[Codo]

lamford, on Jan 12 2010, 08:16 AM, said:

I assumed that as well. East did not misbid; he elected to play in 2S opposite a penalty double of 1NT.

I think this is the main point. If my partner is so weak that he wants to play 2 spade opposite a penalty double, how can he hold spades strong enough to defend the contract?
He can't, so spade is no LA and diamond your best shot.

[peachy]

lamford, on Jan 11 2010, 06:19 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jan 11 2010, 06:11 PM, said:

Perhaps it is time you re-read the OP.

Re-read? that is generous; there is no evidence peachy has read it all.

Musta read it backwards - sorry

[crazy4hoop]

One might think east showed good spades by freely bidding over north's 2♣ as opposed to simply pulling his partner's penalty double to 2♠.

[lamford]

Codo, on Jan 12 2010, 03:13 AM, said:

lamford, on Jan 12 2010, 08:16 AM, said:

I assumed that as well. East did not misbid; he elected to play in 2S opposite a penalty double of 1NT.

I think this is the main point. If my partner is so weak that he wants to play 2 spade opposite a penalty double, how can he hold spades strong enough to defend the contract?
He can't, so spade is no LA and diamond your best shot.

If my partner had pulled a penalty double of 1NT to Two Spades, then I would agree with you, but he did not; he bid a competitive 2S over North's unalerted and unannounced 2C. I presume this was still Stayman and not alertable or announcable in the jurisdiction (I have presumed ACBL as I know the poster is from US). Therefore partner volunteered 2S, opposite what you still consider to be your DONT double, so I don't see why he cannot have say AJTxxx and dummy has Hxx. They now need nine tricks in the rounded suits on the normal spade lead.

This is not even close; the adjustment to 4NT+3 is routine, and I disagree with all those polled who would reverse the TD decision, but I would not have an AWM, as it is easy to get confused on this one.

[Codo]

Sorry that I misread the part with 2 spade over 2 club but two spade is for these pair still no forward going move- just look at the hand.

And anyway, you have the legal information that you hold 5 HCPs. declarer did pass 4 NT, so he should have 15 to bad 16. North invites opposite a 15-17 NT, so should have around 16 HCPs. That leaves what for partner?
4 HCPs. So totally legally you have the information that partner has a weak hand with 5+ spades. Why should you lead one?

[campboy]

The auction just indicates that someone doesn't have his bid. Why should that be partner?

[ggwhiz]

Quote

intended as DONT, alerted as CAPP, partnership had agreed to play CAPP

Under the current laws, there is nothing wrong with a mis-bid as long as the correct explanation was given.

Bobby Wolff would like to see convention disruption penalized but it does NOT exist in the laws today. The 4nt bid is authorized information and all that is needed for east west who are allowed to get lucky.

The Director ruling is bizarre and (s)he needs to do some reading.

Norths bidding largely created the poor result, blowing off the heart fit. Could or should redouble first time, definitely cue 3s instead of 4nt etc. Arguably severing the link to damage.

If the successful lead was a spade instead of from a crummy long diamond suit, would he not also complain?

[bluejak]

campboy, on Jan 12 2010, 03:13 PM, said:

The auction just indicates that someone doesn't have his bid. Why should that be partner?

Not sure I understand this. The auction indicates that North and South have points, and East has spades. That all seems credible, and means a spade lead is useless. It is only if someone does not have his bid that a spade lead becomes a possibility.

[lamford]

Dummy ♠ KQ ♥ KQxx ♦xxx ♣KQJx opposite ♠Jx ♥AJxx ♦KQx ♣ATxx is one layout where everyone has their bid, and a spade lead is necessary, and a diamond lead is hopeless. Come to think of it, this is quite likely, as partner volunteered 2S with a bad hand.

[campboy]

bluejak, on Jan 12 2010, 05:16 PM, said:

campboy, on Jan 12 2010, 03:13 PM, said:

The auction just indicates that someone doesn't have his bid. Why should that be partner?

Not sure I understand this. The auction indicates that North and South have points, and East has spades. That all seems credible, and means a spade lead is useless. It is only if someone does not have his bid that a spade lead becomes a possibility.

I would think East should have more like a 10-count to bid 2♠ from West's point of view (ie, if double does not show a strong hand). The UI suggests he may have significantly less, since he thinks double did show a strong hand.

[ggwhiz]

Quote

I would think East should have more like a 10-count to bid 2♠ from West's point of view (ie, if double does not show a strong hand). The UI suggests he may have significantly less, since he thinks double did show a strong hand.

East has a 10 count opposite a strong hand and wants to play in 2 only spades without allowing for a penalty double somewhere????? Not on this planet.

Where did the 4nt bid come from? That is authorized information and North dug this hole.

[campboy]

I said from West's point of view. West does not believe he has shown a strong hand, so would expect partner to have some values in order to compete.

Of course, the UI that East believes West to have a strong hand indicates that East is likely to be much weaker than that (as I also said in my previous post).

[lamford]

campboy, on Jan 12 2010, 07:26 PM, said:

I would think East should have more like a 10-count to bid 2♠ from West's point of view (ie, if double does not show a strong hand). The UI suggests he may have significantly less, since he thinks double did show a strong hand.

