[ggwhiz]

Quote

That's a very biased description of why West led a diamond

Bottom line is that I don't think West did anything terrible except forget their documented agreement. Passing the 2S bid and then leading a diamond could EASILY be his best attempt at being ethical.

For example, I'll pass 2S as if pard alerted my dbl as I interpreted and I'll lead a diamond like I didn't hear pards 2S bid which I would not have heard without my screw up.

Rule however way you like, there are way too many issues and contrasting opinions in this thread to trash these items as being unethical.

[campboy]

Adjusting the table score is not accusing West of deliberately being unethical.

[ggwhiz]

Quote

Adjusting the table score is not accusing West of deliberately being unethical.

And how not? You take advantage of UI or you don't. Proper explanation in a mis-bid auction is clearly allowed to get lucky.

[blackshoe]

Law 73C says that a player in receipt of UI "must carefully avoid taking advantage from that unauthorized information".

Law 16B1 says that such player 'may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information".

In neither case is a score adjustment an accusation of cheating. It is a statement that, in the TD's (or AC's) judgment, the player, who certainly may have (and in fact is assumed to have, absent very convincing evidence to the contrary) tried to comply with these laws, has failed in that effort.

IOW, it's not unethical to try, but fail, though it may be ethical to fail to try. I reiterate, however, that absent convincing evidence (beyond just "he had some LAs, and he chose this one, which we can now show could have been suggested by UI") to the contrary, TD's (and AC's) do not, and should not, assume that a player has failed to try to comply with these laws.

[bluejak]

ggwhiz, on Jan 14 2010, 01:27 AM, said:

Quote

Adjusting the table score is not accusing West of deliberately being unethical.

And how not? You take advantage of UI or you don't. Proper explanation in a mis-bid auction is clearly allowed to get lucky.

If you "take advantage" of UI, you might:

• not understand the UI Laws, or
  
• not realise you have UI from partner, or
  
• not realise what partner's UI suggests, or
  
• disagree with others' bridge judgement as to what is an LA

In none of these cases have you "deliberately been unethical".

Only if you understand the UI Laws, and realise that a call you make flouts them are you deliberately unethical.

[lamford]

bluejak, on Jan 13 2010, 04:57 PM, said:

if partner has any entry then ♦xx in his hand may be enough to beat it, but we need a lot more in spades.

even when partner has ♦xx and an entry, you will still fail if:
a) declarer as ♦KQx of diamonds as he will just duck your jack of diamonds lead
b ) whenever declarer has nine tricks outside in the rounded suits, as on the actual hand.

When you lead a spade, you know that does not give them a diamond trick, and you know you have a second spade to lead if they need a diamond for their tenth trick.

But, we don't need to decide on the relative merits of a spade lead; all we need to decide is if:
a) around 20% of leaders (EBU guideline, I recall from Jeffrey or Frances) of people would seriously consider a spade lead
b ) some of those would actually select it.

Given that nobody disputes that the diamond lead is demonstrably suggested over the spade lead by the UI, the adjustment seems a no-brainer.

And I agree with you that we are not suggesting that the actual leader is being unethical; we don't need to do that to adjust.

[bluejak]

KQx? If he ducks and I have the only entry he has just gone off in a cold one!

But I do not believe a diamond lead is marked because it is likely to beat 4NT: on the auction I do not expect to beat 4NT. But if there happens to be any chance, I believe it will only be on a diamond lead, and that is why I think the diamond lead routine.

[aguahombre]

A lead would be considered to be "routine"(blue's words), in my opinion, if over 90 percent would choose it. But, as Lam points out, it doesn't take as much as 10 percent total for the spade lead to be a LA.

Although I agree with the diamond lead for blue's reasons, don't I have to rule against it? (and hate it while doing it)?

[bluejak]

Well, polling might be a good idea. But <10% is not really the standard I do not think, though I have seen nothing official from the ACBL since the last Law book.

[ggwhiz]

A poll might be useful in that it should include the entire auction.

