When E wins the CK at trick 2, it seems to me that he has some serious thinking to do, specifically: Why hasn’t S drawn trump? The only answer can be: so partner can’t make a revealing signal. What can that signal be: either lead a D or don’t lead a D. So, when E wins the CK, is there any way he can tell whether to return a D or a S? It feels to me like S is trying to encourage a S lead, but I can’t articulate why.

Hi Bobby, David,

Any case for West playing the C9 on the first round, trying to suggest something unexpected? There is also another potential deceptive play which faiils today but works nicely if East has (say) Kxxx i.e. club to the Ace and run the queen. Anti-percentage but maybe worth a shot if you are well behind in a match.

It is a non-problem against many weak players, though – they’ll just have banged the DA on the table at T1 regardless.

Regards,

Iain

Hi David & Iain,

Nothing scientifically revealing to say, only that, while I am heartfelt in endorsing the exact declarer’s play made and at the same earliest moment possible, the result IMO depends on only two things:

1. How good is East?
2. How good he thinks declarer is.

Obviously East needs to be knowledgeable about the possible ruse, but he (or she) has to think that the declarer is up to such a relatively clever deception. The fact that declarer could have ducked the opening lead and hoped for Kx with East after drawing trump and ruffing a low spade (certainly the laughably correct declarer’s line) will be known to a super East, but quickly discarded as just too unlikely by East, if he judges declarer is just not up to such an unusual play.

Leaving an exceptional East, likely at the time he grabs the king of clubs (no real nor imagined reason for ducking) to ponder the intangibles of what hand declarer can have to take at least a small risk of getting an immediate club ruff back at him should leave East with the key knowledge of what to do, eg. cash partner’s diamond ace (or wait for West’s trump ace later, a likely valid reason to take an early club finesse before touching trump.

BTW, I think it unethical (others may and will disagree) inquire as to if the opponents play jack denies, if only because this declarer, in almost either case would play the queen.

After presiding at many of what might be called high-level appeals cases revolving around possible unethical or at the very least, ethically challenged questions to the opponents, I, at least for one, take a very conservative view of what may or may not be agreed by others.

A player should not enlist an artificial ask of the opponents in order to aid a planned deception. As a matter of fact, although not remembering the exact situation (different from above) I used the above caveat to rule against a clever declarer (at least he was hoping) who enlisted such a thing.

However since the ACBL and even the WBF for different reasons (WBF, just too difficult and costly to spend much time, effort and money in creating important (and I think necessary) precedents which should ring true (at least to some committees) in helping rule the next case which have similar facts.

It seems especially true with the ACBL to not emphasize precedents (or, in truth, not want them even available), a major flaw that, at least it seems to me, that all the king’s horses and all the king’s men are against any kind of help in establishing what could become basically common law by precedent.

Possibly the real reason is that many of the very clever high level players much prefer conning the next committee without having to overcome a precedent. If true and I fully admit to only speculating (but from more experience than anyone else but likely Edgar Kaplan), very sad!

Thanks to both of you, we were able to discuss this, at least to me, important subject, which I sincerely hope, has a happier ending in the future of bridge to come, but, because of older age and its logistics, no forceful further agitating from me.