[Cyberyeti]

---

With the lead of 2♥ face up, S asked what leads were played. E said standard which in EBUland is second from xxxx and 4th from Hxxx (these are the underlined leads on the convention card which if you don't play requires a big obvious mark on the CC). At the point reached in the play in the diagram, W tables a low ♥ and S has a decision but "knowing" the 2 is not led from xxxx gets it wrong by not running it to the 8. It was confirmed afterwards that they do always lead small from xxxx so the explanation was wrong.

Basically a 50/50 decision has been taken down to 0% by the MI.

What do people think is going to happen if declarer gets the guess right ? My best guess was K♥ won, heart or diamond return, spade to K, find the clubs cash and now declarer cashes out for 9 but a 10th arrives when the Q♠ drops. If the clubs hadn't dropped, declarer would have crossed in whichever red suit E didn't lead when in with K♥ and taken the spade hook.

Hence the ruling IMO should be 50% 3N-1 and 50% 3N+1.

Any comments ?

[c_corgi]

My first thought is that this South who is experienced enough to know exactly what "standard" means is also experienced enough to check that the opponents do too.

[barmar]

c_corgi, on 2012-November-24, 15:13, said:

My first thought is that this South who is experienced enough to know exactly what "standard" means is also experienced enough to check that the opponents do too.

So every time someone leads what looks like a 4th best, and the opponents explain "standard leads" (which I suspect would be about 90% of the time), he should ask for clarification ("What do you lead from 4 small")? That will certainly get tedious.

[blackshoe]

This is the problem, I think, with "experienced players are supposed to protect themselves" regulations. They're too damn nebulous.

In this case there was MI, and the NOS were damaged thereby. I do not think they should be denied redress on the basis of some nebulous regulation.

[barmar]

They're only supposed to protect themselves when they have a reasonable expectation that they received misinformation. For instance, if your opponents perpetrate the auction 1NT-2♥-2♠-..., and don't alert or announce the 2♥ bid (assuming it's required where you play), you should check whether they simply forgot to alert/announce or something else is going on.

But if most players play "standard leads" according to the defaults on the CC, why would anyone think to question the opponents about this? In fact, it's your experience that tells you that there's no need to ask -- you know what "standard leads" means.

[c_corgi]

Leading low from 4 low is far from unheard of. One of the categories of player who is likely to do so is an inexperienced player who is not familiar with all the nuances of "CC standard". OP does not tell us whether EW are inexperienced or not, but if they are then this is surely the type of situation the regulation was designed for.

[Cyberyeti]

c_corgi, on 2012-November-25, 05:56, said:

Leading low from 4 low is far from unheard of. One of the categories of player who is likely to do so is an inexperienced player who is not familiar with all the nuances of "CC standard". OP does not tell us whether EW are inexperienced or not, but if they are then this is surely the type of situation the regulation was designed for.

EW are a married couple who've been playing club bridge for many years, they had a convention card, but the lady hadn't bothered to remove it from her handbag so declarer had to ask the question.

[gnasher]

I think it's clearly MI. In England "standard" always implies second from xxxx, and it wouldn't occur to me to ask an English pair for clarification.

I'd give declarer more than a 50% chance of getting it right, though. If West had ♥Kxxx and ♦Jxxx or ♦xxxx, he might have led a diamond, not wanting to give a trick away on the lead.

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2012-November-25, 09:35, said:

I think it's clearly MI. In England "standard" always implies second from xxxx, and it wouldn't occur to me to ask an English pair for clarification.

I'd give declarer more than a 50% chance of getting it right, though. If West had ♥Kxxx and ♦Jxxx or ♦xxxx, he might have led a diamond, not wanting to give a trick away on the lead.

I don't think W is good enough to think like that.

Related question - if you think it is 50/50 - do you rule 50/50 on the scores, or do you err to the benefit of the NoS and award 60/40 on it making ?

[RMB1]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-November-25, 09:43, said:

Related question - if you think it is 50/50 - do you rule 50/50 on the scores, or do you err to the benefit of the NoS and award 60/40 on it making ?

The latter.

We used to talk about truth, justice and the American Way.

Truth was the international approach, if it is 50/50 you award the true 50/50 (and perhaps award a procedural penalty to ensure OS have not gained).

Justice was the EBU approach, if it is 50/50 you award 60/40 to NOS as a "bakers' dozen" approach to ensuring the NOS were not damaged.

The American way is Law 12C1e.

[barmar]

c_corgi, on 2012-November-25, 05:56, said:

Leading low from 4 low is far from unheard of. One of the categories of player who is likely to do so is an inexperienced player who is not familiar with all the nuances of "CC standard". OP does not tell us whether EW are inexperienced or not, but if they are then this is surely the type of situation the regulation was designed for.

Inexperienced players are probably not going to know what their partners lead from 4 small, so they won't be able to answer properly either way. Although "I don't know" or "no agreement" is a better answer in that case than "standard".

