BBO Discussion Forums: SB's Revenge - BBO Discussion Forums

IMPs Lead ♥3 Table Result 4♠= NS+620

After various "Rules Ruses" by ChCh in recent weeks, SB was planning revenge at his next opportunity at the North London club this week. Before his opening lead, SB, West, asked about the alerted 4♣ bid and RR, North, replied "Splinter". ChCh, South, started to correct it to "Specifically a void. 3NT would have been any splinter, but RR often forgets that, because he thinks he is not allowed to bid no-trumps." However, SB had, quick as a flash, tabled the three of hearts before ChCh could begin to say "Specifically".

SB called the TD, of course, in his normal boorish manner, and said that there had been misinformation before the opening lead, only corrected after it. OO arrived, and said "You can't change the lead now. Play on. I will stand ready to award an adjusted score if I deem the misinformation damaged the non-offenders". ChCh made a diamond, two hearts, three club ruffs and four trumps in his thin contract, but SB was not finished.

"If I had had correct information, I would have led the queen of spades, attempting to cut down on ruffs, and specifically the queen so that I don't get endplayed with it if partner has ♠Kx", he remarked. "That would have been almost automatic if I had known dummy had a void, and RR deliberately misled me with his answer to the question. He should not have been answering anyway". I think you will find that ChCh cannot make it on the lead of the ♠Q.

"Hmmm", replied OO, "I shall poll one or two other experts at the club and see what they lead on the correct information". "Irrelevant", responded SB, "you will have difficulty finding any peers of me in this club, and what is relevant is what I would have done with the correct information. The fact that I called the TD immediately after the correction should weigh heavily in my favour."

How do you rule?

Had the dummy faced any card before the TD was called?

I would rule against the SB under rule 74A3 for this assuming SB normally asks partner if he has any questions and leads face down.

Score stands. ChCh was trying to correct the MI, SB inflicted the damage on himself by leading before he had a chance to answer the question.

I also question whether this little difference in explanation really caused the damage. Trump leads are generally called for whenever shortness has been shown, does it really make that much difference whether it's 0/1 or specifically 0? Even even if dummy has a singleton club, you may be losing a valuable tempo waiting until you get in to lead a trump.

But there may be some director error here. I think the TD should have taken SB away from the table when he was first called and asked what he would have done differently. Claiming he would have found the double dummy killing lead after having seen all the cards is totally self-serving. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not true, but it makes it harder to take at face value.

 barmar, on 2019-October-01, 09:34, said:

We don't yet know if SB had seen the dummy at the moment he claimed he would have found the killing lead. It seems unlikely that RR would drop his cards while ChCh was busy correcting his explanation or if SB had called the TD, maybe SB waited for the dummy to go down before calling the TD? If so then I certainly don't buy SB's explanation (for the reasons you say) and if not then it was director error not to allow a change of lead if TD accepted (as his words suggest) that there was misinformation.

Play stands - law 21A

"No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding."

SB is an experienced player (of at least 50 years) and should know that a splinter can be either a singleton or a void.

 weejonnie, on 2019-October-02, 03:07, said:

I don't think he misunderstood the explanation "Splinter" by North (you might well argue that an experienced player should not accept any explanation from the wrong opponent, nor accept the name of a convention as an explanation, but those are separate issues). Rather he is claiming that the explanation was misleading as the precise meaning was a void, whereas a splinter can also be a singleton and indeed is considerably more likely to be so. I don't think that is in doubt either so there is no misunderstanding by SB. What is in doubt is whether excluding a singleton would have changed his bid - most of us think not.

SB fully understood that a splinter COULD be a void, but he was entitled to know that it HAD to be a void.

There were TWO infractions by NS. Firstly RR breached 20F2:
Explanations should be given <snip> by the partner of the player whose action is explained.

ChCh breached a MUST law (20F50b):
(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s
explanation was erroneous (see Law 75B) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is:
(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.
(ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

So, ChCh should not have started to correct the explanation, but should have called the TD.
The problem was caused by RR answering "splinter". He should not have said anything, and ChCh would have given the correct and full explanation.

Cyberyeti suggests that SB should have led face down and asked his partner if there were any questions. As SB pointed out, from 20F1: "The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until his turn to call or play." So, MM, East would have to wait for her first turn to play before having any further questions. The Clarification Period was over, as far as SB was concerned, when RR responded "splinter". There was nothing left to ask.

41C: Following this Clarification Period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins irrevocably, and dummy’s hand is spread.

