[lamford]

---

Matchpoints; Lead 5♣
SB was quick to claim possible UI last Tuesday at the North London club. West, ChCh, asked before leading whether North's 4C and South's 4D were first or second-round controls and South, SB, replied that they bid either first or second, Italian style, up the line.

West led a club, which ran to the jack and declarer ran the queen of spades losing to the king. East switched to the jack of hearts and declarer was one down.

"DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR", summoned SB and the whole room turned to see what the matter was, as it seemed like someone had been taken ill. The TD came running. "East selected from two LAs one demonstrably suggested by the UI of West asking whether 4C and 4D were first or second-round controls," SB began. "If West had possessed the ace or king of diamonds, he would not have needed to ask about 4♦, as South was known not to have a shortage from the 3S rebid. East should therefore have selected a diamond fatally. In addition, I am also seeking a PP against East for blatant use of UI and West for illegal communication."

SB turned on East, RR, quite nastily: "If I had known you were going to cheat, I would have risen with the ace of spades and tried three more rounds of clubs."
RR responded: "I switched to a heart as I remembered you had cue bid diamonds; for no other reason; there was nothing else to go on".

How do you rule?

[weejonnie]

We'll assume as usual that OO (or whoever is directing) issues a DP for breach of bridge etiquette (failing to call director in a polite manner), a DP for breach of BB@B/ Zero Tolerance a DP for accusing another player of cheating - so even if I rule in his favour he is getting -ve matchpoints.

Yes there is UI (as specifically stated in Law 20 IIRC- ChCh should have asked about the auction as a whole, not individual calls)

Isn't this similar to someone asking whether a 5 Heart response to 4NT shows or denies the Queen of Trumps - it being ruled that this is a perfectly legitimate question and Declarer should not take any inferences from it. Anyway

(a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by
unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative.

Couldn't West have A of diamonds and wondering why SB cue bid. If SB was cue-bidding a 2nd round control then RR should switch to a diamond. Therefore: not demonstrably suggested over leading a diamond.


(b) A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in
question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some
might select.

Irrelevant, but presumably all RRs would do the same, so again - no adjustment.

[WellSpyder]

 lamford, on 2018-April-22, 15:42, said:

"If West had possessed the ace or king of diamonds, he would not have needed to ask about 4♦, ...."

Faulty argument. Of course he needs to know what N and S know about each other's hands in order to try to visualise what they might be bidding on.

Result stands.

[lamford]

 weejonnie, on 2018-April-23, 02:11, said:

Couldn't West have A of diamonds and [be] wondering why SB cue bid[?]

No, an ethical West who did not have the ace or king of diamonds would know that his question about 4♦ would tell his partner that and would just say "explain the auction, please". He would also know that it was almost certain South had the ace of diamonds as he himself had the ace of hearts, and the cue-bidding style was irrelevant. His question about 4♣ would have no effect as dummy would be revealed a moment later.

And all RR knew was that South had a diamond and a heart control, as North had not shown one. He is on a complete guess as to whether South has ♥KQ ♦AK or ♥AK ♦KQ. Now RR would not be able to work any of this out, but he could have worked out from the question, if he had half a brain, that his partner could not have the ace of diamonds, and his only chance was that his partner had the ace of hearts.

[lamford]

 WellSpyder, on 2018-April-23, 02:17, said:

Faulty argument. Of course he needs to know what N and S know about each other's hands in order to try to visualise what they might be bidding on.

Result stands.

Faulty response. Of course he doesn't need to ask specifically about the diamond suit.

[lamford]

 weejonnie, on 2018-April-23, 02:11, said:

Isn't this similar to someone asking whether a 5 Heart response to 4NT shows or denies the Queen of Trumps - it being ruled that this is a perfectly legitimate question and Declarer should not take any inferences from it.

No, it isn't similar at all. In the well-known "queen of trumps coup", the person with the queen of trumps asks whether 5♥ denies the queen of trumps, and declarer guesses whether the questioner is a truth-teller or liar, as in the puzzle. Here ChCh is, effectively, telling his partner that he does not have either the ace or king of diamonds as he would then know whether 4D showed the ace or king (RR might recall from the auction that it could not be a shortage). So a completely different situation.

Three members of the puzzle panel arrive for a reception at the BBC.
"Are we all having punch?", asks the barman.
"I don't know", says the first.
"I don't know", says the second.
"Yes", says the third.

