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

Cyberyeti, on 2019-October-03, 03:31, said:

IF SB doesn't ask a question, he does give his partner a chance to ask. However, he knew that, after he asked about 4♣, his partner was not allowed to ask any supplementary questions about the auction under Law 20F1 until his turn to play, so asking would have been an attempt to break the Law. After the auction 1NT (announced)- Pass- 3NT, he doesn't waste time with the fatuous "Any questions, partner?" either. Nor does anyone else at the club except the odd pompous prick.

sanst, on 2019-October-03, 01:49, said:

SB has been admonished by the club committee for excessively trivial TD calls. To have called the TD because RR answered instead of ChCh would have been ridiculous, and not required by the Laws. To have asked ChCh whether the explanation was correct would also have been ridiculous. If the answer had been "Gerber" or "Fruit Machine Swiss", then you might have a point, but he had no reason to doubt the answer he had. Nor any reason to suggest that the speed of his leading was to gain an advantage. How could he possibly have anticipated that ChCh and RR would have agreed that 3NT was "any splinter"?

Including the question and answer, the speed of the opening lead was normal. And he knew, with his encyclopedic knowledge of the Laws, that his partner was not allowed to ask a supplementary question, so he faced his opening lead, as the clarification period was therefore over.

One of the problems with ruling against SB, who is a retired high-court judge and a very wealthy man, if he is likely or even only 50% to win in the CAS, is that costs are usually borne by the losing party, and the club would probably have to fold.

In this case, there were two infractions, by RR and ChCh, and none by SB. SB claims he would have led the queen of spades without the infractions. One of the three experts polled would also have done so. The benefit of doubt MUST be given to the non-offenders, and if I am asked to serve on the AC, I would tend to support SB here.

chrism, on 2019-October-02, 22:43, said:

Next time the auction goes 1NT(announced)-Pass-3NT-AP, I shall ask the declarer if he wants an explanation of our passes, or a review of the auction before I lead ... In this example, the gap between the final pass and the opening lead being faced was about ten seconds, which included the question asked and the answer, plenty of time for declarer to ask about the opposing passes if he was minded to do so.

pescetom, on 2019-October-02, 06:47, said:

I agree. He would still have passed

lamford, on 2019-October-03, 03:51, said:

No, but most people at my club do lead face down and leave it for a short time anyway.

20F1 does not preclude SB's partner from all questions during the clarification period, merely from "supplementary" ones. While the term is not defined in the Laws, normal usage would be follow-on questions from the original question or its answer. So partner is still allowed, for example, to ask about the normal minimum length for the 1S opening, whether opener's strength is limited, whether RR had other game forcing raises available ... The fact that SB "knew" that his partner would have no such questions (and that declarer would have no questions either) does not condone his shocking failure to follow correct procedure. He gets the standard PP (which would usually be a quarter of a board in the ACBL, but I understand is typically smaller in English clubs, inter alia). And because his forestalling of ChCh's clarification, depriving ChCh of his opportunity to ask questions, was the direct cause of any purported damage, he gets no redress on the board. RR gets a warning (for what good it will do) for violating the "should" - neither "shall" nor "must" - of 20F1.

chrism, on 2019-October-03, 05:52, said:

Absolute nonsense. There is nothing in the Law which requires SB to say "any questions?". Merely that his partner may ask any questions before the opening lead is faced. In this case, his partner had a full ten seconds while SB asked a question and RR answered. There is no time specified as necessary to allow partner to ask any questions whether supplementary or not, and ten seconds is completely normal, probably longer than average after a simple auction.

And supplementary is defined as "completing or enhancing something", so any additional question by MM, East, about the auction would qualify. And I suggest you re-read the OP. SB did not forestall ChCh's clarification. He led "before ChCh could begin to say "Specifically"."

SB does often get PP's for addressing other players and the TD rudely (which he accepts), but here he did not do that. Giving him a PP when he has done nothing wrong would lead to a solicitor's letter seeking damages. The club is very careful to always behave correctly.

