[gnasher]

jmcw, on 2011-July-15, 22:19, said:

There is no basis for an adjusted score since the play of a small ♠ at trick 2 is the percentage play.

Is it?

So far as I can see, a spade winner is useful to declarer in only two situations: (1) he has ♦Ax and can't throw dummy's diamonds on the spades; (2) he has ♦AK with two club losers, one of which goes on a diamond and the other on a spade. Therefore playing ♠K costs only against some (most?) 1624 shapes.

Playing ♠K gains against four times as many shapes - 2434, 2524, 2515, 2614, but only if partner has led from Jx. Whether that's more or less likely depends on your knowledge of partner's leading habits.

[campboy]

Wait, East gave an incomplete answer and then tried to work out declarer's holding from whether or not he asked a follow-up question, but people are questioning South's ethics?

If South had not asked the second question, and East had gone up with the king, would you have adjusted the score? Do you expect South to be confident that you would?

[gnasher]

If we would have adjust when East had given a correct explanation, we should also adjust when East has given an incorrect explanation.

The misexplanation doesn't mean that South is no longer bound by the laws. South apparently didn't know that he had received a misexplanation, so it has no bearing on South's reasons for asking his followup question. Nor does the misexplanation make South's second question any less misleading.

Should we adjust? I think it's clear that South's second question misled East, South could have known that it would mislead, and he had no demonstrable bridge reason for asking it (unless he can demonstrate that he always asks both questions on any jack lead, and had made the opponents aware of this in advance).

Is that sufficient to consider an adjustment under 73F, or do we first have to be satisfied that it was a breach of 73D2 (ie deliberate)? I've never understood this bit of the Laws.

Finally, we'd have to decide whether there was damage. I'd want to hear East's explanation of why he would have played the king.

[Free]

lamford, on 2011-July-16, 02:36, said:

Just like the defender that did not put in the jack of spades on the other thread. We should have a game sometime; it would be nice to have a partner that leads and defends perfectly, and is good at hindsight analysis.

I never said on the other thread that West should've played the ♠J at some point, that's too far fetched imo. But leading from Jx against slam is just wrong.

[Free]

gnasher, on 2011-July-16, 03:03, said:

jmcw, on 2011-July-15, 22:19, said:

There is no basis for an adjusted score since the play of a small ♠ at trick 2 is the percentage play.

Is it?

So far as I can see, a spade winner is useful to declarer in only two situations: (1) he has ♦Ax and can't throw dummy's diamonds on the spades; (2) he has ♦AK with two club losers, one of which goes on a diamond and the other on a spade. Therefore playing ♠K costs only against some (most?) 1624 shapes.

Playing ♠K gains against four times as many shapes - 2434, 2524, 2515, 2614, but only if partner has led from Jx. Whether that's more or less likely depends on your knowledge of partner's leading habits.

Declarer's play of a small ♠ at trick 2 is percentage... It's basically his only chance.

[nige1]

jmcw, on 2011-July-15, 08:17, said:

I would let the result stand! mainly because I think the correct play at trick 2 is a low ♠.

Free, on 2011-July-16, 04:16, said:

Declarer's play of a small ♠ at trick 2 is percentage... It's basically his only chance.

A director shouldn't rule in favour of declarer, simply because he appreciates his card-play. Declarer's follow-up question smacks of gamesmanship even if his subsequent play is correct ...

• Without declarer's cunning follow-up question, RHO would have a sporting chance to defeat the contract. (Gnasher argues that rising with ♠K is the percentage play. Or RHO might remember that declarer refused the opportunity to cue-bid spades).
• After the question, declarer was virtually bound to succeed.

in "Right Through the Pack", playing a similar contract, declarer achieved the same coup by fanning his face with the deuce of trumps

Edit: Reading previous posts again, has sown seeds of doubt ...

Declarer might argue that ....

• The initial answer was incomplete (as has been pointed out).
• If declarer held a small singleton spade, then he would always ask a for clarification as to what defenders lead from KJT.
• Not asking could indicate a doubleton spade.
• Thus, failure to ask might tip declarer's hand, rendering the successful defence much easier.

