[sfi]

 pran, on 2015-January-04, 04:03, said:

(And at IMPs I would consider the lead of ♣A rather poor. More often than not the lead of an ace against a small slam gives declarer his 12th trick on a silver plate.)

We're leading into the strong NT hand and there's a distributional hand on our left. There's a real danger that the CA is going away and we have two potential tricks in diamonds and hearts. I still think any other lead would be a serious error.

And the data Bird and Anthias presents strongly disagrees with your assertion.

[jillybean]

 blackshoe, on 2015-January-03, 13:22, said:

Jillybean's comment to South might be taken as an attempt at intimidation. In any case, it is poor form.

Just to be clear, I agree it's poor form but it was done in a light hearted way. South is a friend and I believe both opponents would find this a lot less intimidating than if I had called the director.

[jillybean]

 gnasher, on 2015-January-03, 03:39, said:

The obvious reason for partner's question is that he wants to know how many key cards declarer has shown. I'm surprised that people think that the question shows something in clubs, but perhaps I don't play in the right sort of games.

You likely don't play in games where this happens, as far as I can tell it does not happen in top level games, it happens a lot in club games, BCD or low A/X. How many club players understand UI, LA? The questions are specific "what was 2♣?" and asked at an inappropriate time. Often the player either has a stack of the alerted suit, wants to know what convention their opponents are playing or has been told you are always allowed to ask questions about the auction and are exercising their right to ask questions at their turn in the auction. This is often when when questions occur in the middle of keycard auctions, the opponent has no intention of entering the auction. For the vast majority this is not an attempt to cheat, I don't think for a moment the players consider their question inappropriate and I would never imply so. It does however draw attention to the suit and I'd be rich if I had a nickel for each time partner led the named suit.

 Vampyr, on 2015-January-03, 12:58, said:

I don't think you do. Jillybean's other threads have noted that the games she plays in are shockingly conducted.

The games are run well, the adhering to and enforcement of bridge laws is notably relaxed, loosey goosey. I'll go out on a limb and say that is not unique to my games but common in NA.

[Vampyr]

 jillybean, on 2015-January-04, 09:35, said:

Just to be clear, I agree it's poor form but it was done in a light hearted way. South is a friend and I believe both opponents would find this a lot less intimidating than if I had called the director.

Calling the director is normal. Threatening to call the director is not.

[sanst]

 sfi, on 2015-January-04, 04:26, said:

We're leading into the strong NT hand and there's a distributional hand on our left. There's a real danger that the CA is going away and we have two potential tricks in diamonds and hearts. I still think any other lead would be a serious error.

And the data Bird and Anthias presents strongly disagrees with your assertion.

I think you should read the note by Ton Kooijman about serious errors (http://www.eurobridg...rious-error.pdf). The lead of CA is the best according to Bird and Anthias, but that doesn't make an other lead a SE by any criterion you will find in that article. B&A wrote: "The risk of an ace lead giving the declarer a critical extra trick ... is coniderable", and "Nevertheless, it is best in the long run to lead the ace" (my emphasis). They don't seem to strongly disagree with pran's assertion, just to indicate that the ace lead is superior.

[sfi]

 sanst, on 2015-January-04, 12:45, said:

I think you should read the note by Ton Kooijman about serious errors.

Serious error was not meant in the legal bridge sense, but in the sense that the CA is the standout play.

I've now polled two other people who play at a high level nationally. One said the CA was the only lead worthy of serious consideration ("everything else is too likely to give up tricks"). The other said a spade might be a possibility (they grudgingly said 3-4/10), and would not adjust in an appeals committee had the CA been led ("it's such a standout") - even before I mentioned UI. In neither case did they think the UI suggested a club lead, and in both cases immediately said it was 100% to lead a club after declarer's comment.

My questions after giving them the hand:
- What would you lead?
- What logical alternatives are there?
- Partner asked about the meaning of 5C before you choose a lead. What does that suggest? Does it affect your choice of lead?
- Declarer warned about calling the director if a club is led. What do you lead now?

The first person I polled expected partner's question was to find out whether they were playing 3041 or 4130 RKC. The second person raised the idea of a procedural penalty for declarer for the comment.

[nige1]

 gnasher, on 2015-January-03, 03:39, said:

The obvious reason for partner's question is that he wants to know how many key cards declarer has shown. I'm surprised that people think that the question shows something in clubs, but perhaps I don't play in the right sort of games.

