🚀 go-pugleaf

dannysprung@aol.com wrote:

> Anyway, playing against a Professional player and his partner, my
> partner led a spot card against 3NT.  The declarer, partner of the
> Professional player, asked what our lead agreeements are.  I
> responded(accurately) that we lead 4th best from holdings including the
> queen or higher, higher otherwise.  Sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d
> best without one of the top 3.   At this point, the professional
> player, who was the dummy, said 'do you mean 2d highest from 4 or more
> small? or something to that effect.
>
> What do you think should happen?

You or your partner should call the Director.  Most likely, this should
just result in a warning to the dummy, although a procedural penalty
may be in order if this is a repeat violation.  Anyway, Law 20F2 makes
it clear that during the play period, only declarer may ask about the
defender's play conventions, so you don't have to answer the question,
and the Director should make that clear.  Although the Laws don't
specifically say this, I believe that as Director I would also instruct
declarer not to ask the question that dummy suggested.  (Technically,
declarer does have the right under Law 20F2 to re-ask the question, but
if he does, I'd say the defenders might be owed an adjustment under Law
84E due to dummy's previous irregularity.)

Just my opinion...  Perhaps r.g.b'ers who actually know how to direct
may have a different approach to the problem.

                                        -- Adam

Well, a Director would no doubt chastize the Pro should you
(rightfully) call.  But I frankly doubt you'd get anything more.
Record it with the Recorder system and if it comes up again, perhaps
something more concrete would be done.

Karen

dannysprung@aol.com wrote:
> No, this is not about the Cayne incident.  I don't know the facts about
> that at all, although the rumors were flying..  And this is not about
> the appeal in the NA Swiss; those of you who know me know what happened
> there.
>
> Anyway, playing against a Professional player and his partner, my
> partner led a spot card against 3NT.  The declarer, partner of the
> Professional player, asked what our lead agreeements are.  I
> responded(accurately) that we lead 4th best from holdings including the
> queen or higher, higher otherwise.  Sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d
> best without one of the top 3.   At this point, the professional
> player, who was the dummy, said 'do you mean 2d highest from 4 or more
> small? or something to that effect.
>
> What do you think should happen?
>
> Danny

Not much.

While the pro doesn't have the right to put his 2 cents in, it's hard
to muster much sympathy for the defending pair given the inadequacy of
the answer given to the client's question.

"Sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d best without one of the top 3" seems
unnecessarily vague and invited a request for clarification.

So the request was made by the pro as opposed to the client. And the
harm done was...?

Unless there's more to the story were I the director I'd tell the pro
it wasn't his place to ask and warn him not to do it again.

I'd then tell the defenders to improve the quality of their
explanations (particularly those given to the client in circumstances
in which the stronger player cannot ask follow-up questions) and b)
suggest that pairs who create problems should reconsider the wisdom of
then trying to gain an advantage from a technical breach they have
provoked.

Cheers.

Nick

<dannysprung@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133229909.882195.61130@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> No, this is not about the Cayne incident.  I don't know the facts about
> that at all, although the rumors were flying..  And this is not about
> the appeal in the NA Swiss; those of you who know me know what happened
> there.
>
> Anyway, playing against a Professional player and his partner, my
> partner led a spot card against 3NT.  The declarer, partner of the
> Professional player, asked what our lead agreeements are.  I
> responded(accurately) that we lead 4th best from holdings including the
> queen or higher, higher otherwise.  Sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d
> best without one of the top 3.   At this point, the professional
> player, who was the dummy, said 'do you mean 2d highest from 4 or more
> small? or something to that effect.
>
> What do you think should happen?
>
> Danny

Director should have been called.

