Director to examine any player's cards at this time and then say anything that can be understood as a ruling or an advice.

 

The moment you do any such thing you lay yourself wide open for having destroyed the board beyond the possibility of any normal play, resulting in a Law 82C ruling (Director's error) and Ave+ to each side.

[pran]

I think gnasher may not think 16C is the correct law to be reading, I think Law 16B and Law 73C are more appropriate.

I was fully aware of that and my reference to Law 16C was not for this Law to be read out to the players but for the Director to be aware of the correct procedure.

[gnasher]

An equally obvious reason for partner's question at this time is drawing particular attention to the club suit. We need not say that he actually did, the point is that he could have.

Well it may be obvious to you, but it wouldn't even occur to me. Mind you, I've noticed before that you and I seem to play our bridge on different planets.

 

But we don't know until after the board has been played enough to make a ruling.

 

And it is highly improper for the Director to examine any player's cards at this time and then say anything that can be understood as a ruling or an advice.

 

The moment you do any such thing you lay yourself wide open for having destroyed the board beyond the possibility of any normal play, resulting in a Law 82C ruling (Director's error) and Ave+ to each side.

 

When I said "As a director called upon to rule", I was talking about how I'd rule on West's action after he had made it, that is after the hand was over. Sorry if that was unclear.

 

If West asked me for advice before leading, I'd explain what the rules say about UI. If someone asked me for a ruling about an action which hadn't yet taken place, I'd look at him blankly.

[pran]

When I said "As a director called upon to rule", I was talking about how I'd rule on West's action after he had made it, that is after the hand was over. Sorry if that was unclear.

 

If West asked me for advice before leading, I'd explain what the rules say about UI. If someone asked me for a ruling about an action which hadn't yet taken place, I'd look at him blankly.

Good!

 

(For a moment I was kind of scared)

[mink]

I wonder if it makes a difference whether the question was about the 5♣ bid or worded like "What are your responses to the blackwood question?". Both questions will likely get the same answer, so one could argue that they semantically equivalent. If mentioning the ♣ suit explicitly draws attention to that suit, isn't that achieved also by a question that avoids to mention the suit but nevertheless obviously refers to the 5♣ bid?

 

Karl

[sfi]

Before you can chose an opening lead, partner asks "what was 5 clubs?" (edited, many times)

 

Are you restricted, do you have a LA?

 

What was 5 clubs? An explanation of the auction might have a bearing on my lead.

 

Assuming it was some sort of a key card sequence, I don't see anything more than a very minor infraction. It sounds like partner forgot about the transfer and simply wanted to know what was going on before they led. The only UI I have received is that partner wasn't paying sufficient attention to the auction.

 

Given this assumption, any lead apart from the CA is IMO bizarre.

[pran]

It is the question itself that (illegally) draws attention to the club suit and therefore is questionable (to say it mildly).

 

And the player had absolutely no acceptable bridge reason for not holding his question until it is his turn to play!

 

Whatever the answer to this question might be, and whatever reason the player might claim for asking the question is IMHO completely irrelevant.

 

If there had been a possibility of misinformation on the 5♣ bid then he would have had cause for asking after his partner had selected his opening lead but before this lead was faced. But I cannot see any possibility for such misinformation here.

 

So the Director must in this situation prepare himself for the application of Law 16B and award an adjusted score if a Club was led and this lead turned out successful.

 

Given the Cards and auction I would not accept an assertion that a Club lead in this case was so obvious (beyond any doubt) that the player did not have any other LA.

[jillybean]

South did lead ♣A and then small to KJ983 (T3,2,T9854,KJ983) -1

 

I said I need to call the director after this hand, the question was inappropriate to which North responded with the usual "why? everyone asks those questions"

I believe these questions are asked out of a lack of understanding rather than a direct attempt to cheat however it must be dealt with by the book. This is A/X not BCD

 

So I called the director and he said he would get back to me. How would you rule?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s8654hj865dq6ca62&w=saq7hakt943d72c74&n=st3h2dt9854ckj983&e=skj92hq7dakj3cqt5&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1np4dp4hp4np5cp6hppp]399|300[/hv]

[Bbradley62]

So, no one called the director until after defense had taken 2 tricks?