So, once the opening lead is faced, it is too late to change it, and SB is entitled to redress for the misinformation during the clarification period. SB called the TD the moment the correction was made by ChCh, before he saw dummy, strongly suggesting that he might have led something different with the correct explanation.

FWIW I polled three experts with the correct explanation of "void". One led a heart, one led a low spade, and one led the queen of spades." The one that led a low spade realised a little later why the queen had to be right if leading a spade, and the one that led a heart agreed that the queen of spades was the correct lead when thinking about it some more.

OO originally ruled that the misinformation did not affect the result, but SB has appealed. He intends to appeal to the National Authority and then go all the way to the CAS if necessary!

 pescetom, on 2019-October-01, 10:54, said:

SB called the TD, as stated in the OP, immediately after the correction. No doubt RR had begun to put down the dummy, but he had not reached the clubs when the TD was called, so SB's argument that he would have led the queen of spades with the correct explanation is at least as plausible as him working out that the queen of spades was the killing lead after the hand.

And for what it is worth, I don't think the TD should take SB away from the table after the opening lead has been faced. His statement that it was too late to change it was correct.

 lamford, on 2019-October-02, 07:31, said:

You say "no doubt", but I for one would not start to put down the dummy while my partner was contradicting my explanation or when the TD has already been summoned to rule on this contradiction. Be that as it may, I agree that it is too late to change lead if RR has even begun to put down the dummy. I'm not convinced that "not having reached the clubs" much weakens the hypothesis that SB only realised the killer lead after seeing the dummy - the spades T932 already says much and there are no clubs to reach anyway.

 lamford, on 2019-October-02, 06:59, said:

Correct procedure is for SB to ask his questions (if any), then select his opening lead and place this face down on the table.
Then his partner asks his questions (if any) and then gives SB clearance to face his opening lead.

This ends the clarification period and North faces his cards as Dummy.

 lamford, on 2019-October-02, 07:31, said:

I didn't intend that taking SB away from the table would allow a change of lead. Just that the TD needs to gather more information for the eventual ruling, and this should be gathered away from the table to avoid potential UI to SB's partner.

SB should tell the TD how the correct information would have changed his lead before he sees the full hand.

 pran, on 2019-October-02, 08:46, said:

That wasn't actually the point of what I was saying, my point was that SB I'm sure in most of the hands he plays doesn't do what he did on this one, as sometimes his partner WOULD need to ask a question so the lead at the speed of light is in itself a violation of 74A3 "Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing."

He did not lead at the speed of light. He asked a question before facing the opening lead, had an answer, and then faced it before ChCh corrected it. The only infractors here were RR and ChCh.

 pran, on 2019-October-02, 08:46, said:

Not so. SB's partner has to wait until her turn to play to ask any supplementary questions.

 lamford, on 2019-October-02, 18:02, said:

But 40B states
"Before the opening lead is faced, the leader’s partner and the presumed declarer (but not the presumed dummy) each may require a review of the auction, or request explanation of an opponent’s call"
so it is incumbent on the opening leader to delay facing the lead until partner and declarer have had this opportunity.

While I have pointed out at the table, from time to time, that declarer is involved in the "any questions" business before the opening lead is faced, I have never seen any other player even consider the thought.

 lamford, on 2019-October-02, 17:58, said:

What exactly is the difference between the speed of light and quick as a flash? And SB did commit a few infractions, some maybe minor ones, but essential in this situation. He should have called the director when RR answered his question, since it was ChCh duty to do so. He is not known not to call for directional assistance, so why not now. He should have asked ChCh whether the explanation given was correct, certainly since he knows RR and his memory lapses. He should have waited for his partner’s approval before facing his lead. Last, but not least, he should not have put the lead face up on the table.
Besides it would not have made much difference. A splinter can also be a void, not necessarily a singleton. This is an attempt to get redress for his own mistake - a lead in trumps is called for in this situation - from the TD. And if he really want to take the case to the CAS, he has to put a considerable sum on the table.(see Arbitration costs CAS).

 blackshoe, on 2019-October-03, 00:21, said:

And as I point out whenever relevant:
The reason why the opening lead shall be made face down is not (as many players believe) to avoid an opening lead from the wrong defender, but to give partner the opportunity to ask about the auction during the clarification period.
Therefore it is incorrect for (presumed) Declarer (or Dummy) to say "Yes, it is your lead" (or words to that effect).
It is the other defender who shall say "Yes, you may face your lead" (or words to that effect), implying "I have no (more) questions".

 lamford, on 2019-October-02, 17:58, said:

He broke his procedure by not giving his partner a chance to ask questions, which presumably he doesn't always do