[Jeremy69A]

East leads a diamond out of turn against 2♠.
The TD arrives and explains the options and declarer bans a ♦ lead. West now leads a ♥ from Qxx. The effect of this is to pick up the suit for three tricks and a discard.

East in the post mortem shows good hindsight by saying that West should have led the ♥Q. West replied that as he had UI on this hand as a result of the lead out of turn this would be ethically dubious. Any opinions on this assertion?

[blackshoe]

The UI is that partner wanted to lead a diamond. It would be "ethically dubious" to lead ♥Q if that knowledge suggested that lead, but I don't see how it does.

[mycroft]

I guess the argument that "making a nonstandard lead because one is in a weird force" is legitimate, but there is clearly not enough information on this hand as to whether it is in this case.

I also guess that it was x from Qxx into AT9x and K8x or the like, where the heart lead pooches the J, and then the "marked" finesse picks up the suit - and that Q would lead declarer to finesse the wrong way.

Is there anything, AI or UI, that leads West to believe that this is the time a non-standard or deceptive lead would work? The auction, the diamond spot, ...?

[aguahombre]

Unless there is something about the auction we haven't been told, leading the heart queen would certainly be strange under normal circumstances.

I don't know if this answer involves being ethical or not; but as actual opening leader, I would feel uncomfortable adding more strangeness to what pard has already done. How about not leading a heart at all? leading from QXX or JXX in the blind never seems to work well.

[semeai]

The ♥Q lead seems fine ethically, though it also seems unlikely to be best except in hindsight. It's not clear why partner wanting a diamond lead would suggest the lead, and there is authorized information that you're being forbidden from doing something.

Follow-up question: It's UI that partner wanted to lead a diamond. It must, however, be AI that declarer doesn't want a diamond lead? Does this mean that if you are again on lead at a later time (the penalty card was picked up and now there's no strict legal prohibition), there's likely no UI issue regarding leading a diamond?

[gnasher]

Were EW the pair who told you (and the rest of the room) that there was no need to get the director for the lead out of turn, because everyone at the table knew the rules?

[bluejak]

semeai, on 2011-May-20, 11:20, said:

Follow-up question: It's UI that partner wanted to lead a diamond. It must, however, be AI that declarer doesn't want a diamond lead? Does this mean that if you are again on lead at a later time (the penalty card was picked up and now there's no strict legal prohibition), there's likely no UI issue regarding leading a diamond?

No, partner's desire to lead a diamond is still UI.

[paulg]

If your natural lead is not a diamond, then leading any card that you would not normally consider strikes me as failing to carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

If your natural lead is a diamond (or, more precisely, the only LA), then it seems lawful to lead any card (Law 10C4, "Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50)").

My view is that if it is lawful, then it is ethical too. Even if I would not do it myself.

[gnasher]

It's authorised information to both partners that we may be leading a heart our of necessity rather than choice.

The only unauthorised information we have is that partner thought a diamond lead was right. That tells us that his hearts probably aren't headed by the AK or the J10, but I don't understand why that suggests leading HE]Q over a small one.

[jallerton]

paulg, on 2011-May-21, 01:50, said:

If your natural lead is not a diamond, then leading any card that you would not normally consider strikes me as failing to carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

If your natural lead is a diamond (or, more precisely, the only LA), then it seems lawful to lead any card (Law 10C4, "Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50)").

My view is that if it is lawful, then it is ethical too. Even if I would not do it myself.

That may be true in a general UI case, but here declarer has exercised his right under Law 50D2(a) to prohibit a diamond lead.

[jallerton]

gnasher, on 2011-May-21, 02:05, said:

It's authorised information to both partners that we may be leading a heart our of necessity rather than choice.

The only unauthorised information we have is that partner thought a diamond lead was right. That tells us that his hearts probably aren't headed by the AK or the J10, but I don't understand why that suggests leading HE]Q over a small one.

Many pairs have an agreement about the meaning of the particular diamond they switch to, e.g. a higher diamond discourages a switch or shows an even number of diamonds. My understanding is that information is unauthorised. On some hands, knowledge of the layout in the diamond suit could easily provide information on the best play in the heart suit.

