[jeffford76]

In a 3NT contract the opening lead is the 9 of a suit in which declarer holds Ax and dummy holds Qx. Declarer asks about their leads and is told "standard, 4th best". Declarer plays low from dummy and makes only one trick in the suit. The lead was away from the king, so playing the king would have gained two tricks. The opponents' actual agreement is that the 9 shows 0 or 2 higher. Declarer claims that with this information they would have played high from dummy. Do you adjust?

When asked why they didn't play the queen anyway since it was the only possible play that might work from this holding does it matter whether declarer said "It didn't matter what I played since the king was offside from the lead" or "I thought my only chance was that the opponents would play the king when I played low"?

[lamford]

jeffford76, on 2017-March-01, 10:59, said:

In a 3NT contract the opening lead is the 9 of a suit in which declarer holds Ax and dummy holds Qx. Declarer asks about their leads and is told "standard, 4th best". Declarer plays low from dummy and makes only one trick in the suit. The lead was away from the king, so playing the king would have gained two tricks. The opponents' actual agreement is that the 9 shows 0 or 2 higher. Declarer claims that with this information they would have played high from dummy. Do you adjust?

When asked why they didn't play the queen anyway since it was the only possible play that might work from this holding does it matter whether declarer said "It didn't matter what I played since the king was offside from the lead" or "I thought my only chance was that the opponents would play the king when I played low"?

It is irrelevant what declarer did with the wrong information (as even if low was SEWoG it was not unrelated to the infraction). With correct information, everyone, maybe even RR, would play the queen, so you adjust.

[ggwhiz]

lamford, on 2017-March-01, 11:18, said:

It is irrelevant what declarer did with the wrong information (as even if low was SEWoG it was not unrelated to the infraction). With correct information, everyone, maybe even RR, would play the queen, so you adjust.

And players that can't give a proper answer to such a simple question may well play the King after the lead is ducked.

[mycroft]

I would like to be a nastygram for these people. I know people who ask for leads and carding, and then ask if they play coded 9s and 10s, because those that do are so good at mentioning it. So independent of my ruling on the play, this failure to answer the most basic (and relevant) part of the question asked, is getting a penalty. A quarter-board should ensure that their opponents don't have to deal with this again from this pair for another month or so (wish it were more).

This isn't 1♦ "11-15, 2+D, 1NT here is 10-12" forgetting that it could *occasionally* be a bad balanced 16, or some other corner case. This is a basic part of their lead agreements, which is specifically relevant to the card on the table (I'd have less of an issue (but still an issue) if it were the 5 from KJ85 or KT85).

Also, if declarer "knows" that KJ is over the Q, since it doesn't matter, he may wish to pretend to the OL to AKx instead of Ax. Sure, it probably won't work, but it's better than a zero chance (sure this is equivalent to playing the Q and pretending to have AJx, but so what?).

Now my first appeal was based on a hidden card on dummy that, had it been visible, would have made it clear even to this pair (think RR, playing with his wife) that the play taken was zero percent. Sure, a modicum of thought, or any reasonable bridge skill, would have shown that the play was zero percent anyway, but this pair was damaged. Since that appeal was upheld, I'm strongly leaning toward ruling in declarer's favour on this case. But the defenders are getting the penalty either way.

[WellSpyder]

jeffford76, on 2017-March-01, 10:59, said:

Declarer asks about their leads and is told "standard, 4th best".

What is the "standard" lead from K987 or KJ98?

[VixTD]

WellSpyder, on 2017-March-03, 03:17, said:

What is the "standard" lead from K987 or KJ98?

This caught me out a couple of weeks ago at the club. The opening lead to 3NT was ♦9, I asked about their leads and was told "standard, second and fourth" and was most put out to find it was from K987. Apparently this is standard ("top of a sequence"!) to some people.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2017-March-03, 12:40, said:

This caught me out a couple of weeks ago at the club. The opening lead to 3NT was ♦9, I asked about their leads and was told "standard, second and fourth" and was most put out to find it was from K987. Apparently this is standard ("top of a sequence"!) to some people.

You are entitled to a description of agreements, not just a (nick-)name. So "standard" is misinformation whatever it means.

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-March-03, 13:18, said:

You are entitled to a description of agreements, not just a (nick-)name. So "standard" is misinformation whatever it means.

What "description" do you think they could have given that might have addressed this confusion? If they included "top of an interior sequence", would you have expected that to refer to K987? Do they have to go into further detail and say how high the top card of the sequence has to be?

Do you go into that level of detail when asked your lead and carding agreements?

