[lamford]

---

Lead ♣8; Table Result 4S-1; IMPs

"It's your lead, RR", chivvied SB, South, "You are breaching 74B1 in your customary manner." "Sorry, I didn't realise," replied RR looking at the auction. "Was Molly's 4C Gerber?" he asked. "No", replied SB tersely. RR had recently attended OO's excellent opening-lead classes and recalled that trump leads were generally a last resort, and he also learned that Jxxx was usually to be avoided. He also remembered that doubletons had their downside as well but eventually selected the eight of clubs. SB tried the king from dummy, fairly quickly, but ChCh East, after a little thought, decided that the lead was unlikely to be a singleton, and encouraged with the three. SB ran the queen of spades, losing to the king, on which ChCh played the two of spades, suit preference for clubs. Both plays were pearls before swine as far as RR was concerned, but he thought a passive exit was best, as declarer was marked with the ace of clubs, and probably the queen as well as he had not finessed at trick one. He also thought ChCh could have the ace of trumps when he would get a club ruff. So he exited with the six of clubs and it was easy for ChCh to give him a club ruff for one off, as there was still a diamond to lose.

"DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR", summoned SB, in a particularly indignant tone. "ChCh used the UI that RR had taken quite a bit of time on his opening lead to conclude that it was not a singleton". He paused for breath: "Also East broke tempo in playing the three of clubs slowly on the first round. There were logical alternatives for East of playing his partner for a singleton club and for West of switching to a red suit when he won the king of spades."

ChCh had his defence ready. "There is no UI from the speed of the opening lead from RR. Even after seeing the auction, he has to work out whose lead it is, and, even, whether or not he is declarer." He continued. "We all know RR is hapless but ethical, and does not belong to the speed-of-light singleton school. And I am allowed to take some time on the first trick, especially as SB played quickly from dummy." He continued: "In addition, the silver bullet was my two of spades, requesting a club continuation." "No case to answer", he concluded.

The arriving OO was unsure. "How long did RR take to lead?" he asked. "About 30 seconds", replied SB, "and he could have known that this would distinguish between a doubleton and a singleton." ChCh disagreed: "Twenty seconds of that were spent discovering it was his lead and asking the fatuous question about Gerber", he added.

How do you rule?

[Tramticket]

Yes, there is Unauthorised Information, in my opinion.

Playing for a singleton is a Logical Alternative (both North and South have shown some length in clubs, so a singleton is a very real possibility).

Yes I would rule 4♠ making 10.

[pran]

 Tramticket, on 2018-November-27, 06:55, said:

Yes, there is Unauthorised Information, in my opinion.

Playing for a singleton is a Logical Alternative (both North and South have shown some length in clubs, so a singleton is a very real possibility).

Yes I would rule 4♠ making 10.

If I understand OP correct then RR is consistently this slow with his opening leads.
In that case there is no (significant) variation in tempo and consequently no information to be drawn from this delay.
No information - no UI - no adjustment.

[Cyberyeti]

What does S open with 5-5 in the blacks, if 1♣ there is no problem with knowing that this is not a stiff.

[ahydra]

There's something in the White Book about pauses at trick one not conveying any UI, no? Unless ChCh had muttered something like "is that a singleton", then he's allowed to think as long as he needs to analyse the whole hand and no UI arises from doing so.

The part about West taking a long time to lead is the more interesting bit. But then again, you may pause for a long time even if you had a side-suit singleton (e.g. considering if you rate to have a natural trump trick anyway, or whether a side suit lead would get you a key tempo in setting up a trick). Combined with RR clearly not knowing it was his lead and asking questions, whether there was UI, let alone meaningful ("suggests one action would be more successful over another"-type) UI is extremely doubtful. I rule result stands.

ahydra

[sanst]

Ahydra gives the arguments which explain that EW are innocent of any misdemeanor. SB is using the director to get the result changed to his advantage. Het should congratulate the opponents for the perfect defense instead. For this breach of Law 74 he deserves a PP.

[lamford]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-November-27, 10:49, said:

What does S open with 5-5 in the blacks, if 1♣ there is no problem with knowing that this is not a stiff.

