[lamford]

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

He broke his procedure by not giving his partner a chance to ask questions, which presumably he doesn't always do

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.

[lamford]

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

What exactly is the difference between the speed of light and quick as a flash? And SB did commit a few infractions, some maybe minor ones, but essential in this situation. He should have called the director when RR answered his question, since it was ChCh duty to do so. He is not known not to call for directional assistance, so why not now. He should have asked ChCh whether the explanation given was correct, certainly since he knows RR and his memory lapses. He should have waited for his partner’s approval before facing his lead. Last, but not least, he should not have put the lead face up on the table.
Besides it would not have made much difference. A splinter can also be a void, not necessarily a singleton. This is an attempt to get redress for his own mistake - a lead in trumps is called for in this situation - from the TD. And if he really want to take the case to the CAS, he has to put a considerable sum on the table.(see Arbitration costs CAS).

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.

[lamford]

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

But 40B states
"Before the opening lead is faced, the leader’s partner and the presumed declarer (but not the presumed dummy) each may require a review of the auction, or request explanation of an opponent’s call"
so it is incumbent on the opening leader to delay facing the lead until partner and declarer have had this opportunity.

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.

[lamford]

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

What is in doubt is whether excluding a singleton would have changed his bid - most of us think not.

I agree. He would still have passed

[Cyberyeti]

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

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

[chrism]

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.

[lamford]

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

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.

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.

[lamford]

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

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

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

[pescetom]

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

A splinter can also be a void, not necessarily a singleton. This is an attempt to get redress for his own mistake - a lead in trumps is called for in this situation

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.

[Cyberyeti]

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

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

[lamford]

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

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.

[lamford]

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

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.

[chrism]

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.

[pescetom]

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

How could he possibly have anticipated that ChCh and RR would have agreed that 3NT was "any splinter"?

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).

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2019-October-03, 08:20, 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).

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!

[lamford]

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

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.

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

[blackshoe]

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

The reason why the opening lead shall be made face down is not (as many players believe) to avoid an opening lead from the wrong defender, but to give partner the opportunity to ask about the auction during the clarification period.

Partner and declarer.

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

Therefore it is incorrect for (presumed) Declarer (or Dummy) to say "Yes, it is your lead" (or words to that effect).

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:

It is the other defender who shall say "Yes, you may face your lead" (or words to that effect), implying "I have no (more) questions".

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.

[pran]

Are we overlooking

Law 20F2 said:

After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing auction.
At his turn to play from his hand or from dummy declarer may request an explanation of a defender’s call or card play understandings.
Explanations should be given on a like basis to 1 and by the partner of the player whose action is explained.

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.

[blackshoe]

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

Are we overlooking

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.

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

[sanst]

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

He intends to appeal to the National Authority and then go all the way to the CAS if necessary!

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.