[FrancesHinden]

VixTD, on 2015-April-27, 10:41, said:

EBU-approved convention cards have several example holdings for which the standard card led should be indicated. EW's CC has Hxxx and Hxxxx and xxxx for no trump leads. There is no entry on the card for xxxxx, from which their standard lead is fourth highest. So to summarize their no trump leads they lead fourth highest from holdings including an honour and from five or more small, but second highest from four small.

Sadly they must be using a very old form of the EBU card, because the last time I remember seeing exactly this ruling, I changed the design of the card to include the xxxxx. Although the blank card in the EBU website doesn't have it, I see - it has a nice blank space at the end where it should fit. I shall investigate.

p.s. I would adjust. There is no England-wide 'normal' lead from 5 low (I was originally taught to lead 4th highest from 5 low but I also learned the hard way that isn't "standard")

[blackshoe]

Aardv, on 2015-April-28, 12:56, said:

(that in the context of calls, but I suppose the advice applies generally)

Is it advice, or a requirement? If it's advice, it seems to me a player is not required to take it.

[Aardv]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-28, 17:36, said:

Is it advice, or a requirement? If it's advice, it seems to me a player is not required to take it.

Introduction to the 2007 Laws said:

...Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong),“does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation
be penalized) “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized)...

Blue Book 2B6 said:

The use of the words such as ‘standard’, ‘normal’ and ‘natural’ to describe the partnership understanding of a call, and especially a play of the cards, should be avoided as it is often capable of misinterpretation.

Blue Book 2B7 said:

...The use of specific questions should be avoided since there is a danger that the answer, whilst correct, might be incomplete...

I suppose that the Blue Book follows the established usage in the Laws, and hence that North has jeopardized his rights.

[barmar]

Aardv, on 2015-April-28, 12:56, said:

(that in the context of calls, but I suppose the advice applies generally)

It says to avoid words like "standard" in answers. But it seems that if the questioner chooses to ignore the advice against asking specific questions, and uses one of those words, he gets what he deserves when getting an incomplete answer.

[blackshoe]

Aardv, on 2015-April-29, 01:31, said:

I suppose that the Blue Book follows the established usage in the Laws, and hence that North has jeopardized his rights.

So it's not advice. Fair enough.

[StevenG]

I don't see that jeopardising ones rights (on a technicality) should justify opponents giving you an incorrect answer.

[Aardv]

StevenG, on 2015-April-29, 09:27, said:

I don't see that jeopardising ones rights (on a technicality) should justify opponents giving you an incorrect answer.

It's not a technicality.

1) Consider an agreeable and law-abiding West who believes his opening lead agreements to be normal. If asked a well-formed question, being a law-abiding chap he'll give an answer entirely in accordance with the Blue Book's prescription. But if North asks him "normal leads?", being an agreeable chap he'll say yes.

2a) Consider a different but equally agreeable and law-abiding West who realises that his partnership's style may not be entirely normal. If North asks him "normal leads?" here, then realising that his partner has led from five small he'll see the problem and say "normal, but we lead fourth from five small".

2b) Consider a third, but again agreeable and law-abiding West who realises that his partnership's style may not be entirely normal, the difference being that he's been dealt 10xx of spades. This time he knows his partner has led from Qxxxx. It doesn't occur to him that xxxxx is a possibility from declarer's point of view, so when asked "normal leads?" he says "yes".

I'm surprised that some commentators think it right to adjust to North's advantage and West's disadvantage in (1), and to allow this ill-formed question to give North an edge in distinguishing (2a) from (2b).

[campboy]

Aardv, on 2015-April-30, 07:30, said:

I'm surprised that some commentators think it right to adjust to North's advantage and West's disadvantage in (1), and to allow this ill-formed question to give North an edge in distinguishing (2a) from (2b).

North shouldn't be able to distinguish 2a from 2b for the simple reason that West should give the same answer in each case. Whatever else may be wrong with North's question it should be clear that he is asking about leads in general and not about this lead in particular. West should mention any way in which their leads are not normal -- even if he knows it does not affect this hand, it may affect the next.

I sympathise with your point about 1, but we already require West to know what standard leads are in order to have a properly filled out convention card: "Hatch over or shade this box if using non-standard leads." So allowing North to ask this question doesn't really disadvantage West any more than allowing him to look at the CC.

[helene_t]

Isn't "normal leads" even more vague than "standard leads"?

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2015-April-30, 09:17, said:

Isn't "normal leads" even more vague than "standard leads"?

I think they're supposed to be synonymous.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-April-30, 09:28, said:

I think they're supposed to be synonymous.

Yeah. Unfortunately "synonymous" does not mean "adequate as an explanation of partnership understanding". My view: one cannot give an adequate (per the law) explanation of one's opening lead understandings in one or even two words. It takes a lot more than that. The fact that if one says "standard" one's opponent might well be on the same page as the explainer is irrelevant. It's up to the explainer to make sure the opponents are on the same page with the users of the methods. He does that by explaining what the agreements are, not what their name is.

Years ago, in England as it happens, my partner and I agreed to play Journalist leads. Part of Journalist is that against suits, Rusinow leads are used. So we wrote "Rusinow against suits" on our system cards. The director at our local club insisted that "Rusinow" was wrong, and that in fact we were playing "Roman" leads. I showed him the "Journalist Leads" book. I cited other authors who called what we were playing "Rusinow". He didn't care. So we changed the card. It was only years later, just a couple of years ago in fact, that I discovered that in the 1950s the Italians had adopted Rusinow (which dates back to the 1930s) without specifying that or indeed any name. They became known as "Roman leads" because the Italians were playing them. Moral of the story: explain (including by writing on your system card) what your agreements are, not what (you think) they are named. Not enough room on the card for that? Okay, write the name, but add a supplementary note, suitably referenced, with the full explanation.

[nige1]

Aardv, on 2015-April-30, 07:30, said:

2a) Consider a different but equally agreeable and law-abiding West who realises that his partnership's style may not be entirely normal. If North asks him "normal leads?" here, then realising that his partner has led from five small he'll see the problem and say "normal, but we lead fourth from five small".

2b) Consider a third, but again agreeable and law-abiding West who realises that his partnership's style may not be entirely normal, the difference being that he's been dealt 10xx of spades. This time he knows his partner has led from Qxxxx. It doesn't occur to him that xxxxx is a possibility from declarer's point of view, so when asked "normal leads?" he says "yes".

I'm surprised that some commentators think it right to adjust to North's advantage and West's disadvantage in (1), and to allow this ill-formed question to give North an edge in distinguishing (2a) from (2b).

IMO You should give the same answer irrespective of the contents of your hand. "Normal, but we lead 4th from 5 small" seems the better of the 2 explanations.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-30, 10:09, said:

Not enough room on the card for that? Okay, write the name, but add a supplementary note, suitably referenced, with the full explanation.

There is always enough room. You can just circle the cards you lead against a NT in a different colour than you circle the cards you lead against suits.

And yes, of course a name should be accompanied by an explanation, whether it is nearby or elsewhere on the card.

[FrancesHinden]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-30, 11:57, said:

There is always enough room. You can just circle the cards you lead against a NT in a different colour than you circle the cards you lead against suits.

And yes, of course a name should be accompanied by an explanation, whether it is nearby or elsewhere on the card.

No, there isn't enough room. Our leads vary depending on whether
- it is against a suit contract, a NT partial, a NT game or a NT slam
- it is in a suit we have bid
- it is in a suit partner has bid

(for a slightly complex definition of bid)

We've done what we can on the card, and it is written in the notes (in quite small font to make it fit) but I just tell opponents to ask