[paulg]

gnasher, on 2011-May-21, 02:05, said:

It's authorised information to both partners that we may be leading a heart our of necessity rather than choice.

The only unauthorised information we have is that partner thought a diamond lead was right. That tells us that his hearts probably aren't headed by the AK or the J10, but I don't understand why that suggests leading ♥Q over a small one.

If we believed that a diamond lead was likely to be right (perhaps partner bid the suit, etc.) or our natural lead, then it is likely that we are behind the field on the board. Making a deceptive lead is one way that might retrieve the situation. No specific card is suggested, but not playing down the middle is. Probably more true at matchpoints than imps.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

Were EW the pair who told you (and the rest of the room) that there was no need to get the director for the lead out of turn, because everyone at the table knew the rules?

Yes. Although it was not put to the test he who makes a comment like this is least likely to know the rules.

[gnasher]

paulg, on 2011-May-21, 03:54, said:

If we believed that a diamond lead was likely to be right (perhaps partner bid the suit, etc.) or our natural lead, then it is likely that we are behind the field on the board. Making a deceptive lead is one way that might retrieve the situation. No specific card is suggested, but not playing down the middle is. Probably more true at matchpoints than imps.

If partner bid diamonds, that's AI. If I have a natural diamond lead, that's AI. The fact that I'm not allowed to lead a diamond is AI. The fact that this might put us behind on the board is AI. Where's the UI?

[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2011-May-21, 02:54, said:

Many pairs have an agreement about the meaning of the particular diamond they switch to, e.g. a higher diamond discourages a switch or shows an even number of diamonds. My understanding is that information is unauthorised. On some hands, knowledge of the layout in the diamond suit could easily provide information on the best play in the heart suit.

Jeremy doesn't make it clear, but I believe it was an opening lead out of turn. Even so, the lead may tell us something about the heart suit - it may make it more likely that partner has ♥A, or maybe we can work out what his likely diamond holding is and then use restricted choice to infer that his hearts are different. If such inferences suggest leading ♥Q, that makes it illegal. But we knew that.

I think the suggestion was that it's improper in general to make a non-standard lead in this situation. I don't see any reason to believe that.

[barmar]

paulg, on 2011-May-21, 01:50, said:

If your natural lead is not a diamond, then leading any card that you would not normally consider strikes me as failing to carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

For a lead to be a violation of the UI laws, it has to be the case that the UI "demonstrably suggests" that lead over other logical alternatives. I'm not so sure that the general idea of making an unusual lead is demonstrably suggested, it may just be a strategic decision to make up for the forced lead, as others have described.

[paulg]

gnasher, on 2011-May-21, 17:04, said:

If partner bid diamonds, that's AI. If I have a natural diamond lead, that's AI. The fact that I'm not allowed to lead a diamond is AI. The fact that this might put us behind on the board is AI. Where's the UI?

Partner led a diamond out of turn. Do you feel you are not attempting to take advantage in the resulting situation or do you feel that you have paid the appropriate penalty?

Perhaps this is just another case where conflicting laws means that conflicting views can be supported.

[gnasher]

paulg, on 2011-May-22, 02:18, said:

Partner led a diamond out of turn. Do you feel you are not attempting to take advantage in the resulting situation or do you feel that you have paid the appropriate penalty?

Perhaps this is just another case where conflicting laws means that conflicting views can be supported.

The laws forbid taking advantage of the UI, but they don't prohibit taking advantage of any other aspect of the situation. That's what Law 10C4 appears to say: "Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction."

[bluejak]

paulg, on 2011-May-22, 02:18, said:

Partner led a diamond out of turn. Do you feel you are not attempting to take advantage in the resulting situation or do you feel that you have paid the appropriate penalty?

Perhaps this is just another case where conflicting laws means that conflicting views can be supported.

What conflicting Laws?

[paulg]

bluejak, on 2011-May-23, 06:55, said:

What conflicting Laws?

I do not dispute Andy's assertion that there is sufficient AI that you can do anything you wish. But my personal feeling is that the root cause is partner's lead out of turn and that doing something 'different' seems like trying to regain some lost ground, which is not avoiding taking advantage even though Law 10 says it is okay.

Strangely I feel differently when something like this happens in the auction and partner gets barred, and you take your best guess as to a contract.