[jallerton]

Scoring: MP

P-P-P-1♣(1)
P-1♥-P-P-
P(2)

Board 16

(1) Alerted
(2) Before passing, West asked the meaning of 1♣. He was told that it could be a short as 2 as N/S play 5-card majors. West then asked about a subsidiary question on which minor suit holdings would open 1♣ and which would open 1♦.

---

Opening lead ♣5. East/West cashed 3 rounds of clubs at tricks 1 to 3 and switched to a spade. East later won a trick with ♦A but that was all for the defence. N/S +140.

The TD was first called three boards later. N/S were unhappy with the selection of the opening club lead on this deal after West's questioning. Initially they decided to give East/West "the benefit of the doubt" but they were now concerned about this board after playing Board 11 (see below)

West said that he was considering protecting with 2♦ or with a double and wanted to know the E/W system before coming to a decision.

The TD adjusted the score to 1♥+3, N/S +170 on the basis that a spade lead was a logical alternative to a club and the latter may have been suggested by the questioning.

E/W appeal. East does not see why the questioning should suggest a club lead. She thinks that although beginners would lead a spade, it was obvious to someone of her (international) standard that partner could not have spades when he did not bid the suit or make a take-out double at any stage.

N/S say that a spade is the normal lead from the East hand.

Suppose that you are on the AC. Is what happened on Board 11 at all relevant to this appeal? Do you wish to ask any more questions? If not, do you allow the appeal?

Board 11 was as follows:

Scoring: MP

1H-P-1S-P-
2S-P-2NT(1)-P
3D-P(2)-3NT-P-
P-P

(1) Alerted (relay). No other bids in the auction were alerted
(2) West asked about the meaning of 3D before passing.

The East hand is shown above. East led a diamond against 3NT, finding her partner with:

♠A32 ♥KJ ♦K1095 ♣6432

---

Apparently the choice of opening lead did not affect the number of tricks 3NT made on board 11.

[PeterE]

jallerton, on Aug 29 2010, 04:52 PM, said:

The TD adjusted the score to 1♥+3, N/S +170 on the basis that a spade lead was a logical alternative to a club and the latter may have been suggested by the questioning.

In an AC I would like to ask the TD to reconsider his decision, namely to substitute the words "may have" with "has"
The combination of these two boards is unbelievable (or just a double coincidence ??) and I would like to have a very strong lecture on EW.
Deposit forfeited, also a belated PP seems to be in order.

[peachy]

West had every reason to ask about their minor suit opening style before balancing in with a 2D call. Secondly, I don't know who would ever lead a spade from 10xxxx in this auction. Even if the TD and/or the AC decided that West's question pointed to a club lead (I do not see how that finding is possible!), the spade lead is definitely NOT a second choice, at least not for me. I'd rather try to get a diamond ruff by leading the ace and seeing what partner plays on it, and then club switch becomes obvious when I see the dummy. I would rule table result stands and advise NS to be more forthcoming with their answers so West does not have to ask multiple questions.

On the second hand, 2NT "is a relay" is inadequate as an explanation. What is it a relay to? Then, after 3D: What does 3D mean? Is it a forced response or are there other responses in the system? What other responses - if any - where available? Is GF on? Should it have been alerted? What does 3NT mean? Did he have other responses than 3NT available? and so on. However, West was passing so in this hand he should have waited after partner leads, to ask questions these questions.

All in all, Case 1: Result stands. Case 2: If there had been alleged damage from a diamond lead, I would adjust, because West had no reason to ask at the time he asked unless he was interested in a certain lead ***. For me, a diamond lead offers the best chance for setting if partner has five of them and he also must have an entry or else they might have missed a slam. Further, underleading an ace or a jack is seldom right, but after West's questions, I feel I cannot lead a diamond.

Edit: *** or he was asking for partner's benefit.

[bluejak]

It does not matter what 2NT is a Relay to, though it is pretty obvious it is just seeking information. But why do you need to know the meaning of 3♦ before passing? That is a well known cheating position: ask and pass in a position where you will not bid, and surprise, surprise, partner leads the right suit.

As for no-one leads from ♠ Txxxx in this position, I think many do since it is a fairly passive lead and it is matchpoints: your aggressive lead can easily give an overtrick away. But it was not Txxxx: it was T97xx, a much safer passive lead. Sure, a passive lead may not be right, but I do not see it as 100% wrong either.