MM is a member of the old school, so she would open 1♣. I think SB would open 1♠ however, which would decrease the chance of MM playing the hand.

[lamford]

 sanst, on 2018-November-28, 03:15, said:

Ahydra gives the arguments which explain that EW are innocent of any misdemeanor. SB is using the director to get the result changed to his advantage. Het should congratulate the opponents for the perfect defense instead. For this breach of Law 74 he deserves a PP.

Rubbish. SB is quite entitled to call the TD and ask him to rule on possible use of UI. If that gets a PP in Holland, I will stay in Blighty.

[lamford]

 ahydra, on 2018-November-27, 18:10, said:

Combined with RR clearly not knowing it was his lead

As SB pointed out, RR could have been aware that it was his lead, and he could have been aware that asking an inane question about 4C could give him extra time to decide on his opening lead. I think ChCh was completely aware from the tempo and RR's uncertainty that West did not have a singleton club. The average time taken for RR to lead is about 10 seconds, five of them in ascertaining whose lead it is. This was quite a bit longer. There is no suggestion whatsoever of impropriety on RR's part, as SB was quick to point out. He also pointed out that ChCh has a history of using every bit of UI he can get his hands on. As SB commented, "there is never a hint of propriety with ChCh either."

I would tend to rule in favour of SB here.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2018-November-27, 09:49, said:

If I understand OP correct then RR is consistently this slow with his opening leads.

I don't think the OP said that. It is true that RR often does not know whose lead it is, but when he does, and he has no questions to ask, he might lead fairly quickly with an obvious lead. Pretty much as we all do, unfortunately.

[weejonnie]

 ahydra, on 2018-November-27, 18:10, said:

There's something in the White Book about pauses at trick one not conveying any UI, no? Unless ChCh had muttered something like "is that a singleton", then he's allowed to think as long as he needs to analyse the whole hand and no UI arises from doing so.

The part about West taking a long time to lead is the more interesting bit. But then again, you may pause for a long time even if you had a side-suit singleton (e.g. considering if you rate to have a natural trump trick anyway, or whether a side suit lead would get you a key tempo in setting up a trick). Combined with RR clearly not knowing it was his lead and asking questions, whether there was UI, let alone meaningful ("suggests one action would be more successful over another"-type) UI is extremely doubtful. I rule result stands.

ahydra

Unfortunately the white book only discusses declarer and third in hand.

8.73.2 Pauses at trick one

8.73.2.1 Pause by declarer before playing from dummy

A pause by declarer before playing from dummy at trick one should not give rise to the possibility of an allegation by a defender that they have been misled; indeed, such a pause is recommended practice.

8.73.2.2 Pause by third hand

Whether or not declarer plays quickly from dummy at trick one, a pause by third hand should not be considered to transmit any unauthorised information to partner, nor to convey potentially misleading information to declarer. No disclaimer is necessary.
The freedom for third hand to think about the deal generally at trick one applies irrespective of their holding. Thus, for example, it is perfectly legitimate to think about the deal generally at trick one even if third hand holds a singleton in the suit led. As a consequence, TDs should not entertain claims that declarer has been misled by a pause from third hand at trick one.
...

From the OP, I think that it is obvious that RR has a problem with his opening lead and thus ChCh must carefully avoid taking advantage of this. Since OOs excellent course on bridge opening leads (Bird and Anthias) says that singletons are obvious best leads in virtually every case Vs a suit contract - and RR knows this. Then it is obvious he hasn't a singleton. (Doubletons are recommended in many situations, but not always doubletons of opponents' suits!

That is not the whole of the story, of course. We haven't found out whether going up with the Ace is a logical alternative. However I, too would rule in favour of SB - after all sometimes he wins.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2018-November-28, 04:08, said:

I don't think the OP said that. It is true that RR often does not know whose lead it is, but when he does, and he has no questions to ask, he might lead fairly quickly with an obvious lead. Pretty much as we all do, unfortunately.

OP said:

"We all know RR is hapless but ethical, and does not belong to the speed-of-light singleton school.

