[barryallen]

pooltuna, on Oct 9 2009, 10:10 PM, said:

MFA, on Oct 9 2009, 07:23 PM, said:

Adjusted score (for both sides) and a warning to declarer to be more careful in the future. Since we surely don't think he did it on purpose, do we?

Lead small from this holding and blow your trick instantly like a man.

hardly partner did have a stiff T after all.

Who is at fault here? declarer for asking the question or the opposition for trying to take advantage of the question? The very fact that question was asked prior to any other cards being played would only lead me to believe this was more in line with the use of coded 9 or 10's. The fault here lies with not having a full written description of leads, something that can be easily passed to the declarer with no questions required.

If anyone were to pose the ethics of the situation, I would lay this squarely on the opening leader for trying to take advantage of the situation. Only mitigated if a full description of your leads were available. Because an obvious inference has been made in trying to take advantage of the situation, otherwise why behave as if your nose had been put out of joint?

Just to underline the whole absurdity of declarers plot, he has to mind meld with the opposition to identify the Q was led from QJxxxx (whilst holding 4 and dummy 2) and that his partner held the singleton 10 for this devious plan to bear fruit. Furthermore the fact the question was asked, whilst holding 6, would suggest that declarer has options and that the probability of the 10 being a singleton has increased significantly. Any TD worth his salt would have a wry little smile and suggest a chat at the bar after the session.

[ggwhiz]

I witnessed a similar thing years ago and it was covered in the laws along the lines of a "comment, question or play that MAY be meant to mis-lead the opponents". Covers the Alcatraz coup as well.

I can't remember the exact quote but an adjusted score was given at the speed of light after a defender asked about the entire auction including "does the 5h bid show or deny the spade queen" while looking at it. 6 spades down one was adjusted to 6 spades making.

HOWEVER, the player that did this is extremely ethical but a bit of a space cadet. When he realized what he had done, he actually blushed.

[kenberg]

The spade Q issue reminds me. When I first began to encounter rkc but before I began to play it, I would run across it at first only rarely, I remembered that there was something about the Q involved. I figured out that asking whether a bid denied the Q when I didn't have it, but not asking when I did have it, was not in my best interest. Fortunately the 5H/S response is played the same way by everyone, so this particular problem was solved easily, I just learned the convention so that I did not have to ask.

In the best of worlds. ccs are filled out and a broad question gets fully disclosive answers. For example: A spot card is led against a suit contract. Declarer says "leads?' and I say "We lead third and fifth from length to an honor, holding only spot cards we usually lead the second highest." If declarer asks for more, I am tempted to tell him that I cannot say more without making it up.

Problems are often created, I think, by answers that are far from fully disclosive. There was a ruling published during the nationals that I was not entirely happy about. Opponents opened 1C, alerted, and explained as "Could be short" An inquiry was made about when a short club might be bid. The response was "We play five card majors". After some more questions, it turned out that a hand with four diamonds and two clubs is opened one club. Opening 1D promises five. I dont know what they do with a stiff club and four diamonds. Anyway, extracting the information was anything but easy. Later, the partner of the person asking the questions made an admittedly brash balancing double. Whose fault is this? Maybe the balancing double was, as the committee decided, beyond the pale but I thought that the opponents should have been told that if you don't want a lot of questions, try giving a fully disclosive answer the first time.

[skjaeran]

A former partner of mine asked about opponents leading agreements after having received a jack lead against 3NT. His holding in the suit was AKQ. Opps were furious after the board, claiming he had tried to fool them to continue the suit.

The fact was that this information was important to him, both in deciding which card to win the opening lead with. But more importantly, to plan the rest of the play, since he needed to know which offender was most likely to continue the suit later in the play.

(Opps didn't have a system card.)

[MFA]

pooltuna, on Oct 10 2009, 05:10 AM, said:

MFA, on Oct 9 2009, 07:23 PM, said:

Adjusted score (for both sides) and a warning to declarer to be more careful in the future. Since we surely don't think he did it on purpose, do we?

Lead small from this holding and blow your trick instantly like a man.

hardly partner did have a stiff T after all.

Yes I know, but I wasn't really talking about the actual layout.

[gnasher]

skaeran, on Oct 10 2009, 10:43 PM, said:

A former partner of mine asked about opponents leading agreements after having received a jack lead against 3NT. His holding in the suit was AKQ. Opps were furious after the board, claiming he had tried to fool them to continue the suit.

The fact was that this information was important to him, both in deciding which card to win the opening lead with. But more importantly, to plan the rest of the play, since he needed to know which offender was most likely to continue the suit later in the play.

(Opps didn't have a system card.)

That's quite bad. The essence of their argument is that not providing a convention card entitles them to learn something about declarer's hand.