As West, I would assume that my partner had committed the comparatively minor infraction of asking a legitimate question at the wrong time, rather than a gross and extremely clumsy attempt to cheat. Hence I would assume I had no meaningful UI, and was not constrained.

As a director called upon to rule, I would examine East's hand, and ask him why he asked the question when he asked it. Then I'd decide whether his question actually pertained to the club suit or not, and rule accordingly.

It's not (yet) relevant, but I think ♣A lead is automatic.

IMO..

Jillybean should call the director, rather than remark on East's question, especially if she later posts the case in a BBO forum.

Only a naive and unethical partner would ask this question to suggest (or more likely to deter) a ♣ lead. If the asker is ethical and knows the rules, then he has simply lost the place. The auction is over, so the director should tell East to postpone his questions until after the opening lead, in future.

If the choice of lead would have made a difference, then, no matter what was led and what questions the director asks, the director is likely to end up in an unenviable position. In such cases, the law should penalize the perpetrator of UI rather than the hapless recipient.

On the actual hand, however, I agree with gnasher that the ♣A lead stands out. There is no plausible alternative.

[Vampyr]

 sfi, on 2015-January-04, 14:27, said:

The second person raised the idea of a procedural penalty for declarer for the comment.

This would be a disciplinary penalty, I think, and while I have nothing against it, I don't think it should be given unless the opening leader's partner receives a PP. There is no NOS in this case.

[jillybean]

I talked with South here again today and he said that when I called the director they felt I was accusing them of cheating and they have learned a costly lesson.
Whenever a director is called, unless it is a for a LOOT or BOOT, people tend to react badly. Today at an adjacent table, declarer asked the opponent to wait until his partners lead
was (face down) on the table before he stated "no questions partner" and the response was, "what are you going to do, call the director?" THIS type of reaction is typical.

This thread has gone way off topic, how did you rule?

[Vampyr]

 jillybean, on 2015-January-04, 21:46, said:

I talked with South here again today and he said that when I called the director they felt I was accusing them of cheating and they have learned a costly lesson.
Whenever a director is called, unless it is a for a LOOT or BOOT, people tend to react badly. Today at an adjacent table, declarer asked the opponent to wait until his partners lead
was on the table before he stated "no questions partner" and the response was, "what are you going to do, call the director?" THIS type of reaction is typical.

This thread has gone way off topic, how did you rule?

Others think that there is no LA to club lead, so I will simply do what I mentioned in my last post, which is issue a DP and aPP.

[Trinidad]

 jillybean, on 2015-January-04, 21:46, said:

This thread has gone way off topic, how did you rule?

I don't see where the thread went off topic, but here is my ruling:
1) The question was asked at the wrong time. That is an irregularity.
2) The question carries UI. South is supposed to "bend over backwards" and not use it.
3) My interpretation of the UI would be: "Partner wants to know how many keycards 5♣ shows."* This interpretation does not suggest any LA (should there be more) over any other.
4) Declarer made an extraneous remark, trying to persuade opening leader not to lead a club. This is AI to South.
5) The remark was intimidating, an infraction of Law, and certainly worth a penalty.
6) The AI from declarer's remark, turned the good lead of the ♣A into a lead to which there was no remote LA. Ïf declarer states that she does not want a club lead, any other lead than a club would be absurd. As an aside, if it turned out that declarer made the remark "in jest" and another lead, that could have been chosen without the remark, might have beaten the contract, an AS will be assigned to adjust for declarer's misleading remark.
7) The ruling:
North is told that he should do his asking after the opening lead has been made and that the timing of his question was an infraction. The fact that this infraction is "common" among players, does not give North the right to infract the Laws.
The result on the board stands as 6♥-1.
Declarer gets a penalty for the intimidating remark.
Declarer gets a compliment for executing the trump coup. There is no Law that specifically says the TD must do that, but it certainly is in the interest of the game to do so.


* If you seriously think that the question was intended to suggest a club lead and South was following the suggestion, then you have a problem. It is hard to change other people's behavior and if your bridge club is full of this kind of "bridge", with no alternative club around, I don't envy you. However, I could not imagine being friends with an actively unethical bridge player. It would have to be the only character flaw in someone who is otherwise like Mother Theresa and that seems an unlikely combination. And, though it is hard to change the behavior of others, it is easy to chose who your friends are. If I would think South was leading the ♣A because North told him to, South would not be a friend.