But we were told that this pair has an explicit agreement to lead low from 4 small. So the answer "standard" is just MI in this case, and a long-time partnership should know better. There's no reason why declarer should suspect that they misinformed him.

[PeterAlan]

c_corgi, on 2012-November-24, 15:13, said:

My first thought is that this South who is experienced enough to know exactly what "standard" means is also experienced enough to check that the opponents do too.

c_corgi, on 2012-November-25, 05:56, said:

Leading low from 4 low is far from unheard of. One of the categories of player who is likely to do so is an inexperienced player who is not familiar with all the nuances of "CC standard". OP does not tell us whether EW are inexperienced or not, but if they are then this is surely the type of situation the [experienced players are supposed to protect themselves] regulation was designed for.

I agree with you on this - my experience of English club bridge over the last few years is that, whether they play 2nd or 4th from 4+ small, people will think it's "standard". This is particularly so if it's 4th, because those who play 2nd, whilst they know it's "standard" EBU, also probably know enough to realise that it's not universal, at least if they play outside London and the Home Counties. This sounds like just the same issue as we had in the recent Stayman-with-both-majors thread, namely more enlightened folk not realising that many people in many clubs still play what they learned 40 years ago. This can be especially true of

Cyberyeti, on 2012-November-25, 06:20, said:

EW are a married couple who've been playing club bridge for many years, they had a convention card, but the lady hadn't bothered to remove it from her handbag

whose convention card is quite likely to be in nothing like the current EBU20B format anyway.

barmar, on 2012-November-24, 22:45, said:

So every time someone leads what looks like a 4th best, and the opponents explain "standard leads" (which I suspect would be about 90% of the time), he should ask for clarification ("What do you lead from 4 small")? That will certainly get tedious.

Yes, if you need to know you have to ask. In practice, this isn't as bad as it seems. In many cases (though you do this at your own risk) you don't even need to ask: you can tell that the follow-up question (whether neutral - "What do you lead from 4 small?" - or leading - "2nd from 4 small?") will be met with either bemusement or irritation, so you assume it's 4th highest from everything. And unless E/W are being particularly devious, you're evidently playing somewhere where it's regarded as "standard" to lead 4th highest from everything (whatever EBU may think) and you may not get a very sympathetic hearing if you go looking for an adjustment whatever the theoretical merits of your case.

barmar, on 2012-November-24, 23:06, said:

But if most players play "standard leads" according to the defaults on the CC, why would anyone think to question the opponents about this? In fact, it's your experience that tells you that there's no need to ask -- you know what "standard leads" means.

In fact, many players in English clubs, provincial ones anyway, don't in this particular regard play "standard leads" according to the defaults on the standard EBU convention card (EBU20B), and have paid no attention to that standard, as the state of their own CCs attests. In fact, it's your experience of just these sort of clues that tells you that there is a need to ask, and that, even if you know what "standard leads" should mean, your experience is not universally shared.

Incidentally, the Orange Book warns against the use of "standard":

Orange Book 2012 said:

4 K Leads, signals and discards
4 K 1 The convention card must make clear what leads, signals and discards are used. It is important to be specific since descriptions such as ‘natural’ are inadequate, as they mean different things to different people.
4 K 2 The words ‘normal’ and ‘standard’ may be used to qualify the meaning of a signal. For example ‘normal attitude’ means high to encourage, as against ‘reverse attitude’, and ‘standard count’ means high to show an even number, as against ‘reverse count’. Otherwise the words ‘normal’ and ‘standard’ should not be used – ‘standard signals’ or ‘normal discards’ are meaningless terms.

Yes, "standard leads" is a very commonly used term, but both the user and the hearer need to beware of its use.

[Cascade]

How do you get 50:50?

It seems much more likely the high heart is right whatever their leads unless the two denies an honour. Further given that a high heart is right whatever the agreement it is actually 0:100 in terms of the best play at the table without any further information. That is, if I have a play that is 60:40 with the information available at the table then if I know this I always take the 60% option. We would need a lot of further information to sway us that it was right to play low but at that point it would become 100:0.

I can understand that south was annoyed but unless he can tell me some further reason I think he would have made the same decision with the correct information and therefore that there was no damage.

[nige1]

Cascade, on 2012-November-26, 12:40, said:

How do you get 50:50? It seems much more likely the high heart is right whatever their leads unless the two denies an honour. Further given that a high heart is right whatever the agreement it is actually 0:100 in terms of the best play at the table without any further information. That is, if I have a play that is 60:40 with the information available at the table then if I know this I always take the 60% option. We would need a lot of further information to sway us that it was right to play low but at that point it would become 100:0. I can understand that south was annoyed but unless he can tell me some further reason I think he would have made the same decision with the correct information and therefore that there was no damage.