>

<pumpkin_644@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133236518.349741.164990@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> dannysprung@aol.com wrote:
>> No, this is not about the Cayne incident.  I don't know the facts about
>> that at all, although the rumors were flying..  And this is not about
>> the appeal in the NA Swiss; those of you who know me know what happened
>> there.
>>
>> Anyway, playing against a Professional player and his partner, my
>> partner led a spot card against 3NT.  The declarer, partner of the
>> Professional player, asked what our lead agreeements are.  I
>> responded(accurately) that we lead 4th best from holdings including the
>> queen or higher, higher otherwise.  Sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d
>> best without one of the top 3.   At this point, the professional
>> player, who was the dummy, said 'do you mean 2d highest from 4 or more
>> small? or something to that effect.
>>
>> What do you think should happen?
>>
>> Danny
>
> Not much.
>
> While the pro doesn't have the right to put his 2 cents in, it's hard
> to muster much sympathy for the defending pair given the inadequacy of
> the answer given to the client's question.
>
> "Sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d best without one of the top 3" seems
> unnecessarily vague and invited a request for clarification.
>
> So the request was made by the pro as opposed to the client. And the
> harm done was...?
>
> Unless there's more to the story were I the director I'd tell the pro
> it wasn't his place to ask and warn him not to do it again.
>
> I'd then tell the defenders to improve the quality of their
> explanations (particularly those given to the client in circumstances
> in which the stronger player cannot ask follow-up questions) and b)
> suggest that pairs who create problems should reconsider the wisdom of
> then trying to gain an advantage from a technical breach they have
> provoked.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Nick

This very harsh.  I had no trouble understanding what the explanation was.
Each player will act to the best of his abilities.  If the declarer did not
know what the explanation was, he should have asked himself.  A pro should
know better than interfere with the game when he is dummy.

raija d wrote:
> <pumpkin_644@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1133236518.349741.164990@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > dannysprung@aol.com wrote:
> >> No, this is not about the Cayne incident.  I don't know the facts about
> >> that at all, although the rumors were flying..  And this is not about
> >> the appeal in the NA Swiss; those of you who know me know what happened
> >> there.
> >>
> >> Anyway, playing against a Professional player and his partner, my
> >> partner led a spot card against 3NT.  The declarer, partner of the
> >> Professional player, asked what our lead agreeements are.  I
> >> responded(accurately) that we lead 4th best from holdings including the
> >> queen or higher, higher otherwise.  Sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d
> >> best without one of the top 3.   At this point, the professional
> >> player, who was the dummy, said 'do you mean 2d highest from 4 or more
> >> small? or something to that effect.
> >>
> >> What do you think should happen?
> >>
> >> Danny
> >
> > Not much.
> >
> > While the pro doesn't have the right to put his 2 cents in, it's hard
> > to muster much sympathy for the defending pair given the inadequacy of
> > the answer given to the client's question.
> >
> > "Sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d best without one of the top 3" seems
> > unnecessarily vague and invited a request for clarification.
> >
> > So the request was made by the pro as opposed to the client. And the
> > harm done was...?
> >
> > Unless there's more to the story were I the director I'd tell the pro
> > it wasn't his place to ask and warn him not to do it again.
> >
> > I'd then tell the defenders to improve the quality of their
> > explanations (particularly those given to the client in circumstances
> > in which the stronger player cannot ask follow-up questions) and b)
> > suggest that pairs who create problems should reconsider the wisdom of
> > then trying to gain an advantage from a technical breach they have
> > provoked.
> >
> > Cheers.
> >
> > Nick
>
> This very harsh.  I had no trouble understanding what the explanation was.

Really? I Don't.

OP states that sometimes they lead 1st, 2nd or 3rd best from a suit
that does not include a top honor. This explanation is either vague,
because it does not explain how the spot card is chosen, or it implies
the spot card is chosen based on whim and therefore communicates no
information.

It seems more likely that when leading from a suit lacking a top honor,
the spot led is chosen to reflect the leader's attitude without
jeopardizing a spot position. For example, from T642, I'd guess the
lead would normally be the 6, while from T852 the lead is probably the
5, unless the Leader felt very certain he wanted the suit returned, in
which case he would lead the 2. If my conjecture is correct, then this
fact should have been included in the explanation.


> Each player will act to the best of his abilities.  If the declarer did not
> know what the explanation was, he should have asked himself.  A pro should
> know better than interfere with the game when he is dummy.