But declarer's follow-up question is still deceptive. In this peculiar context, do two wrongs make a right? Or should declarer just grit his teeth, and if necessary, call the director later to try to explain how the incomplete explanation caused damage.

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2011-July-16, 04:28, said:

RHO might remember that declarer refused the opportunity to cue-bid spades.

The original post said that "cue-bidding style was first-round controls", so I don't think that consideration is relevant.

[gnasher]

Free, on 2011-July-16, 04:16, said:

Declarer's play of a small ♠ at trick 2 is percentage... It's basically his only chance.

I may have over-edited jmcw's post. If you read his last two posts, you will see that he was talking about East's play at trick two.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-July-16, 03:31, said:

Finally, we'd have to decide whether there was damage. I'd want to hear East's explanation of why he would have played the king.

East just thought he had a nasty guess, and the question swung him into thinking that his partner had J10x. He did ask about cue-bidding style, as he wondered whether South would have cued a singleton. He also, quite unjustifiably, regarded South has a bit of a sleazeball (his opinion not mine), but if South had a singleton he might well bid this way (and ask the same question).

[peachy]

Free, on 2011-July-15, 12:50, said:

This is a classic trick, South definitely deserves some penalty. But I agree with the other posters to let the result stand, because the normal play is ♠A followed by small ♠, and East has a guess. West ruined their good score by leading from Jx against slam. I think NS deserve a procedural penalty, this is no way to play this game.

If anyone "deserves" a PP in this case, it is EW who gave an incomplete explanation.
I still don't like NS question but it is legal, and therefore cannot be unethical. Had the situation been different, and the missing piece of information caused damage to declaring side, EW would have been ruled against because of MI they gave. EW started the mess by not giving a full explanation.

[WellSpyder]

nige1, on 2011-July-15, 21:39, said:

When declarer asked "Could it be an internal sequence?", he ...

• Could tell from his own hand that it was not from an internal sequence.
• Had no legitimate bridge reason for asking, in the context of this hand.
• Could have known that his question would mislead RHO.

Why do you say that declarer had no legitimate bridge reason for asking? Sure, he didn't need to know whether or not West could have an interior sequence since he knew he had ♠10 himself. But his play of the hand could clearly be affected by what he judged the opponents knew about the hand, so knowing what East could deduce from their agreements seems a legitimate thing to want to know.

[nige1]

WellSpyder, on 2011-July-18, 04:48, said:

Why do you say that declarer had no legitimate bridge reason for asking? Sure, he didn't need to know whether or not West could have an interior sequence since he knew he had ♠10 himself. But his play of the hand could clearly be affected by what he judged the opponents knew about the hand, so knowing what East could deduce from their agreements seems a legitimate thing to want to know.

In the light of such arguments, (in a post later than that quoted) I conceded that declarer may have some excuse for his follow-up question. But in this context, how "could his play of the hand clearly be affected by what he judged the opponents knew about the hand"?

[barmar]

Right. On this hand, South knows that East holds the King (unless it was a very strange lead). So he doesn't need to know whether East thinks that West could possibly be leading from KJT, because he knows East can tell from his own hand that it's not possible.

Possible excuses South could try are:

1) I always ask this question, to avoid giving anything away about my hand. His partner could possibly corroborate this.

2) I didn't actually need to know for this hand, but for future reference. This seems dubious to me, though.

[mycroft]

My question is "why should I have to tell the opponents, who have not given a complete explanation, what I have in my hand by whether I choose to ask the followup question?"; or alternatively, "why should I be forced to either choose to get a complete explanation *or* hide the contents of my hand?"

