[lamford]

"How did you do on the last board?", asked RR who had returned just before the next hand was bid. "4H+1" replied ChCh. Flat board".

---

RR led his singleton spade, which was not everyone's choice as the bridgemates showed, and dummy went down. "Can you put the trumps on the left, please?" RR asked politely. "There aren't any trumps", SB South replied. "East, ChCh won with the ace of spades and SB as South dropped the king."
ChCh paused for thought and looked at the NS convention card before switching to the queen of hearts. SB misguessed to play low and ChCh continued with another heart. RR cashed the ace of hearts on which all followed, but he was unsure if his remaining heart was a winner. After an age he decided to chance it and cashed the nine of hearts for one down.

SB was furious. "Directooooooooooooooooooor", he bellowed. OO arrived. SB began his rant: "East took advantage of RR's clear mistaken belief that it was a trump contract - probably 4H, the contract on the previous board. This arose from RR's request to put the trumps on the left". He continued: "When East won the first trick with the ace of spades and I dropped the king, it was normal for East to continue spades, but he switched."

"Law 73C1 states: When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information [see Law 16B1(a)]." He pauwed for breath. "The slimeball ChCh did not do that. Indeed he worked out the lead was probably a singleton".

ChCh was quick to respond. "That remark is a breach of Best Behaviour at Bridge", he began. "And I did consider that partner might have led from Qxxx in spades, but the NS convention card did not have "possible singleton" ticked for 1NT, so I ruled that out. Also, RR would not have led the 3 from Q632. If he had Q63, SB would not have dropped the king from K2"

How do you rule?

[Cyberyeti]

Which one do they lead from 632 ? and does that change suit contract/NT ?

Would not be impossible for S to have KQ, AKxx, Kxx, xxxx where a heart return is fatal rather than a spade.

[lamford]

 Cyberyeti, on 2022-December-03, 09:06, said:

Which one do they lead from 632 ? and does that change suit contract/NT ?

Would not be impossible for S to have KQ, AKxx, Kxx, xxxx where a heart return is fatal rather than a spade.

I think all RR can manage is leading fourth best and has not discussed the niceties of the game.

[Cyberyeti]

 lamford, on 2022-December-03, 11:50, said:

I think all RR can manage is leading fourth best and has not discussed the niceties of the game.

Leading 4th best from 3 is difficult even for RR

[smerriman]

 Cyberyeti, on 2022-December-03, 09:06, said:

Would not be impossible for S to have KQ, AKxx, Kxx, xxxx where a heart return is fatal rather than a spade.

---

Not seeing a fatal heart return. But it does seem important whether this is a possible lead for RR. And even if it isn't, if you can assume RR would "never" lead the wrong card from Qxxx or xxx (and RR always seems capable of doing that), and if in another situation you could argue RR would just as equally "never" have led a singleton spade here, then it's complicated.

[Cyberyeti]

 smerriman, on 2022-December-03, 14:19, said:

---

Not seeing a fatal heart return. But it does seem important whether this is a possible lead for RR. And even if it isn't, if you can assume RR would "never" lead the wrong card from Qxxx or xxx (and RR always seems capable of doing that), and if in another situation you could argue RR would just as equally "never" have led a singleton spade here, then it's complicated.

Well if you return a heart S just plays a club intending to play the 10 and makes the contract, a spade return defeats it out of hand

[smerriman]

 Cyberyeti, on 2022-December-03, 14:31, said:

Well if you return a heart S just plays a club intending to play the 10 and makes the contract, a spade return defeats it out of hand

Exactly. I think you had your statement backwards (it's a spade return that's fatal, rather than a heart).

Edit - sorry, nevermind, I read fatal as fatal to the contract. Understand now.

[Cyberyeti]

 smerriman, on 2022-December-03, 14:33, said:

Exactly. I think you had your statement backwards (it's a spade return that's fatal, rather than a heart).

Edit - sorry, nevermind, I read fatal as fatal to the contract. Understand now.

Yup, fatal to the defence

[thepossum]

Just here to read. Interesting stuff

[sanst]

I know I’m a bit simple, but I would think a spade lead is rather obvious. NS have seven spades max, so E must have at least five and more points than W. Therefore it might pay off to develop east’s spades, you will probably make two heart tricks anyway. I certainly wouldn’t like to lead from AJ93 if there’s an more attractive option.
Bird & Anthias (Winning Notrump Leads) show that, in an action like this, the lead from a short, i.e doubleton, major on average beats the lead from a four card major or minor. That makes the lead from a singleton even more attractive.

[Cyberyeti]

 sanst, on 2022-December-04, 03:03, said:

I know I’m a bit simple, but I would think a spade lead is rather obvious. NS have seven spades max, so E must have at least five and more points than W. Therefore it might pay off to develop east’s spades, you will probably make two heart tricks anyway. I certainly wouldn’t like to lead from AJ93 if there’s an more attractive option.
Bird & Anthias (Winning Notrump Leads) show that, in an action like this, the lead from a short, i.e doubleton, major on average beats the lead from a four card major or minor. That makes the lead from a singleton even more attractive.