While you are entitled to call the director over this minor infraction
if you like, the sensible thing to do is to answer the pro's question
and move on. Most likely the pro was playing with a client who was
easily confused. He heard a vague explanation and stepped in to help
his client understand it. He was not cueing his partner in how to play,
he was simply trying to get the preliminaries over with minimum
confusion.

That hardly seems like the crime of the century.


Andrew

<agumperz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133242229.660168.240960@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> raija d wrote:
>> <pumpkin_644@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1133236518.349741.164990@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > dannysprung@aol.com wrote:
>> >> No, this is not about the Cayne incident.  I don't know the facts
>> >> about
>> >> that at all, although the rumors were flying..  And this is not about
>> >> the appeal in the NA Swiss; those of you who know me know what
>> >> happened
>> >> there.
>> >>
>> >> Anyway, playing against a Professional player and his partner, my
>> >> partner led a spot card against 3NT.  The declarer, partner of the
>> >> Professional player, asked what our lead agreeements are.  I
>> >> responded(accurately) that we lead 4th best from holdings including
>> >> the
>> >> queen or higher, higher otherwise.  Sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d
>> >> best without one of the top 3.   At this point, the professional
>> >> player, who was the dummy, said 'do you mean 2d highest from 4 or more
>> >> small? or something to that effect.
>> >>
>> >> What do you think should happen?
>> >>
>> >> Danny
>> >
>> > Not much.
>> >
>> > While the pro doesn't have the right to put his 2 cents in, it's hard
>> > to muster much sympathy for the defending pair given the inadequacy of
>> > the answer given to the client's question.
>> >
>> > "Sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d best without one of the top 3" seems
>> > unnecessarily vague and invited a request for clarification.
>> >
>> > So the request was made by the pro as opposed to the client. And the
>> > harm done was...?
>> >
>> > Unless there's more to the story were I the director I'd tell the pro
>> > it wasn't his place to ask and warn him not to do it again.
>> >
>> > I'd then tell the defenders to improve the quality of their
>> > explanations (particularly those given to the client in circumstances
>> > in which the stronger player cannot ask follow-up questions) and b)
>> > suggest that pairs who create problems should reconsider the wisdom of
>> > then trying to gain an advantage from a technical breach they have
>> > provoked.
>> >
>> > Cheers.
>> >
>> > Nick
>>
>> This very harsh.  I had no trouble understanding what the explanation
>> was.
>
> Really? I Don't.
>
> OP states that sometimes they lead 1st, 2nd or 3rd best from a suit
> that does not include a top honor. This explanation is either vague,
> because it does not explain how the spot card is chosen, or it implies
> the spot card is chosen based on whim and therefore communicates no
> information.
>
> It seems more likely that when leading from a suit lacking a top honor,
> the spot led is chosen to reflect the leader's attitude without
> jeopardizing a spot position. For example, from T642, I'd guess the
> lead would normally be the 6, while from T852 the lead is probably the
> 5, unless the Leader felt very certain he wanted the suit returned, in
> which case he would lead the 2. If my conjecture is correct, then this
> fact should have been included in the explanation.
>
>
>> Each player will act to the best of his abilities.  If the declarer did
>> not
>> know what the explanation was, he should have asked himself.  A pro
>> should
>> know better than interfere with the game when he is dummy.
>
> While you are entitled to call the director over this minor infraction
> if you like, the sensible thing to do is to answer the pro's question
> and move on. Most likely the pro was playing with a client who was
> easily confused. He heard a vague explanation and stepped in to help
> his client understand it. He was not cueing his partner in how to play,
> he was simply trying to get the preliminaries over with minimum
> confusion.
>
> That hardly seems like the crime of the century.
>
>
> Andrew

No crime of the century at all....  I understand that the pro was only
trying to help the client, but he was dummy and should not have done it.  If
the pro does not know that dummy has no right to help declarer understand
what an opponent said, then dummy needed a reminder of dummy's rights. Best
to have TD handle that. I also understand there was no harm done or
intended, but declarer is/should be alone in his decisions, actions,
understandings, and in what questions he asks the defenders. Actions such as
described by OP,  particularly by a pro who should know better, should IMO
not be condoned.