[lamford]

 weejonnie, on 2018-April-23, 02:11, said:

failing to call director in a polite manner

As SB always points out, 74B5 is a "should" clause and, as the introduction to the Laws says, infractions are not normally punished.

 weejonnie, on 2018-April-23, 02:11, said:

a DP for accusing another player of cheating

SB did not accuse anyone of cheating. He was very careful in his choice of words.

[weejonnie]

 lamford, on 2018-April-23, 04:05, said:

SB did not accuse anyone of cheating. He was very careful in his choice of words.

Well instead of using the gerund, is very hair-splitting. I mean how can you not be a cheat if you are accused of cheating?

"If he had half a brain"... No one I believe (other than SB here) has ever accused RR of thinking. - see Winning Bridge in The Menagerie.

[lamford]

 weejonnie, on 2018-April-23, 04:39, said:

Well instead of using the gerund, is very hair-splitting. I mean how can you not be a cheat if you are accused of cheating?

SB said "If I had known you were going to cheat <snip>". That does not mean that RR did cheat.

And RR could have thought. He recalled that South had cue bid diamonds. It was just possible for him to work out that South had to have a heart control as North had denied one. And while none could work out the UI, 50% of rabbits polled led a heart at trick three, 50% of rabbits led a diamond. None recalled the auction. So, a diamond and a heart are both LAs.

[WellSpyder]

 lamford, on 2018-April-23, 03:55, said:

Here ChCh is, effectively, telling his partner that he does not have either the ace or king of diamonds as he would then know whether 4D showed the ace or king (RR might recall from the auction that it could not be a shortage).

I still don't follow this logic. If he has ♦K then he knows which of ♦A or ♦K south has. But he still doesn't know whether south has actually shown ♦A or simply shown one of ♦A or K.

[lamford]

 WellSpyder, on 2018-April-23, 05:38, said:

I still don't follow this logic. If he has ♦K then he knows which of ♦A or ♦K south has. But he still doesn't know whether south has actually shown ♦A or simply shown one of ♦A or K.

If West has the diamond king, he will know that South has the diamond ace. True, he will not know whether South has shown the diamond ace to North, as he will not know what their cue-bidding style is, so he may well need to find out more, although I cannot think of any reason he would want to know this. However, if West has the diamond ace, then he knows that their cue-bidding style is "first or second round controls". So he will not need to ask. Therefore West does not have the diamond ace (although it is possible he has the king), and a diamond return is pointless for RR. Therefore East should cheat and switch to a heart. West should have anticipated the problem and just asked "explain the auction please". SB would then have explained that South denied a shortage and that 4C and 4D were both first or second round controls. And no UI would have been passed.

[Cyberyeti]

 lamford, on 2018-April-23, 05:46, said:

If West has the diamond king, he will know that South has the diamond ace. True, he will not know whether South has shown the diamond ace to North, as he will not know what their cue-bidding style is, so he may well need to find out more, although I cannot think of any reason he would want to know this. However, if West has the diamond ace, then he knows that their cue-bidding style is "first or second round controls". So he will not need to ask. Therefore he does not have the diamond ace, and a diamond return is pointless for RR. Therefore East should cheat and switch to a heart. West should have anticipated the problem and just asked "explain the auction please". SB would then have explained that South denied a shortage and that 4C and 4D were both first or second round controls. And no UI would have been passed.

This is kinda what he did, I'd be more inclined to rule in the SB's favour if he'd just asked about 4♦, but he asked essentially about the cue bidding style and the 4♣/♦ bids, he could be holding A♦ and be interested in the club situation, but masking this by asking about both bids (and a few people DO play differently for the first and second cue).

[VixTD]

How did West know they were cue-bids of any description? Had he asked, or looked at a convention card? If so, did he receive an inadequate answer that prompted him to ask for further clarification?

 lamford, on 2018-April-23, 05:13, said:

SB said "If I had known you were going to cheat <snip>". That does not mean that RR did cheat.

That is an accusation of cheating. The meaning or intent conveyed by an utterance (what grammarians call the "illocutionary act") is not always the same as that conveyed by a literal reading of the words.

In a similar way, if a stranger approaches you and asks; "Do you have the time / a pen / change for a pound?" they are not concerned to know whether you have these things; they are soliciting from you the time / the loan of a pen / small change in exchange for a pound coin.