That applies to both the "does that say anything about the Q?" I hold in my hand, and "what do you lead from KJT?" when told that J promises T or shortage, but not that it denies an interior sequence, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, if I play to try to hide the K, because I can tell he has JT but East might think he has KJT and try to surround my Q, I would feel really hard done by when it turns out that "oh, from that holding he'd start with the 10" afterward. If I have to ask when I don't have the K (or the T), and when I do have the K (but not the T), why should I not be able to ask when I have the T? If asking about KJT is deemed just as "leading" when it turns out that I have it and am trying to (play bridge to) convince East that partner has it, then I *really* feel hard done by when it turns out they neglected to mention that J promises T *but no higher honour* or shortness.

And we'd have the same question when East *did* play partner for the K, and South had it.

And it all stems from failing to give sufficient information to declarer's question - even though 99+% of the time, it's incomplete, but sufficient.

Edit: specifically to barmar: yes, on this hand he knows. But why should I *not* be entitled to their actual agreement if I ask the question? I mean, there are times I've asked a supplementary just because I don't know if they're playing <system> the way I know it, or whether I should watch out for the followups as well - and don't even look at my hand. In addition to "why should I have to give away my hand when they didn't do what they're supposed to do?", of course.

[jh51]

Is it allowed to ask how long a pair has played a certain lead convention? I ask because I was once in a pairs event and in a 2NT contact received a lead of a 9. I asked what their lead were, and was told that it promised 0 or 2 higher. The 10 was in dummy, and RHO further stated that since the 10 was showing, the 9 was his top card in the suit. If that was indeed true, ducking this trick when RHO played the J (I had the K) would give me a chance to take 9 tricks. If I took this trick, I would have to settle for 8. Back came a small card in the suit, and LHO produced the A and Q, leaving me with 7 tricks. RHO obviously did not understand the agreement, which I later learned they had just started playing.

[blackshoe]

Well, one of them didn't understand it. Whether it was RHO or LHO is unclear.

As a general statement, not directly addressing the instant case, I would say that the ACBL's "any question should trigger full disclosure" is in principle valid everywhere, and that players should expect, in most cases, that either an answer is full and complete, or they will be entitled to redress. Also, that one should never ask leading questions. "Please explain your auction" is better than "what's 2♠?" and infinitely better than "is that weak?" I would also suggest that if people are not getting redress in these situations, some improvement in TD education is required.

[vigfus]

South is very unethical. His questions have no purpose except to mislead East.
Law 73D2 applies here.
My ruling is. N/S = 11 tricks Law 23
E/W = 50% 11 tricks, 50% 12 tricks (based on if South just played ♠Ace on trick 1, and small spade on trick 2 without any questioning.) Law 23 and 12C

[lamford]

vigfus, on 2011-July-20, 05:07, said:

South is very unethical. His questions have no purpose except to mislead East.
Law 73D2 applies here.
My ruling is. N/S = 11 tricks Law 23
E/W = 50% 11 tricks, 50% 12 tricks (based on if South just played ♠Ace on trick 1, and small spade on trick 2 without any questioning.) Law 23 and 12C

East is very unethical. His first answer had no purpose other than to try to find out whether South had a singleton or 10x. My ruling is result stands. 3IMP penalty to E/W for breach of 40B6a, and 3IMP penalty to BBradley62 for breach of 74A2.

Thinking of adjusting here is a serious error.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-19, 14:32, said:

As a general statement, not directly addressing the instant case, I would say that the ACBL's "any question should trigger full disclosure" is in principle valid everywhere, ...

The EBU L&EC discussed this many years ago and decided such a principle was not valid. It was the strong view of one of the Committee that if you ask a poor question and get a poor answer as a result then that is your fault.

For example, if someone opened 2♠ which is alerted [in those days weak two openings were alerted] then if a question was asked "Is that weak?" and the answer came "Yes" then it was the fault of the player asking if a full answer was "Yes, and shows a second suit".

Of course, this does not mean that an incomplete answer to a correct question is acceptable: if in the same situation the question was asked "What does 2♠ show?" then an answer "Weak" is MI.

[vigfus]

"I had not looked at my precise spade holding before asking" replied South.

I do not believe this statement. Not at all.

With the ♠Jack lead, South knew exactly what was going on. Both the questions were intended to mislead East.