Raija

Anton van Uitert wrote:
> <dannysprung@aol.com> schreef in bericht
> news:1133229909.882195.61130@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > No, this is not about the Cayne incident.  I don't know the facts about
> > that at all, although the rumors were flying..  And this is not about
> > the appeal in the NA Swiss; those of you who know me know what happened
> > there.
> >
> > Anyway, playing against a Professional player and his partner, my
> > partner led a spot card against 3NT.  The declarer, partner of the
> > Professional player, asked what our lead agreeements are.  I
> > responded(accurately) that we lead 4th best from holdings including the
> > queen or higher, higher otherwise.  Sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d
> > best without one of the top 3.   At this point, the professional
> > player, who was the dummy, said 'do you mean 2d highest from 4 or more
> > small? or something to that effect.
> >
> > What do you think should happen?
> >
> > Danny
> >
>
> Dummy should not ask for clarification. The effect that your opponent gets a
> better picture of your agreements is fine. I see no harm in it unless was
> asked in an unfriendly way. Not a big deal -- why call it an Incident?
>
> Anton

Because dummy was a professional, who must have known the Law, and
deliberately broke it. This is contrary to L72B2, and merits the
severest treatment.
Had dummy been a novice, a quiet word from the director, and a 'carry
on witht he play' would have been entirely appropriate.

Dave Flower

Anton van Uitert wrote:
> I don't know about professionalism in ACBL land. I'd say pro's are people
> who make mistakes.
>
> A question is at the tip of the tongue and it incidentally rolls out. A
> mistake, so what. Tell the man, call the director or make a joke about it --
> whatever. No harm to the game in this case. Imo severe treatment is in
> order, only when the (wo)man has a history of bullying and intimidation and
> this fits in. Or does being a pro imply such history? That would be a sad
> thing.

A while back -- maybe the 1965 San Francisco Nationals -- I jumped on a
pro named Joe Jabon for asking a question to aid his client. I thought
then and still do that it was no accident on his part. Nonetheless that
doesn't make him a bad guy, the effect he was going for wasn't an
unfair advantage, and I regret that I didn't react in a more friendly
fashion.

Charles

Thanks for all of your answers, which seem to run the gamut from no
harm to 'make sure this doesn't happen again'.

Needless to say, I was pretty ticked about it.  A player is not
supposed to ask a question for his parnter's benefit, and of course the
dummy is named such because he is certainly not supposed to ask a
question like this.

I waited till after the hand was over; then called director, who duly
admonished the dummy, and I put a recorder slip in, so there is a
record of this.  No further action was taken.

As to the answer being inadequate, or vague, that is in fact our
agreement; we don't woodenly lead 2d highest without queen.  Sometimes
first, second or third, depending on many factors, including
readabillity, etc.; hence higher otherwise.



Danny

In message <1133232418.998433.307440@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
krallison <krallison@gmail.com> writes
>Well, a Director would no doubt chastize the Pro should you
>(rightfully) call.  But I frankly doubt you'd get anything more.
>Record it with the Recorder system and if it comes up again, perhaps
>something more concrete would be done.

"Look Mr whatever - You know that's a pro question; I know that you know
that's a pro question, you know that i'm going to make this speech if
you ask a pro question; If I have to make this speech again you'll get
busted. Are we clear on all that?"
>
>Karen
>

--
John (MadDog) Probst|      . !     -^-  |AIM GLChienFou
451 Mile End Road   |     /|__.    \:/  |BCLive ChienFou
London E3 4PA       |    / @ __)   -|-  |john:at:asimere:dot:com
+44-(0)20 8983 5818 |   /\   --^    |   |www.asimere.com/~john

>> A player is not
supposed to ask a question for his parnter's benefit, <<

I'm not sure if my response to this comment got through.

