[jtfanclub]

ralph23, on Sep 14 2007, 05:42 PM, said:

awm, on Sep 14 2007, 06:36 PM, said:

(2) If 5♥ showed the queen, opponents are surely off an ace to sign off in 6♠.

Does anyone play RKC this way? In other words, to play 5♥ shows two with, and 5♠ shows two without? I've not run across it, but of course the Law of Big Numbers says that Anything is Possible.

Yes, in fact I was originally taught this way. When I get really tired, sometimes I revert.

The logic is going for 7...that we don't go for 7 missing the trump queen, so by having "2 with" one rank lower it gives us more space to check for kings, or something.

[Cascade]

BillHiggin, on Sep 15 2007, 10:31 AM, said:

Me thinks there has been way too much focus on the poor explanation and not enough on the clearly evil intent in the question. The idea that West merely wanted to know what North was basing his decision on does not hold water. West asked because he intended to imply that he did not know where the queen was. His request for further detail simply confirms his deceptive (and illegal) intent.

I don't know how you could know west's intention.

It be just that he was surprised by the answer. I would want something far more certain before damning West. On the other hand it is certain that North did not meet his obligations of full disclosure.

[Cascade]

jillybean2, on Sep 15 2007, 11:19 AM, said:

awm, on Sep 14 2007, 03:36 PM, said:

If it seems that the incomplete explanation of 5♥ was on purpose in order to help locate the trump queen, that might also be worth a zero tolerance penalty (as an attempt to cheat).

I don’t see how you come to this conclusion. North would have no reason to expect a query of 4nt so you are saying this is premeditated cheating in an attempt to mislead the opps and find the Queen? I tend to think it is a sloppy explanation rather than evil intent.

On the other hand, W an experienced player queries a standard response to a standard query and furthermore, goes on to ask specifically about a card he has in his hand?
“People routinely show the queen if they have a ten card fit” must be expert treatment, I have never noticed this.

I routinely ask about the auction even when I think I know what it means. I have been surprised too many times to not ask. Especially when the opponents are in a slam auction. There are many variations and the opponents often have very specific agreements.

Yes it is standard to show the queen when not holding it when you have extra trump length - usually you need to be certain of a 10-card fit.

[jdonn]

http://web2.acbl.org...on_DC_Sum02.pdf
Case 35....

[FrancesHinden]

Interestingly enough, there was a very similar case at Brighton a couple of years ago. (trumps were spades then as well!) It was used in a case study this August in a seminar I helped to run on how appeals committees works.

We did it as a role play, and I played the part of the questioning West player. Jeremy Dhondy was declarer. The class were the (large!) AC. When asked why I had asked the question about the queen of trumps, I said something like

"I was surprised when he didn't mention it, because he said they played RKCB and I thought that was a standard part of RKCB"

I was then asked if I had considered whether I might be misleading declarer given that I had the queen myself, and I said

"I wasn't even looking at my hand, and I didn't consider it. I was just trying to understand what the auction meant before leading. Anyway, it might become relevant later in the defence to understand what declarer knew about the hand during the auction"

Out of an audience of 16 people, the vote was split about 70/30 in favour in letting the score stand. My instinct was to do the same.

[Bear in mind that neither side is really blameless here. You could also say that declarer was trying for a double shot - took the spade finesse on the basis that either it won, or it lost and he would get it back on Appeal]

[ralph23]

awm, on Sep 14 2007, 06:36 PM, said:

If 5♥ denies the queen, it's odds-on that opponents have all the aces (they might've stopped in 5♠ missing the queen and an ace). This may effect the choice of leads or other defensive decisions.

NS were in fact missing the trump Queen and one Ace, and lost those two tricks.

The ten-card-fit theme is interesting, and I don't believe anyone in the actual case ever mentioned it.

But *if* West really thought that the 5♥ call might be ambiguous between having/not having Her Majesty, and he learned from his inquiry that 5♥ (contrary to the way everyone around here plays) indeed showed, rather than denied, holding her, then he could conclude that declarer had a 6-card trump suit. (NS had been in a Jacoby 2nt auction whereby N had already promised 4+ trumps by use of that call).