Cyberyeti, on 2019-October-03, 05:47, said:

As does SB, and as he did here, while asking the question and receiving an answer. This took a "short time" - about ten seconds.

sanst, on 2019-October-03, 01:49, said:

A singleton is six times more likely than a void, so it is not clear to me that a trump lead is called for when opponents bid an ambiguous splinter.

lamford, on 2019-October-03, 06:07, said:

This is VERY unusual, most people ask their question BEFORE leading face down, the implication is that he was leading that card regardless of the answer which undermines his argument

Cyberyeti, on 2019-October-03, 06:16, said:

I was not present, so I cannot tell the exact chronology of events, and I should not have speculated on them. But I agree, it is very likely that SB first asked the question, then received the answer, then led face down and face up in one movement, or did not lead face down at all. In any case, you can only adjust for damage so even if he did not lead face down, there is no damage to the declarer, who had no questions anyway, and if that deprived MM of any non-supplementary questions that could not possibly damage declarer. The TD report (he arrived after dummy was faced) makes no mention of a face down lead and he did not ask whether one occurred nor is one stated in the OP. SB normally leads face down.

pescetom, on 2019-October-03, 06:15, said:

I agree. But RR did not bid an "ambiguous splinter". Systemically 4♣ showed a void, which makes a trump lead more likely to be necessary. Change one of North's small red cards to a singleton club, and all leads beat it but the queen of spades will be a disaster if partner has a singleton king!

And I have now been asked to sit on the AC, so cannot comment further on this thread.

So would you argue that if OL asks questions, partner is precluded from asking any questions before the lead is faced, since all such questions would be supplementary? While the Laws certainly frequently say something other than their apparent intent, it certainly does not seem to me that the intent of the reference to 20F1 is to defer all questions by partner under these circumstances.

As for the original case, if partner had a full ten seconds to ask a question then indeed SB had selected a lead prior to asking, which as Cyberyeti notes undermines his argument. If not, then SB wilfully ended the clarification period prematurely by facing his lead too quickly. And I reserve my right to invent supplementary facts not in evidence as needed to support my argument.

lamford, on 2019-October-03, 04:07, said:

If I may be conceded a minor OT now that the issue has been thrashed, does anyone see virtue in playing 3NT as any singleton and 4m as a known void rather than 3NT as any void and 4m as a known singleton? I play it the second way round and see that as more logical (most of the time it is a singleton hence there is no ambiguity, also it seems more realistic to interrogate for a void than for a singleton although that rarely happens anyway).

pescetom, on 2019-October-03, 08:20, said:

I am happy to comment on that, as it does not affect the ruling. One of my better partners plays the 4 level bids as a void, and 3NT as a singleton. When the opener is not interested in slam, he does not tip off the opponent on lead which singleton it is, which is more frequent than a void, as you say. In RR's case, it is far better to use 3NT as any singleton, as he will forget it, as we see here.

The other point is that 3NT as any singleton makes it much more awkward for the next player to make a lead-directing double, maybe asking for the suit below the singleton!

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

"And I have now been asked to sit on the AC, so cannot comment further on this thread."

pran, on 2019-October-03, 02:06, said:

Partner and declarer.

pran, on 2019-October-03, 02:06, said:

If the correct opening leader asks "is it my lead?" the correct answer is "Yes, it is your lead".

pran, on 2019-October-03, 02:06, said:

No. Declarer is also supposed to be involved in this action. For the other defender to do as you suggest is for him to preempt the declarer's right to ask questions before the lead is faced. The other defender can say "I have no (more) questions" explicitly, at which point his partner should be looking to declarer to say the same thing. He won't, of course, but that doesn't mean it's correct for him to just face the lead without any input from declarer.

Are we overlooking

Law 20F2 said:

So (as far as can see) the only information no longer available to Declarer is a repetition of the auction. He may name any specific call made by a defender during the auction and request an explanation of that call.

pran, on 2019-October-03, 12:49, said:

Or he could ask for an explanation of the entire auction.

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

For a high court judge he is badly informed. You can’t go to the CAS in a case like this. You can only ask for arbitration about a decision by an international sports union like the WBF.