That was not the opinion of the late Edgar Kaplan (although he would
agree that Dummy should NOT be asking), and he often asked system
questions to clarify for his partner, Norman Kay.

Karen

dannysprung@aol.com wrote:
> Thanks for all of your answers, which seem to run the gamut from no
> harm to 'make sure this doesn't happen again'.
>
> Needless to say, I was pretty ticked about it.  A player is not
> supposed to ask a question for his parnter's benefit, and of course the
> dummy is named such because he is certainly not supposed to ask a
> question like this.
>
> I waited till after the hand was over; then called director, who duly
> admonished the dummy, and I put a recorder slip in, so there is a
> record of this.  No further action was taken.
>
> As to the answer being inadequate, or vague, that is in fact our
> agreement; we don't woodenly lead 2d highest without queen.  Sometimes
> first, second or third, depending on many factors, including
> readabillity, etc.; hence higher otherwise.

That it may be your agreement doesn't make the explanation any less
inadequate and vague.

It's also a bit surprising that the side which has no difficulty
getting "pretty ticked off" about the  pro's technical infraction
apparently (given the last post) remains quite unconcerned about the
*substantive* harm caused by their own unsatisfactory disclosure.

>From where I sit, the pro's side deserved a parking ticket while the
side that self-righteously cried "foul" deserved demerit points.

Cheers.

Nick






>
>
>
> Danny

Charles Brenner wrote:
> Anton van Uitert wrote:
> > I don't know about professionalism in ACBL land. I'd say pro's are people
> > who make mistakes.
> >
> > A question is at the tip of the tongue and it incidentally rolls out. A
> > mistake, so what. Tell the man, call the director or make a joke about it --
> > whatever. No harm to the game in this case. Imo severe treatment is in
> > order, only when the (wo)man has a history of bullying and intimidation and
> > this fits in. Or does being a pro imply such history? That would be a sad
> > thing.
>
> A while back -- maybe the 1965 San Francisco Nationals -- I jumped on a
> pro named Joe Jabon for asking a question to aid his client. I thought
> then and still do that it was no accident on his part. Nonetheless that
> doesn't make him a bad guy, the effect he was going for wasn't an
> unfair advantage, and I regret that I didn't react in a more friendly
> fashion.
>
> Charles

A psychologist gathered a hundred people.  Told them to not think of a
white bear- but should a white bear enter their thoughts they are to
immediately push the feed back button.  Within thirty seconds nearly
all had pushed the button.  Conclusion: the power of suggestion is very
strong.

And that is what happens when the unnecessary question about   a lead
occurs.  It prompts the player to employ knowledge of 27 cards plus the
bidding  to figure out which holding partner is leading and hopefully
reveal it by some mannerism; or, the question may even be a  direct
communication to partner.  If nothing else it delays the game by having
more information to process.  But importantly, it being a forbidden act
of a dummy it is an act of abuse and intimidation.  If no TD is called
the wrong is not righted.  If the TD is called the victim feels guilty
for being petty.  If he responds with indignation he is going to play
badly for some number of boards.  The asker gains almost always.  At a
minimum the player should be warned with a reduction in score.  In this
case the pro should be assessed a huge PP.

ps   ACBL TDs are quite inept in handling ethical lapses so there is
something to be said for letting it slide as a cost of doing business.

regards
axman

<agumperz@gmail.com> wrote

> While you are entitled to call the director over this minor infraction
> if you like, the sensible thing to do is to answer the pro's question
> and move on. Most likely the pro was playing with a client who was
> easily confused. He heard a vague explanation and stepped in to help
> his client understand it. He was not cueing his partner in how to play,
> he was simply trying to get the preliminaries over with minimum
> confusion.
>
> That hardly seems like the crime of the century.

++++I think this is one of those situations where you have to make your own
mind up. There's no real reason to get het up about this, because it seems
that the pro was just trying to clarify what you said, rather than asking a
new, leading question of his own. If his punter is that dozy, they need all
the help they can get. Given that, I would indeed "move on". The problem is
that you're making your own rules up. There's been an infraction, you should
call the director. Since you would have had the matter been more serious,
you're doing the TD's job. Naughty. I suppose.