[jillybean]

Jlall, on Sep 14 2007, 04:38 PM, said:

Didn't read the replies and I'm sure the laws won't back me up on this, but this is blatant cheating and if anyone who knew how to play bridge did this to me I would file a recorder form and would want a conduct and ethics committee on them.

Who is cheating?

[skjaeran]

There was a similar appeal to the Norwegian Bridge Federation's Law Committee some years ago where an opponent holding the trump queen made similar questions about a RKB 5♥ response. Declarer playing in 6♠ went one down after misguessing the trump queen. The LC adjusted to contract made.

[mycroft]

Justin, if I had to ask you whether 5H showed the trump queen, after being told "two keys" - perhaps even "two", which I frequently get - and you wished to file anything, I'd be happy to join you. I would add the blatant incomplete explanation...As far as I'm concerned, South made his own bed.

In fact, a nefarious declarer would intentionally misdescribe, and then if West asks a further question, East has the queen; if he doesn't, play him for it. This person (presumably innocently) set West up and then claims damage when he didn't fall into the trap? Sure.

Of course, Justin, you would never be in this situation, because your explanation would have been "two keycards without the queen" or "two without" or something equivalent. So would mine.

In the ACBL Tech Files (an old version of which is available at bridgehands.com), a very similar auction is given (there, it went 1S-4NT; 5C-5D; 5S-6S). Asking about the queen is "entirely appropriate" whether or not you have it -

"Again, this is
because you are not required to give away your hand in order to find
out what the opponents' bids mean.

Also, even if you had the queen of trumps you might be very interested
in the meaning of 5 spades. Perhaps the 5 spade bidder decided to
show the spade queen even though he didn't have it (or perhaps he made
a mistake). You are entitled to know if the 6 spade bidder thought
their side had the trump queen."

Can't say specifically for other jurisdictions, but it boils down to "if you'd told me what the agreement was in the first place, I wouldn't have needed to ask the so-called 'misleading question'."

Yes, I think it makes a difference if the explanation contained the "without the queen" statement.

Michael.

[ralph23]

mycroft, on Sep 16 2007, 04:43 PM, said:

Yes, I think it makes a difference if the explanation contained the "without the queen" statement.

Michael.

Would it also make a difference if you knew, immediately before the hand in question, NS had also had a keycard auction against the same EW, like this:

North: 1♥
South: 3♥

North: 4nt
South: 5♥
West (asking North): "5♥ shows ...?"
North: "2 keycards, without the Queen of trumps"
West: "OK", and he passes

[Echognome]

One part I don't understand. Why focus your question on the Q of trumps? It's like when the opponents have an auction with an artificial bid and you ask specifically about that bid. You are focusing attention on that suit. It just seems to make things a whole lot easier if you say, "Can you take me through the auction and tell me if there's anything I need to know?" Then declarer can say things like "Natural. Natural. Natural. Sets suit. Cue bid, 1st/2nd round control and we we play serious 3NT. Keycard. 2 without Queen. To play," etc. It doesn't take long at all. That way you not only draw attention to one aspect, you also may learn something you didn't know!

[jdonn]

Echognome, on Sep 16 2007, 05:27 PM, said:

One part I don't understand. Why focus your question on the Q of trumps? It's like when the opponents have an auction with an artificial bid and you ask specifically about that bid. You are focusing attention on that suit. It just seems to make things a whole lot easier if you say, "Can you take me through the auction and tell me if there's anything I need to know?" Then declarer can say things like "Natural. Natural. Natural. Sets suit. Cue bid, 1st/2nd round control and we we play serious 3NT. Keycard. 2 without Queen. To play," etc. It doesn't take long at all. That way you not only draw attention to one aspect, you also may learn something you didn't know!

What seems to often be happening in these situations, in the Washington casebook for example, is the asker does ask about the whole auction but gets answers that are obviously incomplete. Obviously what you suggest is best, but it only works if the explaining side lives up to its obligations, and if they don't it creates a difficult situation. Like in this thread, where people seem to think that either side could be cheating when this sort of situation occurs...

