[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2016-October-29, 16:37, said:

Well, yes, up to a point. If the defender has any reason from partnership agreement or experience to expect that the lead of an Ace might signify something other than the king, he has to say so. For example, would partner lead a singleton ace? Ace from ace doubleton? "Ace from ace-king" as an agreement usually comes about from discussions that start "king from ace-king *or* king-queen is ambiguous. Can we do better?" That discussion does not imply that when you decide "ace from ace-king" and partner leads the ace and you have the king, partner has departed from your agreements. If you have other agreements that might be germane, you must disclose them. Even if you think "obviously, everybody knows it might be a singleton". No, everybody does not know that.

If you have a specific agreement about whether you lead high or low from a singleton, you have to disclose it. I think it's ridiculous to have to disclose that you sometimes lead singletons.

If you disclose that you lead 4th best, do you also have to qualify it by saying that he might not necessarily be leading from a suit with at least 4 cards?

[blackshoe]

When, in explaining your lead conventions, you say something like "we lead fourth highest" you are saying nothing about any other possible lead agreement. Indeed, every hand will have at least one four card or longer suit. So a bare "we lead fourth highest" implies that you always do that, whatever else you have in your hand. "That's ridiculous!" you say? I agree. But the point is what's required is full disclosure, not partial disclosure.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2016-October-30, 13:56, said:

When, in explaining your lead conventions, you say something like "we lead fourth highest" you are saying nothing about any other possible lead agreement. Indeed, every hand will have at least one four card or longer suit. So a bare "we lead fourth highest" implies that you always do that, whatever else you have in your hand. "That's ridiculous!" you say? I agree. But the point is what's required is full disclosure, not partial disclosure.

Yes, every hand will have a 4-card suit. But sometimes there are reasons why you won't lead that suit, e.g. the opponents bid the suit during the auction. This should be general bridge knowledge. So "We lead 4th highest" doesn't imply "We always lead our 4-card suit". All it means is "If we're leading a suit of 4+ cards, we lead the 4th highest."

I also don't think anyone would expect that this means we lead x from KQJx.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2016-October-31, 09:14, said:

I also don't think anyone would expect that this means we lead x from KQJx.

Fair enough. What if it turns out that we do?

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2016-October-31, 09:49, said:

Fair enough. What if it turns out that we do?

"We always lead 4th highest from our longest suit irrespective of honour holdings or the auction"?

[blackshoe]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-October-31, 10:52, said:

"We always lead 4th highest from our longest suit irrespective of honour holdings or the auction"?

So one hopes, I guess.

[WellSpyder]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-October-31, 10:52, said:

"We always lead 4th highest from our longest suit irrespective of honour holdings or the auction"?

 blackshoe, on 2016-October-31, 11:29, said:

So one hopes, I guess.

If you never get this explanation, but it is also true that no-one has such an agreement, have your hopes been met or not?

[blackshoe]

Yes. No. Maybe. Have I left a base uncovered?

[weejonnie]

 Vampyr, on 2016-October-30, 06:47, said:

This would be Even better if extended to whenever options are given , as it would allow a player to make an informed decision when an opponent makes an insufficient bid.

I would have thought that if someone leads out of turn or makes an insufficient bid then it is the next player's turn to play or call. For an opening lead out if turn it is fortuitous that the next player is the presumptive declarer.

At that point he can ask questions (as next player) and then can decide NOT to be the next player's turn to play or call. Once he does that then he can't. (If he refuses to accept the IB then play reverts to the IBer and once the IB has made a second call then he becomes the next player and can ask more questions (if he did not find out about the possibility that the IBer would make that call.)

So: no problem AFAICS

[kevperk]

I would always say, "From length, we lead fourth best"

[blackshoe]

One could argue that, attention having been drawn to an irregularity and the director called, it's not anybody's turn to call or play until the director has made his ruling. Whether that precludes the player who has to make a choice from asking questions before making his choice is not, I think, addressed in the laws. If I have to interpret the law on this at the table, I'd say it does not preclude him asking — and getting answers, if the question is otherwise legit.