[blackshoe]

I have yet to meet any bridge player who actually practices full disclosure where carding agreements - including lead agreements - are concerned. No doubt some of them, at least, would argue that it is impractical to do so. They may be right. If so, I think RAs ought to formally recognize that, though I'm not sure precisely how they should do so.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2017-March-04, 14:04, said:

I have yet to meet any bridge player who actually practices full disclosure where carding agreements - including lead agreements - are concerned. No doubt some of them, at least, would argue that it is impractical to do so. They may be right. If so, I think RAs ought to formally recognize that, though I'm not sure precisely how they should do so.

Most RAs do recognise the impracticality of getting complete disclosure via spoken questions and answers. That's one of the reasons that they require players to have a convention card.

[blackshoe]

Having or not having a convention card won't help much where carding is concerned. Hell, it doesn't necessarily help much where bidding is concerned either.

[mycroft]

The EBU CC is much better than ours at carding agreements; the WBF one even more so. But yes - and the "better than" relies on them to actually *mention* things...

In particular there are places for "agreements switch after OL" and "different at the 5+level". Plus, of course, lots of space to write in "supplementary notes". I'm actually thinking of building a EBU 20b card for my current "1NT is weird" system, because it could be useful to clarify some of the "weird" in an easyish-to-read format, as a supplement to our ACBL card, of course, required for ACBL play.

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-March-04, 11:53, said:

What "description" do you think they could have given that might have addressed this confusion? If they included "top of an interior sequence", would you have expected that to refer to K987?

Yes, of course. Isn't that a precise description of this possibility?

barmar, on 2017-March-04, 11:53, said:

Do they have to go into further detail and say how high the top card of the sequence has to be?

Do you go into that level of detail when asked your lead and carding agreements?

If my partner leads the 9 and I get the question I would include the relevant possibilities like:
"Top of possibly internal sequence or just distributional".

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-March-06, 16:15, said:

If my partner leads the 9 and I get the question I would include the relevant possibilities like:
"Top of possibly internal sequence or just distributional".

There's a difference between explaining your general lead and carding agreements and explaining a specific lead. I was asking how you would describe your agreements before the 9 was faced.

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-March-07, 10:48, said:

There's a difference between explaining your general lead and carding agreements and explaining a specific lead. I was asking how you would describe your agreements before the 9 was faced.

Top of sequence, invitational, Norwegian* distribution.

Happy?

I still have absolutely no idea what is meant by "standard" in OP, and I consider this a deliberate misinformation because "standard" is at best a name of an agreement, not a description.

* high-low with even

[mycroft]

I have to admit I play reverse Polish carding. I do that not only because I had an HP-15C that got me through Engineering, but also because it's fun, and playing right-side up carding confuses many players in the A event, who haven't played that in at least 5 years.

(Note: in Poland (to my knowledge, at least) "standard" carding is low-encourage).

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-March-07, 16:01, said:

Top of sequence, invitational, Norwegian* distribution.

Happy?

That's pretty typical, and demonstrates the problem I pointed out. Does "top of sequence" mean you lead the 6 from 654? Or did you only mean a sequence to an honor? The whole point of my early post was that someone who was told that they lead top of an interior sequence might not expect that this includes leading the 9 from Q987 -- most people only mean sequences to an honor when they say things like that, and 9 isn't an honor.

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-March-08, 12:31, said:

That's pretty typical, and demonstrates the problem I pointed out. Does "top of sequence" mean you lead the 6 from 654? Or did you only mean a sequence to an honor? The whole point of my early post was that someone who was told that they lead top of an interior sequence might not expect that this includes leading the 9 from Q987 -- most people only mean sequences to an honor when they say things like that, and 9 isn't an honor.

When you ask about general leading principles (without any reference to an actual lead) you will receive a general description of the most common situations without going too much in detail. You cannot expect that to include detailed specification of for instance whether a 9 can be top of an internal sequence.

You may have noticed that my response related to the OP case was a very accurate description for that particular situation.

[blackshoe]

Someone who does not know that "top of a sequence" in describing leads typically means "top of an honor sequence" is not going to have a clue what full disclosure means in general, and particularly not in the specific case of describing leads and carding. Frankly any response to a question about card play conventions is suspect.

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2017-March-07, 16:01, said:

Top of sequence, invitational, Norwegian* distribution.

Happy?

I still have absolutely no idea what is meant by "standard" in OP, and I consider this a deliberate misinformation because "standard" is at best a name of an agreement, not a description.

* high-low with even

I don't think it is practical to go into more detail about what "top of sequence" means to you when first asked about leads. But I must admit I wouldn't be very happy with this explanation, because I have no idea what "invitational" leads are.