[VixTD]

---

North was declarer in 3NT. East led ♠3 to the ten and ace. North played ♦A and the ten to the jack, then took a club finesse, won by East's king. East led ♠2.

At this point North asked if they were playing normal leads, to which West replied "yes". North assumed this meant they led low cards from strength and finessed the jack, ending up with seven tricks.

EBU-approved convention cards have several example holdings for which the standard card led should be indicated. EW's CC has Hxxx and Hxxxx and xxxx for no trump leads. There is no entry on the card for xxxxx, from which their standard lead is fourth highest. So to summarize their no trump leads they lead fourth highest from holdings including an honour and from five or more small, but second highest from four small.

North called my colleague at the end of play and claimed to have been damaged by an inadequate explanation of their methods.

Do you think they were entitled to an adjustment?

[barmar]

Probably not directly relevant, but the ACBL CC does have xxxxx.

An answer like "standard leads" or "normal leads" should probably fall under the same rule as just naming a convention not being sufficient explanation during the auction.

[ahydra]

Well, AFAIK the "normal" (i.e. standard) lead from xxxxx(...) is the second highest (in England at least), so there was MI.

But has declarer not made a huge error by playing the SJ? Forget the MI stuff for a minute - if the spade finesse loses, he has no way back to dummy to cash his diamonds (now known to be good). It seems silly to not just cash out for two overtricks rather than severely jeopardise the contract by taking the spade finesse. So there might be some SEWOG aspect of this ruling, depending on North's skill level, and whether it was MPs or IMPs.

As a side note, North might do better to ask "what do you lead from four small and five small" next time to avoid ambiguity - not that this excuses EW.

ahydra

[barmar]

Another thing. Aren't East's plays consistent with him holding ♠32 doubleton?

[billw55]

With no more entries to dummy, hooking the second spade is a taking a pretty big position. Is north trying for a double shot - win a finesse or a ruling?

[gnasher]

The term "normal leads" means the default leads that appear on the convention card. Hence North was misinformed.

Was he damaged? If you told him that the 3 was from one of
    Q7632, Q7532, Q7432, Q6532, Q6432, Q5432, 65432,32
would he take his 3:1 chance of an overtrick? That probably depends on North's ability as a player, and how much weight we think he'd put on the defence's failure to cash ♥A.

Did he commit a serious error? Certainly not. He was playing matchpoints, and he had been given MI that made the spade a finesse seem a big favourite.

Thankfully the concept of " double shot" doesn't exist in the Laws, so the're no reason to consider whether North was making one.

[blackshoe]

Not taking his known 11 tricks seems like a serious error to me. Is it related to the infraction? I think North could reasonably make that argument — in fact it seems he did.

[Vampyr]

What if, like most people (I think), the player might play second or fourth from five small, depending on factors such as whether he wants the suit returned? Does this really need to be mentioned every time a small card is led?

[blackshoe]

I think the proper question, and the proper explanation, of this lead revolves around the actual card led. "What is the significance of your partner's ♠3 lead?" "It may be fourth highest, where he shows four or more cards, possibly but not necessarily headed by an honor, or it may be top of a doubleton."

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-27, 14:09, said:

I think the proper question, and the proper explanation, of this lead revolves around the actual card led. "What is the significance of your partner's ♠3 lead?" "It may be fourth highest, where he shows four or more cards, possibly but not necessarily headed by an honor, or it may be top of a doubleton."

In England this could be MUD too.

Also, if the card is not the 2 or 3, it could be second-highest from 4 or more. It seems overly complicated to have a different definition depending on the exact rank of the card; especially when the opponents heard the explanation of the 3 on the previous hand and thought that the same applied to the 4 led on the next hand.

[nige1]

VixTD, on 2015-April-27, 10:41, said:

North was declarer in 3NT. East led ♠3 to the ten and ace. North played ♦A and the ten to the jack, then took a club finesse, won by East's king. East led ♠2. At this point North asked if they were playing normal leads, to which West replied "yes". North assumed this meant they led low cards from strength and finessed the jack, ending up with seven tricks. EBU-approved convention cards have several example holdings for which the standard card led should be indicated. EW's CC has Hxxx and Hxxxx and xxxx for no trump leads. There is no entry on the card for xxxxx, from which their standard lead is fourth highest. So to summarize their no trump leads they lead fourth highest from holdings including an honour and from five or more small, but second highest from four small. North called my colleague at the end of play and claimed to have been damaged by an inadequate explanation of their methods. Do you think they were entitled to an adjustment?

---

IMO, West's MI damaged N-S and the director should adjust to 3N+2. West should have supplied a more complete explanation. In England, "Normal leads" includes "2nd from poor suits". The "xxx" and "xxxx" on the E-W system-card would confirm to N-S that this was the E-W understanding. Hence, the ♠ finesse is the match-points percentage play based on the explanation. In any case, according to legal guide-lines, finessing the ♠J wouldn't be a SEWOG.

