[gordontd]

---

What would you lead if you were told that 4D was:

• Blackwood
  
• Cue-bid - first round control
  
• Cue-bid - first or second round control

[RMB1]

Is 2♥ "nat reverse, 20+" the correct strength?

[ahydra]

At matchpoints I give serious consideration towards leading the DA. IMPs... not so sure. A spade perhaps, hoping to find partner with a void (declarer having 3415)?

edit: though with that shape opener might have bid 3S instead of 4D, I guess :/

ahydra

[whereagles]

1. ace
2. ace looks foolish.. lol. Small diamond? Nah.. ok, maybe a spade.
3. ace

[gordontd]

RMB1, on 2015-January-30, 04:51, said:

Is 2♥ "nat reverse, 20+" the correct strength?

Yes - the 1S response doesn't show any values, though it's not clear to me whether the 1C opener is actually forcing.

[Jinksy]

gordontd, on 2015-January-30, 04:08, said:

---

What would you lead if you were told that 4D was:

• Blackwood
  
• Cue-bid - first round control
  
• Cue-bid - first or second round control

The auction hasn't finished yet!

Assuming P doesn't X:

1) If P can't X a 4♠ response or Lightner double 6♣, I doubt a spade will achieve much. Put me down for A♦.

2) Urgh. RHO hasn't sniffed at spades, so his shape should be drastic: something like 3406 at the very least, more likely 2407, 2506, or even 1n0n. Leading the AD could let him pitch an unavoidable spade loser, the heart suit is too crucial for me to want to carve, but the same applies in Ss as for 1, so I'll probably opt for the ♣7, and apologise if it carves P's honour(s). Leading the Q♦ is also tempting since I doubt they'll cover, but it looks likely enough that they'll be cross-ruffing that the club seems to have slightly more offensive potential (and less chance of having to explain to P how I found the only lead to give them the contract).
(ETA: I've just seen that I doubled to tell the opps how to play the contract, so forget the ♦ lead)

3) I suppose A♦ again for want of anything more sensible. It might run away on the ♠s, and prob won't do any harm.

(this all assumes I trust the opps and P to have been reasonably competent. If they're not, then I might just play them for a bidding misunderstanding rather than actually having such a rare hand on 2, for eg, and if P's not, then a spade lead starts to look better)

[FrancesHinden]

Under option (1) am I told both that 4D is blackwood, and 4S is a cue bid (so I know there's been a mis-understanding)? If so who has told me what (depending on the type and format of the event)?

[gordontd]

FrancesHinden, on 2015-January-31, 01:47, said:

Under option (1) am I told both that 4D is blackwood, and 4S is a cue bid (so I know there's been a mis-understanding)? If so who has told me what (depending on the type and format of the event)?

East has told you it's Blackwood and West has described 4S as a cuebid. 4nt is confirmed as their true agreement so West seems to have bid in error.

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2015-January-30, 04:08, said:

What would you lead if you were told that 4D was:

• Blackwood
• Cue-bid - first round control
• Cue-bid - first or second round control

---

The explanations seem so unlikely that the director should do his best to establish what the actual agreement is (e.g. he should ask what 3♦ would have meant).

It's hard to believe that, systemically, 4♦ is Blackwood -- or an ordinary Cue-bid -- or that either opponent imagines that to be the case!

Much more likely, 4♦ might be Kickback or a Splinter (perhaps a void splinter). FWIW, IMO

• ♦A
• ♠
• ♠

The director might consider an adjustment or penalty if he feels that EW are guilty of prevarication.

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2015-January-31, 05:25, said:

The director might consider an adjustment or penalty if he feels that EW are guilty of prevarication.

The question is not what the director should do but what the player might lead.

[Jinksy]

Assuming this is for a ruling, what standard of peers are we supposed to be?

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2015-January-31, 06:08, said:

The question is not what the director should do but what the player might lead.

The explanations are puzzling but I still answered that question

[RMB1]

Jinksy, on 2015-January-31, 07:18, said:

Assuming this is for a ruling, what standard of peers are we supposed to be?

Presumably not expert, I guess intermediate/advanced.

[gordontd]

RMB1, on 2015-February-04, 05:24, said:

Presumably not expert, I guess intermediate/advanced.

Probably advanced or advanced+. I don't think I would ever presume to post something in the Expert forum, given how jealously that status seems to be guarded.

What happened was that this case was from an online match with players who are not familiar with self-alerting. The 4D bid was not alerted and when at the end of the auction the player on lead asked about it, West said it was a cue-bid and East immediately corrected it to "Blackwood". South argued that he led the DA because he assumed the control would be first-round. Since "Blackwood" was the actual agreement I ruled that there was no misinformation, but it also seemed to me that the player's argument was the wrong way around: I would be LESS likely to lead the DA if I thought the control was first-round than if it might be second-round. That's what I was trying to check by posting here.