Hi Bobby,

Any case for a club on LWTA? Obviously it could misfire badly e.g. leading up to declarer’s King when he couldn’t reach dummy to lead one, or finding dummy with CKxx opposite declarer’s Jx(x) but find partner with CKJ or K9 sitting over dummy’s Jack, or Kxx with declarer holding AJx and it works nicely.

I realise the risks of violating Bob Hamman’s wise words about not placing partner with specific cards but I think it is an extra option. TOCM, of course, will give dummy HQ9x opposite declarer’s A108(x) if you lead the HJ.

regards,

Iain

Hi Iain,

At least from me, I would also slightly prefer a club lead, since it “feels” there is a better chance to not lose a trick by so doing.

However, perhaps the jack of hearts could hit paydirt and, who knows, even create the setting trick. Somewhat far fetched, but I sincerely believe that no mortal is doing anything but sheer guess when he decides on this lead.

It’s somewhat like Mark Twain’s recently remembered quote about talking about the weather but never doing anything about it.

Hi Bobby,

A couple belated questions prompted by yesterday’s blog.

Regarding David’s Frank Stewart hand. I would have lead a small Spade from hand at trick 2, expecting to get a truer reaction from West by not first cashing the SA. Is there a reason not to do it this way?

Concerning a misexplanation of a bid.
1)How should one handle it during the auction if, in fact, you misbid and partner’s explanation has now alerted you to this?

2)What is your obligation to the defenders if you have correctly explained your agreement of partner’s bid, but because you hold some of the cards he has “promised”, know your explanation doesn’t match his hand (and your bidding thereafter was based on that knowledge.)

Best regards,
Ted

Hi Ted,

There is no right nor wring, when being involved in a psychological battle with one (or sometimes both) of the defenders. Yes, the declarer is usually the one in control since he can see all of his assets and most, if not all, of the time you are trying to determine how to play that hand to maximum advantage.

But different players respond in different ways, so only the person either setting the trap or otherwise trying to deceive, needs to guess the best way to win the battle.

As far as the ethical conundrum you underwent, your obligation is not to take advantage of your partner’s miss explanation and play your cards the way you would have had your partner described it the proper way.

Yes, there are times to which that becomes virtually or actually impossible and when and if, that happens, merely stop play, say nothing except we need a TD. Then leave the table and discuss what happened with the TD after he has arrived and been informed the contract and what has been said earlier (IOW an update so that the TD will know what the fairest ruling should be (at least he should), and then without explanation (although the TD is now in control) proceed. The TD may stop play and award an adjusted score to which you are entitled to an appeal later, but at this point let the TD call the shots without objecting, although if you think him way off (either favoring you or your opponents) it could be right to explain to him your view (away from the table) so that he may see it your way and change his mind.

IOW, these situations are difficult to judge and we would all be better off with as few as possible happening. If I was ruling either as a TD (which I have never been) or as on an appeals committee, where I have much experience, I tend to favor the side which has not committed an infraction (such as a misrepresentation of a convention).

However, the ACBL has all types of TD’s with little or much experience so we are now entering a very subjective area.

Don’t expect perfection since bridge rulings rarely lend themselves to that.

IOW good luck to all and hoping for a just verdict.