[pescetom]

---

This hand was already discussed here original thread with poll
and the poll results were that:
- 50% of readers would lead a club, 46% a diamond, 4% a heart
- 96% do not think that knowing that S would double 5H suggests one lead over another.

I'm a recently qualified Director and this was my first call to table for a Change of Call - of course it couldn't be simple

I was called by South, who explained that East had bid 5♥ which he had doubled, but then East attempted to change the call to 5♦. I asked West if he had made a call after the double - he had not - and then asked East what had happened. East said that his intention was to bid 5♦ but that the 5♥ card had remained attached to the block of cards he extracted and that he decided to place the block safely on the table before removing the extra card - before he could remove it South quickly pulled out double. South thought his tempo was normal. I found East's explanation of his error credible and also remembered from the hand diagram that East had a strong holding in diamonds, so I ruled that substitution with 5♦ was allowed and that South could withdraw the Double if he wished, which he did. I reminded the table that information from the withdrawn double was authorised to NS but not authorised to EW and asked them to continue the auction, which proceeded as shown. At that point I told them to play on and call me at the end.

Back at my table I looked at the hand diagram and realised that a ♣ lead could make an extra undertrick. I couldn't see any good reason why the withdrawn double might suggest one lead over another, but I figured that if they did find the extra trick I would have to establish what the LAs were and whether ♣ was demonstrably suggested. Back to the table and luckily they had led ♦ for contract down one, like the rest of the room so far (one pair would get the clubs right later), so I happily convalidated the score.

I have a suspicion I got off lightly, though. Did I do anything wrong as things went? Say they did get the clubs right, would I have to poll their peers to establish the LAs for the lead, or could I go by the leads on the (complete) score card? I would say that West is a peer of at least half the room. What if all peers polled say they would lead ♦? How should I phrase the poll question to establish whether ♣ was demonstrably suggested over ♦ by the UI?

[FelicityR]

pescetom, on 2019-July-01, 05:23, said:

I'm a recently qualified Director and this was my first call to table for a Change of Call - of course it couldn't be simple

Well done in qualifying to be a Director. I toyed with the idea of learning to be a director myself a few years ago, but I have enough trouble playing the game so cowardly shied away from additional responsibilities.

As the director at our club says "Hard to be a Director" especially as laws and regulations regularly undergo change and re-interpretation.

BBO Forums (Laws and Rulings) just prove that Directorship skills are just as important as the actual game itself.

[Cyberyeti]

Are there no stop regulations where you are ?

[Vampyr]

The double certainly warns off a heart lead. Some of your polees would have led (note spelling) one, so you might gave a small percentage of that.

EDit: crossed Cyberyeti’s post. If East did display the Stop card, and South called before it was withdrawn, I would have ruled that the double was illegal, and unauthorised to North/South. Then I would have to determine whether this could have affected the auction.

I also might give a PP, or at least a warning.

[axman]

To East:

It sounds like you noticed that the exposed card was 2H while pulling the cards from the BB. What I do is to say immediately, 'Not this' while placing the stack on the table- then forthwith correcting the action. This always resolved the matter favorably.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-July-01, 07:04, said:

Are there no stop regulations where you are ?

There are, and East's Stop card was on the table. The regulations say that LHO must pause 10 seconds but do not say anything about when the card should be retired, so I could not assume that the pause was not respected. East did suggest that South had not paused sufficiently and must have seen that East was struggling with the block of cards, but South denied it and neither West nor North contradicted him. In absence of video I couldn't see any way of verying the tempo issue.
I was admittedly also absorbed in evaluating whether I could consider East's problem to be mechanical error or not - he was aware of the extra card and could have done better than placing the block on the table without explanation, even if the cards were about to fly, but he also had the intention to bid ♦ and had never thought or considered ♥.

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2019-July-01, 07:08, said:

The double certainly warns off a heart lead. Some of your polees would have led (note spelling) one, so you might gave a small percentage of that.

I did correct spelling of led in OP before reading this comment, but thanks (it's "pollees" btw).

Yes people in the other thread agreed that it warns off a heart lead. The question about that I think is whether a heart lead is an LA, see poll results. At my club level, there was even a potential question whether ♣ was an LA had I polled this issue.

[barmar]

But if you accept that South waited the required 10 seconds, it's hard to understand how East wasn't able to fix his bid during that time.