Declarer protected himself by asking. Standard leads are underlined on EBU convention cards, so defenders are clearly guilty of misinformation,. With correct information, declarer has some chance of guessing right (more chance if you a agree with Gnasher, less if you agree with Cascade). With misinformation, declarer has no chance. Hence, IMO, there is damage. Even if the director rules no damage, he should still consider a penalty for defenders.

[Cyberyeti]

Cascade, on 2012-November-26, 12:40, said:

How do you get 50:50?

It seems much more likely the high heart is right whatever their leads unless the two denies an honour. Further given that a high heart is right whatever the agreement it is actually 0:100 in terms of the best play at the table without any further information. That is, if I have a play that is 60:40 with the information available at the table then if I know this I always take the 60% option. We would need a lot of further information to sway us that it was right to play low but at that point it would become 100:0.

I can understand that south was annoyed but unless he can tell me some further reason I think he would have made the same decision with the correct information and therefore that there was no damage.

I see absolutely no reason why this is true. If they have xxxx, Jxxx in the reds, many bad players have been told Jxxx is a bad lead, so will lead a heart all the time. There is no particular reason the high card is intrinsically better when they're assumed to be 4-3.

Quote

Declarer protected himself by asking. Standard leads are underlined on EBU convention cards, so defenders are clearly guilty of MI. Without this misinformation, declarer has some chance of guessing right (more chance if you a agree with Gnasher, less if you agree with Cascade). With the misinformation, declarer has no chance. Hence, IMO, there is damage. Even if the director rules no damage, he should still consider a penalty for defenders.

This is even underlined on the cut down version of the CC that was on the scorecards we were using.

[Cascade]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-November-26, 15:18, said:

I see absolutely no reason why this is true. If they have xxxx, Jxxx in the reds, many bad players have been told Jxxx is a bad lead, so will lead a heart all the time. There is no particular reason the high card is intrinsically better when they're assumed to be 4-3.

That wasn't a point that I made.

1. RHO has already played one honour - that affords a restricted choice argument that they do not have the other honour.

2. There are 2 x 4 = 8 combinations of Hxxx (no 9) and 4 combinations of 9xxx. This is just another way of looking at the restricted choice argument.

[Cyberyeti]

Cascade, on 2012-November-26, 15:30, said:

That wasn't a point that I made.

1. RHO has already played one honour - that affords a restricted choice argument that they do not have the other honour.

2. There are 2 x 4 = 8 combinations of Hxxx (no 9) and 4 combinations of 9xxx. This is just another way of looking at the restricted choice argument.

This only applies if you think a lol doesn't always play the Q with KQ in this position or at least play it much more often than the K.

[Cascade]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-November-26, 15:36, said:

This only applies if you think a lol doesn't always play the Q with KQ in this position or at least play it much more often than the K.

So your 50:50 is on the basis that the player would always play the queen from king-queen?

I suppose if you know that and that is all you know then it is 50:50.

However I think the restricted choice argument for the suit led also points to Hxxx. Some of the time west will have ♦ Txxx and ♥ 9xxx and might have led a diamond.

Perhaps this is simplistic:

Say west doesnt have four diamonds then he always leads a heart from four - we can tell nothing

Say west has ♦ Jxxx (no ten) then he always leads a heart from four - we can tell nothing

Say west has ♦ Txxx then he may choose to lead a diamond affording a presumption that his diamond and heart holdings are not similar - this suggests the lead is more likely from the king.

[Cyberyeti]

Cascade, on 2012-November-26, 17:56, said:

So your 50:50 is on the basis that the player would always play the queen from king-queen?

I suppose if you know that and that is all you know then it is 50:50.

However I think the restricted choice argument for the suit led also points to Hxxx. Some of the time west will have ♦ Txxx and ♥ 9xxx and might have led a diamond.

Perhaps this is simplistic:

Say west doesnt have four diamonds then he always leads a heart from four - we can tell nothing

Say west has ♦ Jxxx (no ten) then he always leads a heart from four - we can tell nothing

Say west has ♦ Txxx then he may choose to lead a diamond affording a presumption that his diamond and heart holdings are not similar - this suggests the lead is more likely from the king.

I felt that when I got the switch to W's lowest diamond rather than a second heart when in with the first club they were looking at Jxxx, so was thinking 2443/3442 all the way. Also with Kxxx, I'd have expected a second heart, so if I thought 9xxx was a possibility, I'd likely have played for it, as it was, I really had to play for Kxxx.

[bluejak]

PeterAlan, on 2012-November-26, 05:42, said:

whose convention card is quite likely to be in nothing like the current EBU20B format anyway.

Quite possibly not. A lot of people have EBU 20As - but it shows the same leads as standard!



I worry somewhat about this sort of ruling, which seems pretty obvious to me. Some people think declarer should protect himself.

Let us see where that leads. You ask a question of a player, he gives the wrong answer, he gets a good board, you let him keep it. What is he going to do next time? He will give the wrong answer again!

We must get in the habit of not rewarding offenders for their offences.