Is it then arrogance to say that in this instance I wouldn't have even
raised an eyebrow, and just got on with it?

Note that Probst's bizarre diatribe is also making up the rules at the
table, so is just as bad as not calling the director. Worse, in fact,
because it makes it quite clear that he knows the rules and is breaking them
ostentatiously, rather than quietly bypassing them, or perhaps being
ignorant of them.

<dannysprung@aol.com> schreef in bericht
news:1133229909.882195.61130@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> No, this is not about the Cayne incident.  I don't know the facts about
> that at all, although the rumors were flying..  And this is not about
> the appeal in the NA Swiss; those of you who know me know what happened
> there.
>
> Anyway, playing against a Professional player and his partner, my
> partner led a spot card against 3NT.  The declarer, partner of the
> Professional player, asked what our lead agreeements are.  I
> responded(accurately) that we lead 4th best from holdings including the
> queen or higher, higher otherwise.  Sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d
> best without one of the top 3.   At this point, the professional
> player, who was the dummy, said 'do you mean 2d highest from 4 or more
> small? or something to that effect.
>
> What do you think should happen?
>
> Danny
>

Dummy should not ask for clarification. The effect that your opponent gets a
better picture of your agreements is fine. I see no harm in it unless was
asked in an unfriendly way. Not a big deal -- why call it an Incident?

Anton

"Dave Flower" <DavJFlower@AOL.COM> schreef in bericht
news:1133259110.946796.93660@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Anton van Uitert wrote:
>> <dannysprung@aol.com> schreef in bericht
>> news:1133229909.882195.61130@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > No, this is not about the Cayne incident.  I don't know the facts about
>> > that at all, although the rumors were flying..  And this is not about
>> > the appeal in the NA Swiss; those of you who know me know what happened
>> > there.
>> >
>> > Anyway, playing against a Professional player and his partner, my
>> > partner led a spot card against 3NT.  The declarer, partner of the
>> > Professional player, asked what our lead agreeements are.  I
>> > responded(accurately) that we lead 4th best from holdings including the
>> > queen or higher, higher otherwise.  Sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d
>> > best without one of the top 3.   At this point, the professional
>> > player, who was the dummy, said 'do you mean 2d highest from 4 or more
>> > small? or something to that effect.
>> >
>> > What do you think should happen?
>> >
>> > Danny
>> >
>>
>> Dummy should not ask for clarification. The effect that your opponent
>> gets a
>> better picture of your agreements is fine. I see no harm in it unless was
>> asked in an unfriendly way. Not a big deal -- why call it an Incident?
>>
>> Anton
>
> Because dummy was a professional, who must have known the Law, and
> deliberately broke it. This is contrary to L72B2, and merits the
> severest treatment.
> Had dummy been a novice, a quiet word from the director, and a 'carry
> on witht he play' would have been entirely appropriate.
>
> Dave Flower

I don't know about professionalism in ACBL land. I'd say pro's are people
who make mistakes.

A question is at the tip of the tongue and it incidentally rolls out. A
mistake, so what. Tell the man, call the director or make a joke about it --
whatever. No harm to the game in this case. Imo severe treatment is in
order, only when the (wo)man has a history of bullying and intimidation and
this fits in. Or does being a pro imply such history? That would be a sad
thing.

Anton

agumperz@gmail.com writes:
[snip]
> OP states that sometimes they lead 1st, 2nd or 3rd best from a suit
> that does not include a top honor. This explanation is either vague,
> because it does not explain how the spot card is chosen, or it implies
> the spot card is chosen based on whim and therefore communicates no
> information.
>
> It seems more likely that when leading from a suit lacking a top honor,
> the spot led is chosen to reflect the leader's attitude without
> jeopardizing a spot position. For example, from T642, I'd guess the
> lead would normally be the 6, while from T852 the lead is probably the
> 5, unless the Leader felt very certain he wanted the suit returned, in
> which case he would lead the 2. If my conjecture is correct, then this
> fact should have been included in the explanation.