Rik

[jillybean]

 Trinidad, on 2015-January-04, 22:27, said:

* If you seriously think that the question was intended to suggest a club lead and South was following the suggestion, then you have a problem. It is hard to change other people's behavior and if your bridge club is full of this kind of "bridge", with no alternative club around, I don't envy you. However, I could not imagine being friends with an actively unethical bridge player. It would have to be the only character flaw in someone who is otherwise like Mother Theresa and that seems an unlikely combination. And, though it is hard to change the behavior of others, it is easy to chose who your friends are. If I would think South was leading the ♣A because North told him to, South would not be a friend.

Rik

Stop suggesting I think the question was asked in a deliberate attempt to cheat or that I'm suggesting the player on lead here was unethical. I've have said many times that I don't think it is an attempt to cheat, Many players simply don't know about UI or LA's, that doesn't make them unethical. The object of this post was to see if there is a LA to a club lead, I was not sure.

 jillybean, on 2015-January-04, 10:04, said:

For the vast majority this is not an attempt to cheat, I don't think for a moment the players consider their question inappropriate and I would never imply so. It does however draw attention to the suit and I'd be rich if I had a nickel for each time partner led the named suit.

[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2015-January-04, 22:27, said:

It would have to be the only character flaw in someone who is otherwise like Mother Theresa and that seems an unlikely combination.

You seem to be suggesting that Mother Teresa was a good person. I thought that that rumour has been debunked by now.

LOL I think that this is the first off-topic post in this thread.

[blackshoe]

 jillybean, on 2015-January-04, 21:46, said:

I talked with South here again today and he said that when I called the director they felt I was accusing them of cheating and they have learned a costly lesson.
Whenever a director is called, unless it is a for a LOOT or BOOT, people tend to react badly. Today at an adjacent table, declarer asked the opponent to wait until his partners lead
was (face down) on the table before he stated "no questions partner" and the response was, "what are you going to do, call the director?" THIS type of reaction is typical.

This thread has gone way off topic, how did you rule?

It sounds to me like your director and club management need to work to overcome this unfortunate attitude. It will be tough, and they probably won't want to do it, but they should IMO.

[Trinidad]

 jillybean, on 2015-January-04, 21:46, said:

I talked with South here again today and he said that when I called the director they felt I was accusing them of cheating and they have learned a costly lesson.

The point is that threatening to call the TD is much more unpleasant than actually calling the TD in a courteous manner.

If someone would threaten to call the TD "against me", I would call the TD myself for the threat.

Rik

[jillybean]

 Trinidad, on 2015-January-05, 00:38, said:

The point is that threatening to call the TD is much more unpleasant than actually calling the TD in a courteous manner.

If someone would threaten to call the TD "against me", I would call the TD myself for the threat.

Rik

I think you are reading more into what I said to my opponent. It is known that I do call the director when there has been an irregularity and my comment was delivered in a light, humourous manner.
I admit, I made a poor choice but it is not the problem here.

[jillybean]

 blackshoe, on 2015-January-04, 23:13, said:

It sounds to me like your director and club management need to work to overcome this unfortunate attitude. It will be tough, and they probably won't want to do it, but they should IMO.

I agree but it won't happen until there are a sufficient number players unhappy with the status quo and that's not going to happen.

[blackshoe]

Gotta start somewhere.

[WellSpyder]

 jillybean, on 2015-January-04, 21:46, said:

Today at an adjacent table, declarer asked the opponent to wait until his partners lead
was (face down) on the table before he stated "no questions partner" and the response was, "what are you going to do, call the director?" THIS type of reaction is typical.

I must admit that if an opponent responded in this way to me I would be calling the director now, rather than waiting for another question at an inappropriate time.

[sfi]

 Vampyr, on 2015-January-04, 18:43, said:

This would be a disciplinary penalty, I think,

True enough.

Quote

and while I have nothing against it, I don't think it should be given unless the opening leader's partner receives a PP. There is no NOS in this case.

I don't agree that the question warrants a penalty, but that's probably because I ascribe different motives to it. If the question is intended to focus leader's attention on the club suit, then I would agree.