[jahol]

After simple bidding

1NT - 3NT

the first lead is yours. With QJ87xx in clubs, you put the queen on the table (do not persuade me, that I should have led small, I do not believe in that since in 5 occasions from 6, I have met something like

K10 --- Axx, 10x---AKx, Kxx --- A10

in declarer´s hand and dummy (yes, I know the argument about blocking the suit, but this happen far less frequently, at least in my bridge matches). But this is not my problem in this board anyway.

So, I led CQ and small club doubleton appeared in dummy (no doubleton ten... :-). The declarer asked about the first lead in general manner and then more specifically: "What would you lead from QJ9xx?" After that he played low from the table followed with 10 from my partner and small from the declarer. I continued with the smallest club (I had probable input into my hand in diamonds) and the declarer made trick with club 9 in his hand (my partner had got singleton 10).

The questions:
Is the declarer allowed to ask intentionally about first lead from card combination, he knows, you can not have (because he is holding some card(s) from that combination)?
Is the defender allowed to use the implicit information taken from such declarer question ANYTIME (on his own risk)?
What should the tournament director do after being invited to the table in such situation?

[phil_20686]

just out of interest why didnt you continue with the J, partner will work out to unblock from T9x right?

But yes delcarer has actied a bit unethically i think.

[kenberg]

As always, I begin with announcing that I am not a bridge lawyer.

That said, I'll give me thoughts.

1. Asking you about your lead is odd. He might ask your partner, or better look at your card.

2. Yesterday I was invited to play in a club game. I declared 3NT, the lead was the ten of diamonds, A9x hit in dummy, xxx in my hand. What's that 9 doing in dummy? No cc on the table, a couple of elderly ladies, I'm a guest. I asked: Are you paying standard leads? Yes, I was told. I thought a bit more and put up the K, holding. The lead was from AJTx. Not a standard lead, but a common agreement. It would not have occurred to me to give her a hypothetical holding and ask what she would lead from it.

3. Liking to think the best of people, I offer the following: You partner produces the ten, declarer holds the 9. Following you directive I will not say what you should lead from your holding, but it is true that many would lead small. When the ten appears,from your partner, declarer knows that you have led the Q holding neither the ten nor the nine. He could be (as I say, this is an effort to think well of him) trying to judge the chances that you have led from QJx or some such thing. But the the play of the ten would make little or no sense.

4. The question is odd, damn odd.


5. I am happy not to be directing. I have no idea what to do in such cases.

[Jlall]

Recorder form insta conduct hearing. Nobody will convince me it's legit to ask the specific question what do you lead from QJ9xx when you hold the 9. That is sooooooo shady.

edit: Can we move this to the laws forum, I wanna know what blackshoe and bluejak think since they know everything, and I think it belongs there.

[babalu1997]

You alert agreements, not your hand.

IE he is only entitled to know what your partner knows.

this is like asking, would you play 3rd hand high if you hold KJX?

[pooltuna]

Jlall, on Oct 9 2009, 10:46 AM, said:

Recorder form insta conduct hearing. Nobody will convince me it's legit to ask the specific question what do you lead from QJ9xx when you hold the 9. That is sooooooo shady.

edit: Can we move this to the laws forum, I wanna know what blackshoe and bluejak think since they know everything, and I think it belongs there.

While I agree it is shady, I believe he has the right to ask the question. Any inference you take from him asking the question is at your own risk although I think it is clear he was trying to induce you into leading the suit.

[jdaming]

I completely disagree. I think he has no right to ask the question unless he needs information that could be learned from the question. I am all for asking questions but when you ask a question that you know the answer to it is no longer a legitimate question. To me this is nearly the exact same thing as stalling an "extra" long time when you have no decision just to give the declarer the impression that you are thinking. It really just comes down to are you allowed to do something at the bridge table (other than normal play of the cards) intending to deceive your opponents and everything I have encountered so far says no. I have no law to specifically back me up on this but it is my feeling.

[JoAnneM]

He is not allowed to ask opening leader the questions! He must ask partner and that would be my reply.

[jdonn]

pooltuna, on Oct 9 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 9 2009, 10:46 AM, said:

Recorder form insta conduct hearing. Nobody will convince me it's legit to ask the specific question what do you lead from QJ9xx when you hold the 9. That is sooooooo shady.

edit: Can we move this to the laws forum, I wanna know what blackshoe and bluejak think since they know everything, and I think it belongs there.

While I agree it is shady, I believe he has the right to ask the question. Any inference you take from him asking the question is at your own risk although I think it is clear he was trying to induce you into leading the suit.

He doesn't have the right to ask the question simply to fool you when the answer makes no difference to him! You can ask questions about holdings you know the opponents can't have (such as whether they have shown/denied the queen with their keycard response when you hold it because you need to know what they knew when they chose the contract) but only if you need to know the answer for bridge reasons!

You take inferences at your own risk, but in this case declarer should get his score adjusted, which I have rarely if ever believed should happen in cases like this.

By the way, this is your second post lately that shows you think it's ok to do anything to fool anyone at any time as long as your intent can't be proven. You might want to rethink how you look at this game...

[jahol]

Just to understand each other, I put one thing wrong. Of course, the declarer asked my partner, not me!