You want an entire encyclopedia of opening lead theory recited
for a query at the table?  If you are going to ask detailed
questions about the minute points, the most like answer you're
going to get is "no agreement".

[snip]
> While you are entitled to call the director over this minor infraction
> if you like, the sensible thing to do is to answer the pro's question
> and move on. Most likely the pro was playing with a client who was
> easily confused. He heard a vague explanation and stepped in to help
> his client understand it. He was not cueing his partner in how to play,
> he was simply trying to get the preliminaries over with minimum
> confusion.

But the professional knows or should know that dummy may not
enter into any such discussion and should also know that if
the explanation is inadequate and their side is damaged, the
director can make an adjustment after the play is complete.

> That hardly seems like the crime of the century.

Maybe not, but no bridge infraction is a major crime -- it is
a game afterall.

what is the cayne incident about?  can i read about it?

<dannysprung@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133229909.882195.61130@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> No, this is not about the Cayne incident.  I don't know the facts about
> that at all, although the rumors were flying..  And this is not about
> the appeal in the NA Swiss; those of you who know me know what happened
> there.
>

Anton van Uitert skrev:

> A question is at the tip of the tongue and it incidentally rolls out.

A football player may accidentally trip his opponents. No referee
wil make do with a kind reminder. A penalty kick is pure routine.
If it was done by a professional on purpose, he gets a yellow
card.

--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bertel.lundhansen.dk/bridge/bridgeberegning.php?setlanguage=English

"That it may be your agreement doesn't make the explanation any less
inadequate and vague. "


Julian answers this well, but as we have no rule, we use or judgement,
it would be impossible to further clarify beyond what I said.


It's also a bit surprising that the side which has no difficulty
getting "pretty ticked off" about the  pro's technical infraction


I don't consider that a 'technical infraction'; it is an obvious
blatant violation of the rules.  If my explanation was inadequate, and
the dummy felt his side was injured, he lost no rights; he can
certainly call the director the moment play ceases.

Danny

"krallison" <krallison@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133274456.777976.92180@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> A player is not
> supposed to ask a question for his parnter's benefit, <<
>
> I'm not sure if my response to this comment got through.
>
> That was not the opinion of the late Edgar Kaplan (although he would
> agree that Dummy should NOT be asking), and he often asked system
> questions to clarify for his partner, Norman Kay.

++++I don't really think that's really on. Opponents system is, of course,
supposed to be an open book, but the onus is on each individual player to
make sure they avail themselves of disclosure. Asking a question for the
benefit of partner is but a short step away from just leaning across the
table halfway through an auction and telling partner "You know they play
that that shows Hearts, don't you?", and, in my opinion, is no more
acceptable. Far be it from me to disagree with the late Edgar Kaplan, but I
disagree with the late Edgar Kaplan.

Julian Lighton wrote:
> In article <1133277042.896058.35610@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> pumpkin_644@hotmail.com <pumpkin_644@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >dannysprung@aol.com wrote:
> >> Thanks for all of your answers, which seem to run the gamut from no
> >> harm to 'make sure this doesn't happen again'.
> >>
> >> Needless to say, I was pretty ticked about it.  A player is not
> >> supposed to ask a question for his parnter's benefit, and of course the
> >> dummy is named such because he is certainly not supposed to ask a
> >> question like this.
> >>
> >> I waited till after the hand was over; then called director, who duly
> >> admonished the dummy, and I put a recorder slip in, so there is a
> >> record of this.  No further action was taken.
> >>
> >> As to the answer being inadequate, or vague, that is in fact our
> >> agreement; we don't woodenly lead 2d highest without queen.  Sometimes
> >> first, second or third, depending on many factors, including
> >> readabillity, etc.; hence higher otherwise.
> >
> >That it may be your agreement doesn't make the explanation any less
> >inadequate and vague.
> >
> >It's also a bit surprising that the side which has no difficulty
> >getting "pretty ticked off" about the  pro's technical infraction
> >apparently (given the last post) remains quite unconcerned about the
> >*substantive* harm caused by their own unsatisfactory disclosure.
>
> What substantive harm? For an initial explanation, it seems
> reasonable. It invites a followup question, maybe it could stand to
> have "based on what seems appropriate" added, but I'm not seeing
> substantive harm.