[Codo]

I join the chorus for the result stands fraction.
Michael gave the best reasoning:
IF I just ask if I do not possess the queen, the opps know where the queen is.
Even if this clue is not a 100 % clue, it still is a clue.
So I must ask to clarify the situation even if I am quite sure about the meaning (and I had been quite sure even without looking at my cards).

North is to blame for his explanation and south for his try to read something in a question instead of playing the cards. They deserve their result.

I wholehearty agree with MAtts statement that you should ask for the complete auction, but even then you sometimes have to ask again because the statements are not understandable or too short.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Results stands.

You take interference from opponents behaviour
at your own risk.
You may try to get a ruling against West, but it
will be hard to get one.

You would need to have fairly strong evidence:
1) the same sequence occurred a board ago
2) West has a track record

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

jdonn, on Sep 14 2007, 08:15 PM, said:

http://web2.acbl.org...on_DC_Sum02.pdf
Case 35....

Hi jdonn,

do you have other links to case books?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jtfanclub]

Echognome, on Sep 16 2007, 05:27 PM, said:

One part I don't understand.  Why focus your question on the Q of trumps?  It's like when the opponents have an auction with an artificial bid and you ask specifically about that bid.

It wasn't. She had to ask a dozen questions to get a straight answer....it was something like:

"And what does the 5♥ bid show?"
"Blackwood."
"Blackwood?"
"Yeah, Blackwood. Maybe you've heard of it"
"Not Roman Key Card?"
"Of course it's Roman Key Card."
"So this shows?"
"Two Aces"
"Two Aces?"
"Yes."
"Out of..."
"Five."
"Five aces?"
"Yes, five aces."
"What was the fifth ace?"
"The king of trumps"
"What was trumps?"
"Hearts."
"Does it say anything else?"
"No."
"What about the queen of trumps? Does it confirm or deny that?"
"It denies the queen of trumps"
"OK, go ahead and lead, partner"

I'd be in favor of a Procedural Penalty against the idiot giving the answers. I'm sure he doesn't consider himself an idiot, though.

(Edit: Going off the description in p55 of jdonn's link. All discussion is hypothetical)

[ralph23]

jtfanclub, on Sep 17 2007, 10:46 AM, said:

I'd be in favor of a Procedural Penalty against the idiot giving the answers. I'm sure he doesn't consider himself an idiot, though.

(Edit: Going off the description in p55 of jdonn's link. All discussion is hypothetical)

As I recall, both the AC and the commentators thought the answerer (with a load of masterpoints) had really done badly and was even contemptuous of the questioner who had fewer points.

He probably didn't think he was an idiot, but he may have been an imbecile or a moron.

http://www.neatorama.com/2006/12/11/whats-...idiot-vs-moron/

[jtfanclub]

ralph23, on Sep 17 2007, 10:10 AM, said:

As I recall, both the AC and the commentators thought the answerer (with a load of masterpoints) had really done badly and was even contemptuous of the questioner who had fewer points.

He probably didn't think he was an idiot, but he may have been an imbecile or a moron.

In his defense, this was a team game, and this particular player asked about EVERY bid in EVERY auction EVERY time she was on defense. There was a case with the same players on a different hand earlier in the appeals which was a whole lot closer, and made it clear just how annoying she was.

So maybe this was simply a case where the guy is normally nice and polite, and this particular opponent had gotten him down to his last nerve, and was enthusiastically jumping up and down on it. Which is why, IMHO, he didn't get a PP or an AWMW. The AC sympathized.

[Free]

I don't have much sympathy with both players here...

- North didn't give a complete explanation. In theory, you could do this deliberately just to help you find the trump Queen, even if your partner is playing (if you work together you can do anything)! Like it happened, they placed the Q in a hand based on the question asked. On the other hand, if he wouldn't ask the Q-question, one might give the other player more chance of having the Q. So you may just give an incomplete explanation with cheating in mind here.

- West asked the Q-question, but what's the reason, and why did he do it before the opening lead? He may have several reasons: wants a ♥ lead, doesn't want a ♥ lead, always wants a full explanation (maybe his partner is afraid of asking questions), wants to make some point by dragging all the info out of north,... But he may also try to mislead declarer on purpose. It's quite hard to figure out why he needed to ask the question, and why he did it before the opening lead, but it's quite suspicious to say the least.