[kenberg]

That makes it, perhaps, marginally better. But really I don't much like questions such as his even if he does not hold the 9. Perhaps if I am playing against Meckwell or some similar pair it is reasonable to expect detailed answers to questions about lead style but I assume that when partner, or any opponent I am likely to meet, leads the Q against NT he will usually have it backed up by the J and either the ten or the nine. If he doesn't, well then he doesn't. Therre is a great deal of variety in bridge and sometimes partner leads a different card than I would. It happens. If a partnership is playing Rusinow leads or some other conventional agreement then of course I should be told. But here I think that expecting partner to say "Well, he might be leading the Q from six cards headed by the QJ8 is nuts. Sometimes a queen is just the card he thinks it is best to lead.

I want to know if the opponents are playing standard leads. If so, what they actually are leading from on this hand is up to them. This can be taken to far, but I think it makes sense for most situations.

You lead th Q, your partner produces the ten, declarer holds AK9x. He might think bit, ask if leads are standard, then he should play a card.

[bill1157]

phil_20686, on Oct 9 2009, 09:56 AM, said:

just out of interest why didnt you continue with the J, partner will work out to unblock from T9x right?

But yes delcarer has actied a bit unethically i think.

Partner with T9x leaves declarer with AK doubleton, so he couldn't have ducked trick 1...

Bill

[pooltuna]

JoAnneM, on Oct 9 2009, 12:00 PM, said:

He is not allowed to ask opening leader the questions! He must ask partner and that would be my reply.

oops I stand corrected. In RLB you have to ask the partner what the agreements are.

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Oct 9 2009, 12:00 PM, said:

pooltuna, on Oct 9 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 9 2009, 10:46 AM, said:

Recorder form insta conduct hearing. Nobody will convince me it's legit to ask the specific question what do you lead from QJ9xx when you hold the 9. That is sooooooo shady.

edit: Can we move this to the laws forum, I wanna know what blackshoe and bluejak think since they know everything, and I think it belongs there.

While I agree it is shady, I believe he has the right to ask the question. Any inference you take from him asking the question is at your own risk although I think it is clear he was trying to induce you into leading the suit.

He doesn't have the right to ask the question simply to fool you when the answer makes no difference to him! You can ask questions about holdings you know the opponents can't have (such as whether they have shown/denied the queen with their keycard response when you hold it because you need to know what they knew when they chose the contract) but only if you need to know the answer for bridge reasons!

You take inferences at your own risk, but in this case declarer should get his score adjusted, which I have rarely if ever believed should happen in cases like this.

By the way, this is your second post lately that shows you think it's ok to do anything to fool anyone at any time as long as your intent can't be proven. You might want to rethink how you look at this game...

I see! I am not allowed to have my own ethical standards I have to have yours? As far as this hand goes it wouldn't even occur to me to ask but thanks for the vote of confidence.

[kenberg]

Maybe partner should have said "The lead of the queen asks me to drop the ten if it's stiff"

[Lobowolf]

pooltuna, on Oct 9 2009, 02:34 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 9 2009, 12:00 PM, said:

pooltuna, on Oct 9 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 9 2009, 10:46 AM, said:

Recorder form insta conduct hearing. Nobody will convince me it's legit to ask the specific question what do you lead from QJ9xx when you hold the 9. That is sooooooo shady.

edit: Can we move this to the laws forum, I wanna know what blackshoe and bluejak think since they know everything, and I think it belongs there.

While I agree it is shady, I believe he has the right to ask the question. Any inference you take from him asking the question is at your own risk although I think it is clear he was trying to induce you into leading the suit.

He doesn't have the right to ask the question simply to fool you when the answer makes no difference to him! You can ask questions about holdings you know the opponents can't have (such as whether they have shown/denied the queen with their keycard response when you hold it because you need to know what they knew when they chose the contract) but only if you need to know the answer for bridge reasons!

You take inferences at your own risk, but in this case declarer should get his score adjusted, which I have rarely if ever believed should happen in cases like this.

By the way, this is your second post lately that shows you think it's ok to do anything to fool anyone at any time as long as your intent can't be proven. You might want to rethink how you look at this game...

I see! I am not allowed to have my own ethical standards I have to have yours? As far as this hand goes it wouldn't even occur to me to ask but thanks for the vote of confidence.

I think you can have whatever standards you like!

But if you ask the question declarer did when I'm directing, you're probably going to be on the wrong end of an adjusted score per 73F(2).

"If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score."

You draw inference at your own risk when the other side had a legimate reason for the (whatever it was) that led to the inference.

[MFA]

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.

[MattieShoe]

I've never played OTB duplicate so I'd never have asked such a question, but if I was going to, I'd ask about a hypothetical, impossible holding rather than a possibly real one. If it were me asking the quesiton, you could have intuited that I held the 9.

This is the sort of situation that makes me glad I don't play OTB duplicate.

[peachy]

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.

It does not matter if he did it on purpose or not. The Law is applied the same way. Even trying to discover the intent will lead to an insolvable mess and perhaps come across as accusing him of cheating if he confesses intent to mislead, and of lying if he denies intent to mislead. I have no doubt he tried to mislead with his questions, the TD likely has no doubt he intended to mislead with questions, but the TD just applies the Law and leaves any investigation of intent out of it. Opponents should file a recorder form.

[pooltuna]

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.