Do you have a LA?

[jillybean]

I actually turned to South (friend and occasional partner) before he made the opening lead and said, "you know, if you lead a club I will have to call the director" but I did not call the director

until trick 2.

[Bbradley62]

If irregularities

must be dealt with by the book

why did you not call the director when the irregularity occurred, as the book dictates? I presume that you're East, since West is not allowed to call the director during the play of the hand.

 

But I am impressed that you didn't lose a trump in addition to the two clubs.

[jillybean]

If irregularitieswhy did you not call the director when the irregularity occurred, as the book dictates? I presume that you're East, since West is not allowed to call the director during the play of the hand.

I did not call the director immediately because I get such a negative reaction from (some) directors and players when I do make director calls that it is not worth the grief.

Infractions are typically dealt with by the players until a ruling is required and anyone doing otherwise is an anomaly. Am I happy with this, no and I would rather call the director after an infraction but it is not the way things are done around here.

 

I think it is everyones responsibility to call the director after I draw attention to an irregularity, so I will let someone else do the dirty work.

 

 

But I am impressed that you didn't lose a trump in addition to the two clubs.

Thank you, my play is improving :)

[Bbradley62]

Since I'm not from "around (t)here", I don't know how y'all sorta kinda enforce the rules. Where I'm from, EW forfeited their right to rectification by answering the question (I presume it was answered, although you don't actually say) without calling the director, and NS deserves a procedural penalty, both under Law 11. I'm sure others will have different opinions.

[blackshoe]

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!)

Famously, on the subject of Anti-Submarine Warfare, a US destroyer skipper said "Of course I'm paranoid! The question is, am I paranoid enough!"

 

Bridge is not ASW, and the Director is not the skipper of a destroyer looking for enemy submarines. It is far more likely that North wants to know how many keycards declarer has and in his eagerness hasn't paid attention to protocol than that he has deliberately asked for a club lead.

 

And 16C has nothing to do with this case.

[Vampyr]

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.

 

I don't think you do. Jillybean's other threads have noted that the games she plays in are shockingly conducted.

[blackshoe]

The question violates proper procedure as defined in Law 41A and B, as it was not made at the proper time (i.e., after the opening lead is made face down, and before it is faced). So a procedural penalty might be applied.

 

Also, the question, or its timing, might convey information to the questioner's partner. Such information is not authorized for use in determining the questioner's partner's actions. This is pure 16B territory. What, demonstrably, could the UI suggest? What are the LAs? Which La(s) are suggested over another LA by the UI?

 

The OP was not posed as a ruling question, rather as a puzzle for the questioner's partner: Is there UI? Does it suggest a particular lead? Have I LAs? Should I then make a different lead? I think the answers to these questions are yes, it could suggest a club lead, yes, and yes. I can see an argument for "all it suggests is that partner wants to know how many keycards declarer has," but the law says "could demonstrably suggest" and I think it's clear that given the timing of the question, the possibility of the suggestion to lead a club is pretty obvious. And I would say that even if partner didn't have a hand that seems to clearly like a club lead.

 

Proper procedure when UI is made available — in this case, when the question is asked — is to reserve one's right to call the director later. If the opponents agree there was UI, there's no need for the director at this time. If the opponents disagree that UI was made available, they should call the director immediately themselves. The director will come to the table, determine whether, in his judgement UI was made available, and instruct the players as to their rights and responsibilities. He will then ask the players to call him back if there later appears to have been an illegal use of UI. This second call should come after the play is over. At that time the TD will either rule whether there should be a score adjustment, and what that should be, or tell the table to score it as played, and that he will take the hand under advisement, and inform them later of his ruling (probably the latter, except in very simple cases).

 

Jillybean's comment to South might be taken as an attempt at intimidation. In any case, it is poor form.

 

Infractions are typically dealt with by the players until a ruling is required and anyone doing otherwise is an anomaly.

This is, of course, illegal. See Law 10A.

 

I understand Jilly's frustration with players and directors who either do not know the laws or do not care what they say. Nonetheless I think "falling into line" with the cultural bias here, while it may make for smooth sailing much of the time, is in the long run a losing approach. Follow the laws, and the devil take the hindmost. :-)

[pran]

Famously, on the subject of Anti-Submarine Warfare, a US destroyer skipper said "Of course I'm paranoid! The question is, am I paranoid enough!"

