ChCh's Coup

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&sn=ChCh&nn=MM&wn=RR&en=SB&w=sq53hkqj2d976c873&n=sk987h986dat4cajt&e=s6ht753dj532c9652&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp3sp4n(Simple Blackwood)p5h(2)p6sppp]399|300[/hv]

Before leading RR asked about the 5H bid, as he had such good hearts that he though it was strange. ChCh replied "2 key cards and the queen of trumps", flippantly, "as MM always plays simple Blackwood". "Are you sure it shows the queen of trumps?" persisted RR. "Mea culpa", replied ChCh, "MM will stubbornly only play simple Blackwood, so just 2 aces."

 

RR led the king of hearts and declarer won, cashed the ace of spades and led the jack. He was going to run it, it is believed, but RR covered so the slam came home. SB hit the roof. "You deliberately initially gave a wrong response to RR", he began. "Without that, you might well have got the trumps wrong, but you knew from RR's question who had the queen."

 

"Rubbish", replied ChCh."Anyone not giving RR a chance to cover has not played bridge".

 

How do you rule?

[mycroft]

Now this one I like. I expect it's going to look a lot like the ruling on my "nice clubs" comment, and for the same reason - these kinds of flippant comments "never" cause problems, but should be dealt with when they do.

 

So, if RR didn't ask the follow-on question, ChCh would J-to-K and hook on the way back instead, and SB would hit the roof again? And if ChCh was looking at the Q, SB would play for the Rabbit to have it and then hit the roof when a more normal line of play would have set the contract?

 

Note: there's a reason I *always* ask about the trump queen when being told "2", or even "2 keys". Whether I can see it in my hand or not. I actually think that once our side scored the trump Q *because* they misexplained to elicit the question.

[lamford]

Note: there's a reason I *always* ask about the trump queen when being told "2", or even "2 keys". Whether I can see it in my hand or not. I actually think that once our side scored the trump Q *because* they misexplained to elicit the question.

I think there is case law that asking about the trump queen if the response is not complete, cannot deceive, and the declarer draws the inference at his peril. If ChCh had been West he would of course have asked without the queen of trumps, "Are you sure it shows the Q?". But if SB was South he would never make a flippant remark.

[mycroft]

I believe so as well. What I was meaning to say with that last was "I believe that in at least one case, the insufficiency in explanation was deliberate and intended to elicit the question, in case there was a two-way guess. And in one of those cases, they got the question from me, because I always ask, and took the two-way the wrong way as a result."

 

Certainly, in any of the cases where I had more than a suspicion the incomplete explanation was deliberate, they've never claimed damage from us having asked the question.

[pescetom]

I believe so as well. What I was meaning to say with that last was "I believe that in at least one case, the insufficiency in explanation was deliberate and intended to elicit the question, in case there was a two-way guess. And in one of those cases, they got the question from me, because I always ask, and took the two-way the wrong way as a result."

 

And do you tell your opponents that you would always ask, or is your partner the only one to know? :)

[pescetom]

I think there is case law that asking about the trump queen if the response is not complete cannot deceive, and the declarer draws the inference at his peril. If ChCh had been West he would of course have asked without the queen of trumps, "Are you sure it shows the Q?". But if SB was South he would never make a flippant remark.

I don't like the flippant misinformation and if it happened again would consider a penalty. But I would rule that the question cannot deceive, so I'm comforted that is case law.

[mycroft]

I think you have two cases conflated.

 

The flippant remark in the OP (or my "nice clubs" when 5432 dropped, having opened 1♣) is one thing.

 

The thing that is case law is that if 5♥ (or 5♠, or their equivalent in Kickback or other KC auctions) is described as "2 keys" without mentioning the trumpQ at all, the query about it can not deceive, even if the asker is looking at it.

 

The reason they're both in this thread is that the secondary question here is a fault of the response to the original question - but it's a different bad response. That might make a difference.

[sanst]

Before leading RR asked about the 5H bid, as he had such good hearts that he though it was strange. ChCh replied "2 key cards and the queen of trumps", flippantly, "as MM always plays simple Blackwood".

Why didn’t SB call the director at this moment? Impossible answer, two aces and the queen as answer to simple Blackwood. Only after RR’s, admittedly rather stupid, question did ChCh give the right answer.

I would have decided against NS because of the infraction (MI by S), of which he could have been aware that it could work to his benefit. But any player must be able to count to thirteen. RR should have realized that SB couldn’t have more than one spade and that covering the jack was totally wrong. And that on top of his idiotic question. This is an example of self inflicted damage. Therefor my ruling would be NS 6♠-1, EW 6♠=.

[lamford]

Why didn’t SB call the director at this moment? Impossible answer, two aces and the queen as answer to simple Blackwood. Only after RR’s, admittedly rather stupid, question did ChCh give the right answer.

I would have decided against NS because of the infraction (MI by S), of which he could have been aware that it could work to his benefit. But any player must be able to count to thirteen. RR should have realized that SB couldn’t have more than one spade and that covering the jack was totally wrong. And that on top of his idiotic question. This is an example of self inflicted damage. Therefor my ruling would be NS 6♠-1, EW 6♠=.

I tend to agree that South could have been aware that the original MI, although in jest, could well damage the non-offending side. And the bar for SEWoG is very high and not reached in this case, in my view. The supplementary question cannot be classed as an error, which I think needs to be a bid or play. Covering the jack of spades nearly qualifies, but the examples given in case law are thinks like revokes and ducking the setting trick in a slam. I think a trump lead from Qxx, even by Rabbit standards, would qualify as SEWoG, but I would not deny RR redress for covering the jack of spades.

[blackshoe]

Deleted a duplicate post.

[weejonnie]

I tend to agree that South could have been aware that the original MI, although in jest, could well damage the non-offending side. And the bar for SEWoG is very high and not reached in this case, in my view. The supplementary question cannot be classed as an error, which I think needs to be a bid or play. Covering the jack of spades nearly qualifies, but the examples given in case law are thinks like revokes and ducking the setting trick in a slam. I think a trump lead from Qxx, even by Rabbit standards, would qualify as SEWoG, but I would not deny RR redress for covering the jack of spades.

SEWoG vanished about 4 years ago. It is now ESEoG. - but I agree that RRs action is neither,