If West had a hand that might have led a heart without the double, but they led something else and it was more successful, it would be an issue. But I don't see any way that it demonstrably suggests a club over a diamond. Leading singletons against suit contracts is normal (the Bird & Anthias book says they're almost always the recommended lead). So if they find the club lead despite partner's diamond bid, I would allow the table result to stand.

[pescetom]

FelicityR, on 2019-July-01, 06:52, said:

Well done in qualifying to be a Director. I toyed with the idea of learning to be a director myself a few years ago, but I have enough trouble playing the game so cowardly shied away from additional responsibilities.

As the director at our club says "Hard to be a Director" especially as laws and regulations regularly undergo change and re-interpretation.

BBO Forums (Laws and Rulings) just prove that Directorship skills are just as important as the actual game itself.

Thanks - that I took the plunge is partly due to people in Laws and Rulings proving that Directorship is both challenging and important to the game, whatever we think about specific Laws. Unfortunately they taught me enough to realise many mistakes, but not enough to avoid them

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2019-July-01, 08:21, said:

There are, and East's Stop card was on the table. The regulations say that LHO must pause 10 seconds but do not say anything about when the card should be retired, so I could not assume that the pause was not respected. East did suggest that South had not paused sufficiently and must have seen that East was struggling with the block of cards, but South denied it and neither West nor North contradicted him. In absence of video I couldn't see any way of verying the tempo issue.
I was admittedly also absorbed in evaluating whether I could consider East's problem to be mechanical error or not - he was aware of the extra card and could have done better than placing the block on the table without explanation, even if the cards were about to fly, but he also had the intention to bid ♦ and had never thought or considered ♥.

I can't see how he didn't correct it in less than 10 seconds, nothing adds up here

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-July-01, 08:58, said:

But if you accept that South waited the required 10 seconds, it's hard to understand how East wasn't able to fix his bid during that time.

East is about 80 years old and has some problems of manual dexterity: I can conceive him taking a lot of time between pulling out the block of bidding cards, realising he had the wrong one at the end, trying to detach the wrong card and realising that is grip on the block was too fragile to do that without risk of the cards flying, then placing the cards on the table. Even if it was really only 5 or 6 seconds, that's still about what most people wait on a Stop.
Although I guess that the only time to really consider from a Stop point of view is after the 5H card was exposed, and that will be less, so maybe I was generous to South here. I was influenced by the fact that West did not contest South's denial of any haste.

barmar, on 2019-July-01, 08:58, said:

But I don't see any way that it demonstrably suggests a club over a diamond. Leading singletons against suit contracts is normal (the Bird & Anthias book says they're almost always the recommended lead). So if they find the club lead despite partner's diamond bid, I would allow the table result to stand.

I too would choose the club lead and I was surprised to find that so many in the club chose diamonds - hence my sanity check in the other thread. But I also felt it might be going too far to rely entirely on my own bridge judgement, especially when it was clearly out of line with several peers of the player in question.

[ahydra]

I think you made an excellent ruling, including in regards to the judgement situation re. South not pausing for long enough.

As for the poll question, you can ask something like "You have UI that if partner had bid 5H rather than 5D, South would double for penalty. What do you think that might suggest in relation to your choice of lead?" (Note you should only ask this after the pollee has answered the question on what they would lead, of course.) And I'd expect most answers to be along the lines of "it warns you off a heart lead, but leading hearts is not really an LA anyway", as borne out by the poll post you made.

ahydra

[pescetom]

Thanks for the good suggestion of how to phrase the question so that an ordinary player will understand it yet not receive bias.

[barmar]

I think you have to be careful how you word that question. It could easily result in "If partner bid hearts instead of diamonds, and it was doubled, you couldn't stop me from leading my singleton club."

So the question has to be worded in a way that they understand that they know partner has diamonds but UI that South has hearts -- what does that UI suggest regarding the lead?

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-July-02, 08:32, said:

I think you have to be careful how you word that question. It could easily result in "If partner bid hearts instead of diamonds, and it was doubled, you couldn't stop me from leading my singleton club."

So the question has to be worded in a way that they understand that they know partner has diamonds but UI that South has hearts -- what does that UI suggest regarding the lead?

Do you think it would do any harm to explain that the UI derives from the double of an accidental call of 5♥, subsequently replaced by the intended call 5♦? That's what happened after all, and some of them are going to know it anyway.

I was more worried about whether or not to spell out the LAs in the question, which would make it more concrete but risks introducing bias even if only by suggesting that they are equally likely.