 

Bridge is not ASW, and the Director is not the skipper of a destroyer looking for enemy submarines. It is far more likely that North wants to know how many keycards declarer has and in his eagerness hasn't paid attention to protocol than that he has deliberately asked for a club lead.

 

And 16C has nothing to do with this case.

Sorry, misprint for 16B

 

And as I have already said: It doesn't mattger why North illegally drew particular attention to the Club suit, the fact is that he did.

[pran]

I did not call the director immediately because I get such a negative reaction from (some) directors and players when I do make director calls that it is not worth the grief.

Infractions are typically dealt with by the players until a ruling is required and anyone doing otherwise is an anomaly. Am I happy with this, no and I would rather call the director after an infraction but it is not the way things are done around here.

 

I think it is everyones responsibility to call the director after I draw attention to an irregularity, so I will let someone else do the dirty work.

When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends**. The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.

and

it is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later.

(My enhancements)

[gnasher]

Sorry, misprint for 16B

 

And as I have already said: It doesn't mattger why North illegally drew particular attention to the Club suit, the fact is that he did.

 

Was it also a misprint when you said

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.

 

[pran]

Was it also a misprint when you said

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.

No, the Director must never interfere directly with a player's call or play.

 

Each player is solely responsible for his own actions. The Director shall apply the relevant Law(s) when an action taken is found to have been illegal.

 

How would you rule if the Director in the case discussed here prohibited a Club lead and it was subsequently found that the Club lead would have been legal because the player really had no other LA? (Correct answer: Law 82 C!)

[gnasher]

No, the Director must never interfere directly with a player's call or play.

 

Each player is solely responsible for his own actions. The Director shall apply the relevant Law(s) when an action taken is found to have been illegal.

Yes of course. Who do you think said otherwise?

 

I was only asking about your choice of wording, which looks suspiciously like the wording of Law 16C.

 

 

[sfi]

I actually turned to South (friend and occasional partner) before he made the opening lead and said, "you know, if you lead a club I will have to call the director" but I did not call the director

until trick 2.

 

To me (and to someone else who had no other context), this comment simply says 'I have weak clubs'. If I had any doubt about a club lead beforehand, your comment would have convinced me.

[Mbodell]

Was it IMPs or MPs? I suspect that most people will lead the club A here, and it is even more likely at MP (where a decent number of players always bang down A against small slams to not lose the overtrick). If you want to disallow it, you'd need to poll the S hand without any UI and see what is said. But I think the club A is a pretty good lead overall since you are decently likely to have a heart trick coming, and you also might win if partner has the club K and everyone has 2 clubs since the opponents are bidding on general strength and might well be off the AK of clubs.

[pran]

Was it IMPs or MPs? I suspect that most people will lead the club A here, and it is even more likely at MP (where a decent number of players always bang down A against small slams to not lose the overtrick). If you want to disallow it, you'd need to poll the S hand without any UI and see what is said. But I think the club A is a pretty good lead overall since you are decently likely to have a heart trick coming, and you also might win if partner has the club K and everyone has 2 clubs since the opponents are bidding on general strength and might well be off the AK of clubs.

All this is very true, but it doesn't eliminate other leads as LA.

 

(And at IMPs I would consider the lead of ♣A rather poor. More often than not the lead of an ace against a small slam gives declarer his 12th trick on a silver plate.)

[sfi]

(And at IMPs I would consider the lead of ♣A rather poor. More often than not the lead of an ace against a small slam gives declarer his 12th trick on a silver plate.)

 

We're leading into the strong NT hand and there's a distributional hand on our left. There's a real danger that the CA is going away and we have two potential tricks in diamonds and hearts. I still think any other lead would be a serious error.

 

And the data Bird and Anthias presents strongly disagrees with your assertion.

[jillybean]

Jillybean's comment to South might be taken as an attempt at intimidation. In any case, it is poor form.

 

Just to be clear, I agree it's poor form but it was done in a light hearted way. South is a friend and I believe both opponents would find this a lot less intimidating than if I had called the director.

[jillybean]

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.

You likely don't play in games where this happens, as far as I can tell it does not happen in top level games, it happens a lot in club games, BCD or low A/X. How many club players understand UI, LA? The questions are specific "what was 2♣?" and asked at an inappropriate time. Often the player either has a stack of the alerted suit, wants to know what convention their opponents are playing or has been told you are always allowed to ask questions about the auction and are exercising their right to ask questions at their turn in the auction. This is often when when questions occur in the middle of keycard auctions, the opponent has no intention of entering the auction. For the vast majority this is not an attempt to cheat, I don't think for a moment the players consider their question inappropriate and I would never imply so. It does however draw attention to the suit and I'd be rich if I had a nickel for each time partner led the named suit.

