Help
This situation arose in our club game last night (ACBL, matchpoint scoring, if that matters). I don't remember the exact auction but the following will do as an example.
EW have this unopposed auction.
W E
1♠ 2♣
2♥ 2NT
3♣ 3♥
4♥
After two passes, South doubles, ending the auction.
N-S play Lightner doubles, but this is not a recently-discussed treatment, so from North's point of view it's not clear whether South is requesting a ♣ lead or if he is simply expecting to defeat the contract (with a trump stack, for example).
As North ponders this while deciding what to lead, South detaches a card from hand (face down, thankfully) and asks "my lead?". North now knows that South's double was purely penalty and not lead-directing.
Is this information UI? Is North constrained in his choice of opening lead?
Page 1 of 1
Hypothetical UI situation ACBL
#1
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 240
- Joined: 2009-July-16
- Gender:Male
- Location:Minnesota, USA
Posted 2010-September-20, 09:34
Brian Weikle
I say what it occurs to me to say when I think I hear people say things; more, I cannot say.
I say what it occurs to me to say when I think I hear people say things; more, I cannot say.
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,344
- Joined: 2009-September-14
- Location:Ski, Norway
Posted 2010-September-20, 09:39
Coelacanth, on Sep 20 2010, 04:34 PM, said:
This situation arose in our club game last night (ACBL, matchpoint scoring, if that matters). I don't remember the exact auction but the following will do as an example.
EW have this unopposed auction.
W E
1♠ 2♣
2♥ 2NT
3♣ 3♥
4♥
After two passes, South doubles, ending the auction.
N-S play Lightner doubles, but this is not a recently-discussed treatment, so from North's point of view it's not clear whether South is requesting a ♣ lead or if he is simply expecting to defeat the contract (with a trump stack, for example).
As North ponders this while deciding what to lead, South detaches a card from hand (face down, thankfully) and asks "my lead?". North now knows that South's double was purely penalty and not lead-directing.
Is this information UI? Is North constrained in his choice of opening lead?
EW have this unopposed auction.
W E
1♠ 2♣
2♥ 2NT
3♣ 3♥
4♥
After two passes, South doubles, ending the auction.
N-S play Lightner doubles, but this is not a recently-discussed treatment, so from North's point of view it's not clear whether South is requesting a ♣ lead or if he is simply expecting to defeat the contract (with a trump stack, for example).
As North ponders this while deciding what to lead, South detaches a card from hand (face down, thankfully) and asks "my lead?". North now knows that South's double was purely penalty and not lead-directing.
Is this information UI? Is North constrained in his choice of opening lead?
Of course it is UI. It is not derived from legal calls or play.
North may be constrained, that depends on what logical alternatives he has for his opening lead and if any of them could be suggested over another by the UI.
Page 1 of 1