I think it a shame I did not know about the second hand at Brighton.

[FrancesHinden]

peachy, on Aug 30 2010, 08:27 AM, said:

On the second hand, 2NT "is a relay" is inadequate as an explanation. What is it a relay to? Then, after 3D: What does 3D mean? Is it a forced response or are there other responses in the system? What other responses - if any - where available? Is GF on? Should it have been alerted? What does 3NT mean? Did he have other responses than 3NT available? and so on. However, West was passing so in this hand he should have waited after partner leads, to ask questions these questions.

3D was not alerted, therefore it was natural.

[jallerton]

Perhaps Peachy does not understand my English terminology.

A "relay" is an enquiry, asking partner to describe his hand further with some pre-defined responses. Here the 3♦ bid showed diamond length but only 3 spades, most typically a 3541 shape.

A bid which asks partner to bid step 1 to create more sequences is referred to as a "puppet".

[peachy]

jallerton, on Aug 30 2010, 04:22 PM, said:

Perhaps Peachy does not understand my English terminology.

A "relay" is an enquiry, asking partner to describe his hand further with some pre-defined responses. Here the 3♦ bid showed diamond length but only 3 spades, most typically a 3541 shape.

A bid which asks partner to bid step 1 to create more sequences is referred to as a "puppet".

I agree with others it was the wrong time to ask because he was passing anyway. Sometimes I have trouble with the English language, so you were not far off in suspecting that

[mycroft]

Well, all I can say is that the only 2 times, playing 4-card majors, we were asked "how many hearts does that promise", the answer was "fewer than you, obviously" (equally obviously, that wasn't the response we gave at the table. We knew it was correct, however).

1C was Alerted, and west asked about it at first opportunity. "Clubs or balanced 15-19". It now depends on the next question - and I'd love to know how it was phrased. There are definitely phrasings that would point attention to clubs more than other ones.

This is like most "failure to avoid use of UI" discussions - you can *always* logic out reasoning as to why the play you took was the "only right one", and people, with no intent to deceive (even themselves), will and do. Give West SAQx and Cxxx; South SKJxx and CAQx; South's auction is identical, and now the club lead gives them their extra club trick, while the spade lead is neutral, and in fact may start a tap. But of course, when partner asks about "when could the clubs be short", it's much more likely that there's a club card over there, and much safer to underlead from KJ5 into dummy's first bid suit.

I agree with N/S - I wouldn't be (too) uncomfortable about the first hand until the second one. I actually find a diamond lead from the second hand much more palatable than the club lead on the first hand - leading from garbage through the potential strength into partner's (presumed, from the auction) length rather than leading from Jxxx around to declarer's presumed length. But the combination of questions on two hands, by the same person, at the same "wrong" time (definitely on the second board, West wasn't going to take any action over 3D, and could have waited until after the opening lead before asking), receiving the "questioned" lead, is really quite suspicious.

"Suspicious" in the "they can read each other, but don't know they're passing or using the information" meaning, not "I think West is asking these questions deliberately to induce the lead" or "I think East is deliberately coming up with a logic that matches what she wants to lead because of the UI". A good slap on the wrist/couple of bad scores/maybe a PP, and a good explanation why, may stop this issue before it becomes a deliberate tactic (which will likely get them no scores at all for the next year or so).

[jallerton]

bluejak, on Aug 30 2010, 11:36 AM, said:

I think it a shame I did not know about the second hand at Brighton.

Why? Would the TD's ruling have been different if you had known?

[jallerton]

mycroft, on Aug 31 2010, 02:51 AM, said:

1C was Alerted, and west asked about it at first opportunity. "Clubs or balanced 15-19". It now depends on the next question - and I'd love to know how it was phrased. There are definitely phrasings that would point attention to clubs more than other ones.

No, West did not ask about 1♣ at his first opportunity. He asked when 1♥ was passed round to him, i.e. the point at which he was apparently considering protecting.

I can't tell you exactly how the question was phrased, but I do know that E/W were not native English speakers and thus I suspect there would not have been much scope for East to draw inferences from the exact wording of the questions.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on Aug 31 2010, 10:10 PM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 30 2010, 11:36 AM, said:

I think it a shame I did not know about the second hand at Brighton.

Why? Would the TD's ruling have been different if you had known?

No. But I would have had a word with them.