[wank]

i would interrogate west (and for corroboration east) to find out how normal he considers their leads to be.

if it turns out west plays against lots of people who would lead 2nd highest from 5 low then he misinformed north.

if everyone in west's sphere of experience plays 4th from 5, then it's north's fault for asking a crappy question.

it should be noted that although the competition is called the national pairs, it's unlike other competitions in that it involves a club level qualifier so east-west could well have narrower experience than would be expected in most national tournaments.

[Aardv]

No adjustment, because North caused the problem by wrongly asking "normal leads?".

If North had asked "what's you lead style?" and received the inadequate answer "normal" then I would adjust.

[VixTD]

wank, on 2015-April-27, 20:09, said:

i would interrogate west (and for corroboration east) to find out how normal he considers their leads to be.

if it turns out west plays against lots of people who would lead 2nd highest from 5 low then he misinformed north.

if everyone in west's sphere of experience plays 4th from 5, then it's north's fault for asking a crappy question.

it should be noted that although the competition is called the national pairs, it's unlike other competitions in that it involves a club level qualifier so east-west could well have narrower experience than would be expected in most national tournaments.

The tournament has a second-round regional qualifier, and I would have thought that most people who enter the competition have at least some experience of playing outside their home village.

North did indeed ask a crappy question, but the TD decided that EW had not done enough to disclose their methods, and adjusted the score to something like 70% of 3NT+2 and 30% of 3NT-2.

[blackshoe]

Aardv, on 2015-April-28, 02:21, said:

No adjustment, because North caused the problem by wrongly asking "normal leads?".

If North had asked "what's you lead style?" and received the inadequate answer "normal" then I would adjust.

What law or regulation did North violate?

[barmar]

Aardv, on 2015-April-28, 02:21, said:

No adjustment, because North caused the problem by wrongly asking "normal leads?".

If North had asked "what's you lead style?" and received the inadequate answer "normal" then I would adjust.

In ACBL, our regulations say that the form of the question doesn't matter, you should always give a complete explanation. So if someone asks "Is that Jacoby 2NT?", you should not just answer "yes", you should give the same explanation you would have given if they'd asked "What does 2NT show?" (which should not just be "Jacoby", of course).

Does EBU have a similar regulation?

[campboy]

barmar, on 2015-April-28, 09:56, said:

In ACBL, our regulations say that the form of the question doesn't matter, you should always give a complete explanation. So if someone asks "Is that Jacoby 2NT?", you should not just answer "yes", you should give the same explanation you would have given if they'd asked "What does 2NT show?" (which should not just be "Jacoby", of course).

Does EBU have a similar regulation?

No, if anything the opposite.

Blue Book 2B7 said:

A questioner may ask for an explanation of either the entire auction or the specific calls in which he is interested. In response, the opponents should provide all (relevant) information and inferences. The use of specific questions should be avoided since there is a danger that the answer, whilst correct, might be incomplete. Unless the questioner really only wants to know something very specific, he should merely ask, ”What does that call mean?”

So I would certainly have sympathy for the answering side if they gave a correct answer to a specific question, which would not have been an adequate answer to a more general question. This is not one of those situations, though. The response was not correct but incomplete; it was incorrect.

[helene_t]

Normal leads is very vague. I would think 4th from xxxxx is sufficiently normal . Rusinoff and small from doubleton not so.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2015-April-27, 13:43, said:

Was he damaged? If you told him that the 3 was from one of
    Q7632, Q7532, Q7432, Q6532, Q6432, Q5432, 65432,32
would he take his 3:1 chance of an overtrick? That probably depends on North's ability as a player, and how much weight we think he'd put on the defence's failure to cash ♥A.

If you told him that the lead could be from Q7632, Q7532, Q7432, Q6532, Q6432, Q5432, 732, 632, 532, 432, 32 (or even a false card from a host of other holdings), would he take his certain 11 tricks, or go for a sub 50-50 chance of 12, risking being reduced to 7, when the opponents could, presumably, have always held him to ten (or fewer) tricks with an initial heart lead? That probably depends on North's ability to calculate the chances of a specific three-card holding in comparison with a specific five-card holding. If he is not up to that, he should play brag, but not bridge (nor poker).

[Aardv]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-28, 09:16, said:

What law or regulation did North violate?

Blue Book 2B6 said:

The use of the words such as ‘standard’, ‘normal’ and ‘natural’ to describe the partnership understanding of a call, and especially a play of the cards, should be avoided as it is often capable of misinterpretation.

Blue Book 2B7 said:

...The use of specific questions should be avoided since there is a danger that the answer, whilst correct, might be incomplete...

(that in the context of calls, but I suppose the advice applies generally)