And SB deserves a PP, not for calling the Director but for the manner inn which he called the Director. (His violation of Law 74!)

[lamford]

 pran, on 2018-November-28, 06:31, said:

And SB deserves a PP, not for calling the Director but for the manner inn which he called the Director. (His violation of Law 74!)

SB responds that for his every breach of 74B5, there is at least one breach by RR of 74B1, so the PPs would cancel out. And, as he has pointed out, before this is a "should" law (not normally punished).

And the statement that RR does not belong to the "speed-of-light singleton school" was made by ChCh, and is clearly self-serving. It is up to the TD to establish whether there was a BIT here in leading.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2018-November-28, 06:43, said:

SB responds that for his every breach of 74B5, there is at least one breach by RR of 74B1, so the PPs would cancel out. And, as he has pointed out, before this is a "should" law (not normally punished).

And the statement that RR does not belong to the "speed-of-light singleton school" was made by ChCh, and is clearly self-serving. It is up to the TD to establish whether there was a BIT here in leading.

Repeated and deliberate violations of a "should" law will most certainly normally be punished by any decent Director after his warnings have been ignored sufficient number of times.
And the claim that PP's would "cancel out" has absolutely no foundation in any law.

As a director I am well experienced with players like RR as well as SB. I tend to excuse RR's fumbles and uncertainty but certainly not the consistent behaviour of SB.

[blackshoe]

From what point do we measure the tempo of the opening lead? The point at which the final pass hits the table? The point at which the opening leader gets done with whatever paperwork he decides to do before choosing a lead? Do we count whatever time opening leader uses to ask (and get answers to) questions? Some other point? How much time does opening leader get to consider his options? Can he consider the whole defense of the hand, as far as he knows or can postulate it? What, precisely, can he consider before making his lead?

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2018-November-28, 19:05, said:

From what point do we measure the tempo of the opening lead? The point at which the final pass hits the table? The point at which the opening leader gets done with whatever paperwork he decides to do before choosing a lead? Do we count whatever time opening leader uses to ask (and get answers to) questions? Some other point? How much time does opening leader get to consider his options? Can he consider the whole defense of the hand, as far as he knows or can postulate it? What, precisely, can he consider before making his lead?

From the end of the clarification period, i.e. when the opening leader has received complete answers to whatever (legal) questions he might have about the auction.
I would allow him reasonable time to digest the available information about the auction and also for paperwork he normally does at this time.

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2018-November-28, 19:05, said:

From what point do we measure the tempo of the opening lead? The point at which the final pass hits the table? The point at which the opening leader gets done with whatever paperwork he decides to do before choosing a lead? Do we count whatever time opening leader uses to ask (and get answers to) questions? Some other point? How much time does opening leader get to consider his options? Can he consider the whole defense of the hand, as far as he knows or can postulate it? What, precisely, can he consider before making his lead?

The key question is how long RR would have taken to lead to a singleton club, not how long he actually took to lead a doubleton. SB drew OO's attention to the thread Retarded Rabbit:

https://www.bridgeba...__1#entry960619

In this, RR led his singleton (admittedly against 4H by North instead of the correct 3NT by South) before his partner had a chance to make the automatic lead of the queen of clubs, and before West had the opportunity to say it was not RR's lead. It seems clear, therefore that the 30 seconds RR took on this hand, even allowing for 20 seconds being of no consequence, was a BIT which conveyed significant UI.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2018-November-28, 04:03, said:

As SB pointed out, RR could have been aware that it was his lead, and he could have been aware that asking an inane question about 4C could give him extra time to decide on his opening lead.

I continue to object to SB's extremely broad interpretation of "could have been aware", since it essentially allows punishing any infraction that happens to gain.

[blackshoe]

What was the significant UI? That RR didn't have a singleton in the suit led? That he didn't have a singleton in any suit? Something else?

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2018-November-29, 13:31, said:

I continue to object to SB's extremely broad interpretation of "could have been aware", since it essentially allows punishing any infraction that happens to gain.

I don't generally do "me too" posts, but... me too. :-)