I don't think the pass of 2s took advantage of any UI but the 4NT bid by North in light of an expected spade lead is Authorized information.

[bluejak]

The way to do an effective poll is to give the auction, but describe the double as DONT, ie a 1-suiter, and ask people what they lead.

[lamford]

bluejak, on Jan 14 2010, 12:15 PM, said:

KQx?  If he ducks and I have the only entry he has just gone off in a cold one!

Then what did the 2S bidder have for volunteering 2S? He has little enough room in points for that without you taking away his entry!

And don't forget the fact that he bid 2S opposite a CAPP double is authorised to declarer but not to you.

[bluejak]

Sure: it is unlikely any lead will beat it. But your idea that declarer will never go wrong seems very pessimistic, and when you think a contract is likely to be making, you need optimism not pessimism.

[lamford]

Leading a spade is quite optimistic; one layout where it might work is dummy Hxx opposite declarer Hx in spades. Declarer may not duck in both hands.

I tried a few very strong players on the authorised auction 1NT - Double (DONT) - 2C (Stayman) - 2S - Pass - Pass - 4NT and they all thought a diamond was hopeless; partner is almost certain to have a singleton when opponents have not bid a suit natural and forcing. The actual layout was a bit of a miracle really

[mycroft]

I don't know about anybody else, but when I bid DONT (even the one-suiters), I'm bidding obstructively. Sure it's a 6-card suit, but AJxxxx is pretty good. JTxxxx isn't unreasonable; the whole point is to get them off their nice simple system (and yes, I know "ignore the double". It's one of the reasons I don't completely *like* DONT).

If I double DONT and partner bids his suit, it *will* play better opposite a singleton than mine - and a singleton in my suit is what I can expect; zero is more likely than two, frankly. Opposite my void, we're dead anyway, but 2S-4 is still better than 3Dx-2. I know people unauthorized-panic to the 3 level, but that's all it is.

What that does to the ruling in question I don't know, but that's the facts.

[jallerton]

lamford, on Jan 14 2010, 04:45 PM, said:

[But, we don't need to decide on the relative merits of a spade lead; all we need to decide is if:
a) around 20% of leaders (EBU guideline, I recall from Jeffrey or Frances) of people would seriously consider a spade lead
b ) some of those would actually select it.

Given that nobody disputes that the diamond lead is demonstrably suggested over the spade lead by the UI, the adjustment seems a no-brainer.

Yes, the Law refers to "significant proportion". In England, the following guidance has been given by the Laws & Ethics Committee:

Quote

What is a “significant proportion”?  The Laws do not specify a figure, but the TD should assume that it means at least one player in five.

I found some TD guidance on the ACBL website, but the guidance on Law 16, logical alternatives just refers to "significant proportion" ; so presumably ACBL TDs are given some latitude in interpreting this phrase.

In the actual case, I agree that a spade lead appears to be demonstrably suggested {maybe some DONT players can confirm how they play, but I would presume that 2♠ says: I don't care what your suit is, I want to play in 2♠ rather than being some 'pass or correct' bid}. Over a penalty double a non-forcing 2♠ bid would tend to suggest a weaker suit.

I agree with everyone who says that a poll is needed to determine whether a spade lead is a logical alternative. My feeling is that it certainly ought to be as one of the plausible layouts where it goes off is where partner has ♦Qx and either ♠A or ♠K over dummy's ace.

The original poster asks whether the appeal has merit. To answer this type of question, we need to know the basis of the TD's ruling. For example, if the TD had already taken a valid poll, from which he had concluded that a ♠ lead was a logical alternative, then the appeal would indeed be frivolous.

I am unimpressed by:

Quote

EW appeal, arguing that West knew from the 4NT bid that a spade had no chance to defeat 4NT, so had to lead a diamond.

Does West never lead partner's suit when he knows that dummy has a stop? An alternative theory would be to assume that neither North nor South can have particularly strong spade holding as neither has seen fit to double 2♠.

[Apollo81]

Apparently the director in charge did not poll anyone, so I guess there would have been merit to an appeal here.

[bid_em_up]

..