[RMB1]

bluejak, on Sep 1 2010, 01:05 AM, said:

jallerton, on Aug 31 2010, 10:10 PM, said:

...
Why? Would the TD's ruling have been different if you had known?

No. But I would have had a word with them.

The TD in charge of the section had "had a word" with the offending pair during the first session (of four) after more than one incident of them asking questions in the passout seat and getting a lead of dummy's suit (or the like). The 8-board round with these two boards was the penultimate [not "last" RMB1] round on Saturday evening (session three).

One of the non-offending side left before the rulings had been given and returned on Sunday morning "steaming": convinced that the opponents were [up to no good]. He showed me both hands and I assured him that he would get a ruling on each board.

The non-offending side went on to score 58/60 from the next three rounds and were in contention for first place in the last round. Clearly not a pair to [get up to no good] against!

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2010-September-01, 13:21

[jallerton]

I was on the AC.

One procedural question I was going to ask is whether the action on Board 11 was valid evidence for the purposes of the ruling on Board 16 (the 1♥+2 hand). Since the TD had presented details of Board 11 during his statement of facts at the appeal on the Board 16, I presumed the answer to be yes.

But if the answer is yes:

1. Why was the information available to the TD from the previous matches not also made available to the AC?

2. As the pair had already been warned about the potential for transmission of UI in this way, why did the TD not give them a PP when it was later ruled that they had transmitted UI and then breached Laws 73C/16?

[RMB1]

The simple answer is lack of communication. A case of "cockup, not consipracy".

I was not aware that the TD i/c white section had warned this pair on Friday evening (I was in that section, but I was only the scorer). The rulings occured in the red section the following evening. Both boards were brought to one TD at the same time and he ruled on them, probably unaware of the earlier warning. There is no formal mechanism for carrying forward procedural warnings from session to session.

When the non-offender spoke to me on Sunday morning, we were able to identify the opponents as the pair that had been warned earlier. But all I did was ensure that there was (going to be) a ruling on the two boards from Saturday evening. The TD ruled on the facts he had, and chose to bring both rulings to the attention of the AC. Even if he came to know of the earlier warning, there were no details of the potential offences that he could present to the AC.

I think it is for the AC to decide if evidence from one board is relevant to ruling on another board, probably on a case-by-case basis. Was it the TD or the non-offending side that brought up the other board? I now have a copy of the appeals form and there is only passing mention of another board.

Quote

Originally called to the table to rule on another board.  Having ruled on that board, I was then asked by North to rule on this board, which had been played earlier in the match.

[jallerton]

Robin seems to have identified some weaknesses in systems currently used in multi-section EBU tournaments. In my view, if a pair has been warned about something (e.g. slow play, being noisy, dubious ethics) then there needs to be a mechanism for sharing this information with all of the other TDs, so that a repeat offence with be dealt with consistently, not based on the random factor of which TD happens to take the call on the 2nd occasion.

The TD mentioned that he had been asked to rule on Board 11 and then both sides were keen to present their version of the facts on that board.

Anyway, ignoring Robin's additional information which was not available to either the TD or the AC and just going from the facts reported in the opening post, I have a question for people who "disallow" the opening club lead. West asked about the meaning of a 1♦ opening as well as of 1♣. Given the same auction and UI (but perhaps a different layout), suppose that East had found a successful diamond opening lead when other less successful logical alternatives were available. Would you have adjusted the score then too?

[jallerton]

The AC decided as follows:

Board 11 (the 3NT hand) would have been a routine adjustment had the diamond lead gained any advantage. However, no appeal had been made against the TD's ruling on Board 11. Instead the AC had been asked to consider an appeal against the ruling on Board 16 (the 1♥+2 hand).

The correct opening lead from the East hand against 1♥ is not at all obvious; indeed there is a reasonable case for leading any of the four suits. Thus the AC was unaminous in considering an opening spade lead to be a logical alternative.

Unfortunately, the AC could not come to a unaminous decision on what opening lead(s) "could demonstrably be suggested by" and/or would "carefully avoid taking any advantage of" the UI.

Two AC members believed that the nature of the questionning suggested clubs and that therefore East's opening club lead should be disallowed.

The other AC member believed that West asked questions because he was considering protecting and that he might equally have asked the same questions had he held, say:
♠AQx ♥ Qx ♦xxxxx ♣xxx

Fortunately, ACs are not required to reach unaminous verdicts. Therefore, by a vote of 2 to 1, the TD's ruling was left to stand.