 

 

I don't think you do. Jillybean's other threads have noted that the games she plays in are shockingly conducted.

The games are run well, the adhering to and enforcement of bridge laws is notably relaxed, loosey goosey. I'll go out on a limb and say that is not unique to my games but common in NA.

[Vampyr]

Just to be clear, I agree it's poor form but it was done in a light hearted way. South is a friend and I believe both opponents would find this a lot less intimidating than if I had called the director.

 

Calling the director is normal. Threatening to call the director is not.

[sanst]

We're leading into the strong NT hand and there's a distributional hand on our left. There's a real danger that the CA is going away and we have two potential tricks in diamonds and hearts. I still think any other lead would be a serious error.

 

And the data Bird and Anthias presents strongly disagrees with your assertion.

 

I think you should read the note by Ton Kooijman about serious errors (http://www.eurobridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/courses/2010lecturenotes/serious-error.pdf). The lead of CA is the best according to Bird and Anthias, but that doesn't make an other lead a SE by any criterion you will find in that article. B&A wrote: "The risk of an ace lead giving the declarer a critical extra trick ... is coniderable", and "Nevertheless, it is best in the long run to lead the ace" (my emphasis). They don't seem to strongly disagree with pran's assertion, just to indicate that the ace lead is superior.

[sfi]

I think you should read the note by Ton Kooijman about serious errors.

 

Serious error was not meant in the legal bridge sense, but in the sense that the CA is the standout play.

 

I've now polled two other people who play at a high level nationally. One said the CA was the only lead worthy of serious consideration ("everything else is too likely to give up tricks"). The other said a spade might be a possibility (they grudgingly said 3-4/10), and would not adjust in an appeals committee had the CA been led ("it's such a standout") - even before I mentioned UI. In neither case did they think the UI suggested a club lead, and in both cases immediately said it was 100% to lead a club after declarer's comment.

 

My questions after giving them the hand:

- What would you lead?

- What logical alternatives are there?

- Partner asked about the meaning of 5C before you choose a lead. What does that suggest? Does it affect your choice of lead?

- Declarer warned about calling the director if a club is led. What do you lead now?

 

The first person I polled expected partner's question was to find out whether they were playing 3041 or 4130 RKC. The second person raised the idea of a procedural penalty for declarer for the comment.

[nige1]

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.

IMO..

 

Jillybean should call the director, rather than remark on East's question, especially if she later posts the case in a BBO forum.

 

Only a naive and unethical partner would ask this question to suggest (or more likely to deter) a ♣ lead. If the asker is ethical and knows the rules, then he has simply lost the place. The auction is over, so the director should tell East to postpone his questions until after the opening lead, in future.

 

If the choice of lead would have made a difference, then, no matter what was led and what questions the director asks, the director is likely to end up in an unenviable position. In such cases, the law should penalize the perpetrator of UI rather than the hapless recipient.

 

On the actual hand, however, I agree with gnasher that the ♣A lead stands out. There is no plausible alternative.

[Vampyr]

The second person raised the idea of a procedural penalty for declarer for the comment.

 

This would be a disciplinary penalty, I think, and while I have nothing against it, I don't think it should be given unless the opening leader's partner receives a PP. There is no NOS in this case.

[jillybean]

I talked with South here again today and he said that when I called the director they felt I was accusing them of cheating and they have learned a costly lesson.

Whenever a director is called, unless it is a for a LOOT or BOOT, people tend to react badly. Today at an adjacent table, declarer asked the opponent to wait until his partners lead

was (face down) on the table before he stated "no questions partner" and the response was, "what are you going to do, call the director?" THIS type of reaction is typical.

 

This thread has gone way off topic, how did you rule?

[Vampyr]

I talked with South here again today and he said that when I called the director they felt I was accusing them of cheating and they have learned a costly lesson.

Whenever a director is called, unless it is a for a LOOT or BOOT, people tend to react badly. Today at an adjacent table, declarer asked the opponent to wait until his partners lead

was on the table before he stated "no questions partner" and the response was, "what are you going to do, call the director?" THIS type of reaction is typical.

 

This thread has gone way off topic, how did you rule?

 

Others think that there is no LA to club lead, so I will simply do what I mentioned in my last post, which is issue a DP and aPP.