[MFA]

barryallen, on Oct 10 2009, 01:13 PM, said:

pooltuna, on Oct 9 2009, 10:10 PM, said:

MFA, on Oct 9 2009, 07:23 PM, said:

Adjusted score (for both sides) and a warning to declarer to be more careful in the future. Since we surely don't think he did it on purpose, do we?

Lead small from this holding and blow your trick instantly like a man.

hardly partner did have a stiff T after all.

Who is at fault here? declarer for asking the question or the opposition for trying to take advantage of the question? The very fact that question was asked prior to any other cards being played would only lead me to believe this was more in line with the use of coded 9 or 10's. The fault here lies with not having a full written description of leads, something that can be easily passed to the declarer with no questions required.

If anyone were to pose the ethics of the situation, I would lay this squarely on the opening leader for trying to take advantage of the situation. Only mitigated if a full description of your leads were available. Because an obvious inference has been made in trying to take advantage of the situation, otherwise why behave as if your nose had been put out of joint?

Just to underline the whole absurdity of declarers plot, he has to mind meld with the opposition to identify the Q was led from QJxxxx (whilst holding 4 and dummy 2) and that his partner held the singleton 10 for this devious plan to bear fruit. Furthermore the fact the question was asked, whilst holding 6, would suggest that declarer has options and that the probability of the 10 being a singleton has increased significantly. Any TD worth his salt would have a wry little smile and suggest a chat at the bar after the session.

Surely declarer could have known that an opponent could be misled by such kind of question. And declarer has no bridge reason to ask specfically about a holding the opponent can't have.

The TD might want to go to the bar (as you suggest), but that would be to get something strong after an unanimous AC has decided to change his ruling and adjust the score (according to law 73F2).

[barryallen]

MFA, on Oct 10 2009, 05:38 PM, said:

Surely declarer could have known that an opponent could be misled by such kind of question. And declarer has no bridge reason to ask specfically about a holding the opponent can't have.

The TD might want to go to the bar (as you suggest), but that would be to get something strong after an unanimous AC has decided to change his ruling and adjust the score (according to law 73F2).

An alternative question would be "what do you lead from QJ10". Now according to your theory this would tell the opening lead that his partner held the 10, putting declarer at a disadvantage which would gladly have been taken advantage of with a different layout of the cards, as already seen. If the opponents have a full description of their leads on their card, case over and adjust the score as you say.

The question of what would be led from QJ9xx relates to the use of coded 9's and 10's. You can comment that maybe this should be phrased better, but we have already gone over one possible pitfall of one different line.

This is an unfortunate sequence of events starting from the selection of the lead, the subsequent fall of the 10 and the nature of declarers question. Anyone who believes this to be a deliberate attempt to deceive must go through life without closing an eyelid and why I would put the decision down to what the opposition have marked on their card / notes under leads. A description that fully covers the lead of the Q and declarer does not have a leg to stand on, because this situation should then never have arisen. Without that description I would readily give declarer the benefit of the small doubt that exists.

[gnasher]

The right question for declarer to ask is "From what holdings do you lead the queen?", which tells the opponents only that he doesn't hold the queen himself.

[barryallen]

gnasher, on Oct 11 2009, 07:14 AM, said:

The right question for declarer to ask is "From what holdings do you lead the queen?", which tells the opponents only that he doesn't hold the queen himself.

Then holding ♣QJ87xx, seeing the fall of the 10 and the significance of the question, should readily stop any further club.

Picking up a convention card and looking through it could be interpreted in a similar manner, but at least that is watered down by the possibility of looking at the nature of an over call, signals or the failure to make a bid.

[gnasher]

barryallen, on Oct 11 2009, 02:02 PM, said:

  Then holding ♣QJ87xx, seeing the fall of the 10 and the significance of the question, should readily stop any further club.

That isn't true at all. For all that declarer knows, the opponents might be playing Rusinow. Or they might have the agreement that the queen asks for attitude and the jack asks for count. As long as declarer always asks this question, nobody can be misled by it.

Quote

Picking up a convention card and looking through it could be interpreted in a similar manner, but at least that is watered down by the possibility of looking at the nature of an over call, signals or the failure to make a bid.

Looking at the card is definitely preferable, and it would be absurd for anyone to claim that they'd been misled by that. I usually look at the opponents' leads and carding before I've looked at either the lead or the dummy.

[barmar]

gnasher, on Oct 11 2009, 08:14 AM, said:

The right question for declarer to ask is "From what holdings do you lead the queen?", which tells the opponents only that he doesn't hold the queen himself.

Or simply ask for a description of your honor leads against no trump.

This is a very routine type of question, so there's little chance of causing a misleading inference.