Indeed, the more I think about it, West's contention that a spade lead won't work is similar to those players who field a psyche on the basis that the vulnerable opponents surely have their bids, and partner's 1NT overcall is probably comic. He is trusting the opponent's bidding and ignoring partner's bid.

IMHO the pollees who would reverse the director's decision are making the worst decision I have ever seen on here, and I hope they do not get on to any AC. Indeed I would impose a PP for the diamond lead.

[lamford]

ggwhiz, on Jan 12 2010, 10:59 AM, said:

The Director ruling is bizarre and (s)he needs to do some reading.

People often find faults in others that are most prominent in themselves.

[ggwhiz]

What a hoot!

When partner has either shown or denied values (take your pick), the natural lead (It's in all the books) from your longest and strongest against notrump is a crime? umm only if it works?

[lamford]

ggwhiz, on Jan 13 2010, 04:17 PM, said:

What a hoot!

When partner has either shown or denied values (take your pick), the natural lead (It's in all the books) from your longest and strongest against notrump is a crime? umm only if it works?

It is when you are obliged to carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI that partner thought you had made a penalty double of 1NT. Leading a diamond will only work when partner has Kx of diamonds, extremely unlikely with the AI. He bid spades, vulnerable, when he could have passed, opposite a DONT double. He would normally have competitive values AND A GOOD SUIT for this action, as he is forcing you to three-level when you have a singleton spade and another suit. I would expect partner to have something like AQJxxx for this action normally, except then the opponents points don't add up. Maybe the NT bidder has tried something eccentric with long clubs.

Leading a diamond says, "I heard you bid 2S, pard, but that was because you thought I had a strong balanced hand - you might not have much there then, so I will play for the miracle of Kx of diamonds instead. Despite the fact it does not conform to your ethical requirements. Big time."

[bluejak]

That's a very biased description of why West led a diamond. I think it unnecessary to be quite so biased.

I would probably lead a diamond, but not for lamford's reason: if partner has any entry then ♦xx in his hand may be enough to beat it, but we need a lot more in spades. It would never occur to me that I was looking for ♦Kx specifically.

Furthermore the opposition have bid 4NT knowing about the spades. Diamonds might be a surprise.

A rather better approach than of pouring scorn on an obvious lead would be to take a poll.

[awm]

It seems obvious a poll is needed here.

I agree that West has UI (partner thought he had a penalty double at the time of the 2♠ bid) and that this UI suggests leading a diamond rather than a spade (a free 2♠ bid need not show nearly as strong a suit given that partner is assuming a strong hand).

So the question is whether leading a spade is a logical alternative given the authorized information. There is a coherent argument that a diamond lead is "obvious" since partner cannot have much in the way of values. The way to resolve this is to take a poll of course.

Another possible point of interest is west's pass over 2♠. For some reason people playing methods like DONT often get really annoyed that they can't bid their suit and stick a natural bid in at the next opportunity. If east's 2♠ bid showed serious values (which, at the point it came back around to west, was still a possibility) then it's believable that west might bid 3♦. Since west knows that east's 2♠ can be based on garbage (from the UI) it's less tempting to stick such a call in. Again, the way to resolve this is probably to take a poll and see if bidding 3♦ was a logical alternative.

[helene_t]

awm, on Jan 13 2010, 11:33 PM, said:

Another possible point of interest is west's pass over 2♠. For some reason people playing methods like DONT often get really annoyed that they can't bid their suit and stick a natural bid in at the next opportunity. If east's 2♠ bid showed serious values (which, at the point it came back around to west, was still a possibility) then it's believable that west might bid 3♦. Since west knows that east's 2♠ can be based on garbage (from the UI) it's less tempting to stick such a call in. Again, the way to resolve this is probably to take a poll and see if bidding 3♦ was a logical alternative.

I don't think passing 2♠ was suggested by the UI.

Opposite a DONT double, 2♠ shows a 6-card suit. Opposite a penalty double it might only be 5. It is possible that West thougt that his ethical obligation was to pass rather than to bid 3♦. Of course it could also be argued that 3♦ would show a very strong hand if playing penalty doubles, so the UI suggests not bidding 3♦. But even playing DONT, 3♦ now might be taken as stronger than a direct 3♦ bid, not just diamonds without spade tolerance.

Anyway, I don't think 3♦ is an LA. He jugded an immediate 3♦ call to be unsafe, 3♦ now would be more risky and have less to gain.

[awm]

helene_t, on Jan 13 2010, 05:39 PM, said:

I don't think passing 2♠ was suggested by the UI.

Opposite a DONT double, 2♠ shows a 6-card suit. Opposite a penalty double it might only be 5.

The issue is that partner will take a 3♦ bid as showing some huge power-double hand with diamonds and this could easily lead to some awful spot like 3NTX. The fact that partner may be quite light in points also means that 3♦X could be a stronger possibility than it otherwise would be. Basically, bidding again here in the face of a misunderstanding could lead to a huge disaster. Thus passing is indicated by the UI.

Of course, there is an argument that one should pass anyway, because west's hand is so lousy and he does have doubleton support for spades. But in my experience, DONT bidders often do bid this way (i.e. get frustrated and name their suit on the three-level). I do think it's worthy of a poll.