The problem is you don't have a second spade to play when you win your heart, yes a doubleton is attractive.

Also where I'm from it's entirely possible the 1N opener has 5 spades and dummy has 3.

[sanst]

 Cyberyeti, on 2022-December-04, 03:42, said:

The problem is you don't have a second spade to play when you win your heart, yes a doubleton is attractive.

Also where I'm from it's entirely possible the 1N opener has 5 spades and dummy has 3.

Usually those players, if any good, know methods to find that out.

[helene_t]

 sanst, on 2022-December-04, 05:35, said:

Usually those players, if any good, know methods to find that out.

This is North London, not the Netherlands:) indeed a 5-3 fit is possible. Even if NS is a strong pair.

[CMOTDib]

Slightly off the current discussion. If RR thought that the dummy was incorrectly faced then shouldn't RR have called the director as it is an irregularity as far as he is concerned, Law 41D? If we get passed that point then Law 16B1(b) requires we find the action that a significant proportion of the class of player in question would take. Given those involved we might have a great deal of difficulty finding people of the category of CHCH and RR never mind SB. Having heard all the "evidence" what I think is immeterial. I also wonder if there is some thought needed as to why SB played the Spade King and then didn't "reserve his rights" Law 16B2 immediately when CHCH didn't lead back a Spade. The opps would then call the director Law 16B2. SB must have has some expectation that a spade would be returned. SB must have been aware that unauthorised information "was used" at that point and an irregularity had occurred. So did SB continue hoping to get it right and if he didn't then a director call would/might remedy the situation. Should Law 11 be enforced? If so can someone tell me who is the "ignorant" one. There seems to be several "forfiture of rights" going on in this opening post. Also I think Law 11B needs consideration.

I must admit I don't think I will come across this at club level as most would not have the knowledge required to understand RR's comment about trumps on the right or CHCH's understanding of the lead and Play of the King of spades implications. That said I am interested enough to wait for what others would rule.

[pescetom]

 helene_t, on 2022-December-04, 06:18, said:

This is North London, not the Netherlands:) indeed a 5-3 fit is possible. Even if NS is a strong pair.

Settling blindly for 3NT with North's hand is somewhat agricultural, IMO, not what I would expect at the top of North London.
We could go down in 3NT (as indeed is the case) just as we could have a slam, or a safer minor game.

[lamford]

The point is that East knows RR has led against 4H, from his remark. This makes returning a spade less attractive, as RR is unlikely to be able to ruff.

I think this is a clear adjustment and I am with SB on this one.

[sanst]

 lamford, on 2022-December-05, 13:19, said:

The point is that East knows RR has led against 4H, from his remark. This makes returning a spade less attractive, as RR is unlikely to be able to ruff.

I think this is a clear adjustment and I am with SB on this one.

You’re right. RR wouldn’t have started with the 3 from Kx3 when leading against 4H, nor from KQ3. But against 3NT that lead could easily have been from Kx3. Adjustment is correct, even if you hate SB for his bellowing.

[pescetom]

 sanst, on 2022-December-06, 04:03, said:

You’re right. RR wouldn’t have started with the 3 from Kx3 when leading against 4H, nor from KQ3. But against 3NT that lead could easily have been from Kx3. Adjustment is correct, even if you hate SB for his bellowing.

You can penalise SB for once, not for his bellowing but for calling his opponent a 'slimeball' (however accurate that may be).

[pescetom]

--

[lamford]

 CMOTDib, on 2022-December-04, 16:12, said:

Slightly off the current discussion. If RR thought that the dummy was incorrectly faced then shouldn't RR have called the director as it is an irregularity as far as he is concerned, Law 41D? If we get passed that point then Law 16B1(b) requires we find the action that a significant proportion of the class of player in question would take. Given those involved we might have a great deal of difficulty finding people of the category of CHCH and RR never mind SB. Having heard all the "evidence" what I think is immeterial. I also wonder if there is some thought needed as to why SB played the Spade King and then didn't "reserve his rights" Law 16B2 immediately when CHCH didn't lead back a Spade. The opps would then call the director Law 16B2. SB must have has some expectation that a spade would be returned. SB must have been aware that unauthorised information "was used" at that point and an irregularity had occurred. So did SB continue hoping to get it right and if he didn't then a director call would/might remedy the situation. Should Law 11 be enforced? If so can someone tell me who is the "ignorant" one. There seems to be several "forfiture of rights" going on in this opening post. Also I think Law 11B needs consideration.

I must admit I don't think I will come across this at club level as most would not have the knowledge required to understand RR's comment about trumps on the right or CHCH's understanding of the lead and Play of the King of spades implications. That said I am interested enough to wait for what others would rule.

SB could not have been aware that UI had been used by the lack of a spade return. For all he knew East did not have a second spade! He correctly called the TD when he saw the whole hand. And RR was right not to call the director as there was no irregularity in that it was a no-trump contract. An irregularity would only have occurred if there were trumps and what RR thought is irrelevant.