[lamford]

 VixTD, on 2018-April-23, 07:02, said:

How did West know they were cue-bids of any description? Had he asked, or looked at a convention card? If so, did he receive an inadequate answer that prompted him to ask for further clarification?

The 2NT bid was alerted and asked about by RR, who thought it might have been Lebensohl. He was told that it was a four-card game-forcing spade raise. TT, North, alerted 3S and explained it when asked as denying a shortage but being stronger than 4S. The four-level bids were not alerted, of course, and ChCh assumed they were cues and just asked, as reported to me by the TD, "did 4C and 4D show first or second-round controls?" to which the response from SB, as reported to me, was "We bid first- or second-round controls up the line, Italian style". SB thinks that the ONLY acceptable question was "Can you please explain the full auction?" or similar.

And SB always expects to be taken literally. He even thinks "to" is different from "towards".

[WellSpyder]

 lamford, on 2018-April-23, 05:46, said:

If West has the diamond king, he will know that South has the diamond ace. True, he will not know whether South has shown the diamond ace to North, as he will not know what their cue-bidding style is, so he may well need to find out more, although I cannot think of any reason he would want to know this. However, if West has the diamond ace, then he knows that their cue-bidding style is "first or second round controls". So he will not need to ask. Therefore West does not have the diamond ace (although it is possible he has the king), and a diamond return is pointless for RR. Therefore East should cheat and switch to a heart. West should have anticipated the problem and just asked "explain the auction please". SB would then have explained that South denied a shortage and that 4C and 4D were both first or second round controls. And no UI would have been passed.

Curiously, I seem to recall that the same auction occurred at my local club last week when ChCh was visiting. On that occasion, ChCh did indeed have DA and refrained from asking about the diamond cue-bid. But our own equivalent of the SB tried to persuade the TD that this conveyed UI to ChCh's partner since the only reason he could have for not asking was that he knew the answer anyway so he must have DA. So I think at your club ChCh was probably only doing his best not to tell partner what he had by the questions he asked....

[lamford]

 WellSpyder, on 2018-April-23, 07:40, said:

Curiously, I seem to recall that the same auction occurred at my local club last week when ChCh was visiting. On that occasion, ChCh did indeed have DA and refrained from asking about the diamond cue-bid. But our own equivalent of the SB tried to persuade the TD that this conveyed UI to ChCh's partner since the only reason he could have for not asking was that he knew the answer anyway so he must have DA. So I think at your club ChCh was probably only doing his best not to tell partner what he had by the questions he asked....

The lack of a question could also be familiarity with the cue-bidding methods of SB and TT, a fairly regular partnership. As both SBs may have pointed out, and our SB would very much like a game with your SB, as long as one always asks any question in the manner "please explain the auction", there is never an issue.

And did your RR work it all out and find the diamond switch?

[barmar]

Does asking "please explain the auction" really solve the problem? If there's an auction with lots of relays, sure. But in a simple auction like this, there's only a few things you could be concerned with, and partner should be able to work it out.

What if you ask "Please explain the auction" and the answers aren't detailed enough? E.g. 4♦ is explained as showing a diamond control, but he doesn't specifically say whether it's first or second round control. You can't ask for a clarification without potentially passing UI.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2018-April-23, 08:56, said:

What if you ask "Please explain the auction" and the answers aren't detailed enough? E.g. 4♦ is explained as showing a diamond control, but he doesn't specifically say whether it's first or second round control. You can't ask for a clarification without potentially passing UI.

If the answer is incomplete, and you are damaged, the TD should award redress. Whenever I explain an auction, I am careful to state whether a cue bid is a first-round control or not. I think the question here was more likely to be for RR's benefit which is why SB exploded.

[blackshoe]

 lamford, on 2018-April-23, 03:46, said:

No, an ethical West who did not have the ace or king of diamonds would know that his question about 4♦ would tell his partner that

An experienced West in that position would know that. Or are you claiming that inexperienced players cannot be ethical?

[blackshoe]

 lamford, on 2018-April-23, 05:13, said:

SB said "If I had known you were going to cheat <snip>". That does not mean that RR did cheat.

No, but it does mean that SB accused him of it. At least around here it does.

I begin to suspect that SB spends a lot of time in C&E hearings. Or to wonder why he doesn't.