[barmar]

dburn, on 2011-June-29, 19:59, said:

I am having difficulty understanding why South's "I want a club" is an infraction of Law - which Law? The only possibility I can see is that it is "a gratuitous comment during the auction and play", hence a breach of Law 74B2. But in the actual case it is close to impossible that East-West have been damaged (in the sense of being innocent parties to deception) by the "comment" that South wants a club lead (but see below).

Calling this a "gratuitous comment" is being way too literal-minded. South clearly intended this as an exercise of his right to require a certain lead, he just misunderstoodthe extent of that right. And East took it as such as well, also misunderstanding declarer's rights, although he apparently DID know his right to lead any other suit if he couldn't comply. This confusion by both sides reminds me of the other recent thread, where all the players were similarly confused by unfamiliar markings on the queens and jacks.

[blackshoe]

"Clearly intended" is, it seems to me, an overbid. I've certainly heard at least once in my life a player complain "I want a club lead" when he knew he couldn't ask for one, and was in fact complaining that he couldn't, and not actually asking for it.

[Vampyr]

dburn, on 2011-June-29, 19:59, said:

The level of experience of East appears to me completely irrelevant, except insofar as it might convince me to take a very dim view indeed of his performance.

It is unfortunate that East's level of experience is irrelevant, since this is the whole point of the thread.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-30, 15:49, said:

"Clearly intended" is, it seems to me, an overbid. I've certainly heard at least once in my life a player complain "I want a club lead" when he knew he couldn't ask for one, and was in fact complaining that he couldn't, and not actually asking for it.

I can't recall anyone but an utter newbie saying something like that (the kind of players who start talking about how they didn't know how to bid their hand before the opponent has selected their opening lead, rather than after they'd put it down as dummy). I've heard people complain "I wanted a club lead" after the fact.

Most likely, you'd be able to tell whether he intended it as a command or a comment from his inflection, but I think the opponent should also be able to tell the difference in this case. If it sounds like he's just thinking out loud, it was quite inappropriate for him to then treat it as a command, especially when it wasn't even a legal command.

[blackshoe]

Certainly context is important, and I wasn't at the table. Still, even when it's fairly clear (from body language or whatever) what he meant, people might get it wrong, particularly if they're all wrapped up in themselves, and not really paying attention to anything else.

[alphatango]

FWIW, the case was real up to the point where East led a heart (and he did have a void club). East did not lead at the relevant point; however, South did make the statement "I want a club", and it was clearly an attempt to direct East to do so.

In any case, that was the situation in which I was interested; I shall figure out what to do if it was a side comment after I figure out what to do if it was a command.

[blackshoe]

Actually, you should figure out which it was; then what you would do in the other case you no longer need to worry about.

Players frequently try to "speed things up" when the director is making a ruling. You have to firmly put a stop to that.

[barmar]

If it was intended as a command, you simply inform him, "Sorry, that's not one of your options" and restate the options. I suppose you should also inform the defenders that his attempted command is AI to them, so they may take it into account in the rest of their defense. I suppose there's also the possibiity of a 73F adjustment, if declarer didn't actually want a club lead and the defenders misdefend as a result.