Declarer was entitled to an explanation that was of some practical
assistance. The answer provided had none. Declarer (particularly a
client) should not have had to cross-examine his ooponent in order to
obtain information that should have been volunteered immediately.

> Dummy's question, however, was way out of line.

The pro was trying to get back to even in a situation where his side
was put at a disadvantage because the defenders were not satisfying
elementary obligations of disclosure.

> The people in the novice game know that dummy is supposed to stay out of things.

In the novice game they make a proper effort to meaningfully answer the
questions put to them.

And the novice game players also know better than to whine for the
director when their own failure to disclose provokes the dummy rather
than declarer to ask for information that should have been provided in
the first place.

>
> >From where I sit, the pro's side deserved a parking ticket while the
> >side that self-righteously cried "foul" deserved demerit points.
>
> Fortunately, where you sit isn't at the director's table.

Fortunately, national directors are able to keep the equitable
big-picture in mind and don't lose sight of the forest for the trees.
They appreciate that pairs who fail to satisfy their disclosure
obligations are ill-advised to then claim foul for a technical breach
that was provoked by their own misconduct.

Cheers.

Nick

pumpkin_644@hotmail.com wrote:

> > As to the answer being inadequate, or vague, that is in fact our
> > agreement; we don't woodenly lead 2d highest without queen.  Sometimes
> > first, second or third, depending on many factors, including
> > readabillity, etc.; hence higher otherwise.
>
> That it may be your agreement doesn't make the explanation any less
> inadequate and vague.

Oh, for pity's sake, what do you want?  A computerized list of every
possible hand and what he would lead from it?  I think the original
explanation was entirely accurate; and assuming that the opening leader
is a real bridge player who thinks about what they want to accomplish
with their lead, rather than a computer who has some sort of
mechanistic set of rules about what to lead, the only possible answers
will include some degree of vagueness.

                                   -- Adam

dannysprung@aol.com wrote:
> "That it may be your agreement doesn't make the explanation any less
> inadequate and vague. "
>
>
> Julian answers this well, but as we have no rule, we use or judgement,
> it would be impossible to further clarify beyond what I said.

You are confirming my belief that we have a *completely* different
appreciation of the extent to which you are obliged to provide your
opponents with meaningful explanations of your agreements. I cheerfully
expect that a national director and/or experienced appeal committee
would laugh you out of the room were you to maintain this position
before them.
>
>
> It's also a bit surprising that the side which has no difficulty
> getting "pretty ticked off" about the  pro's technical infraction
>

> I don't consider that a 'technical infraction'; it is an obvious
> blatant violation of the rules.

I'm surprised at your reluctance to appreciate the equities of the
situation. Do you really not understand the extent to which your side's
conduct triggered the pro's mis-step? Do you really not see that as a
matter of practical consequence he simply put his side back to where it
would have been had your side made a serious effort at satisfying your
disclosure obligations?

> If my explanation was inadequate, and
> the dummy felt his side was injured, he lost no rights; he can
> certainly call the director the moment play ceases.

And there are those who wonder why the game has become increasingly
litigious.

Instead of suggesting that the problem could have been resolved with
more director calls and committees why not simply acknowledge that the
entire incident would have been avoided had your side made a proper
effort at disclosure without having to be cross-examined.

Cheers.

Nick

Adam Beneschan wrote:
> pumpkin_644@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > As to the answer being inadequate, or vague, that is in fact our
> > > agreement; we don't woodenly lead 2d highest without queen.  Sometimes
> > > first, second or third, depending on many factors, including
> > > readabillity, etc.; hence higher otherwise.
> >
> > That it may be your agreement doesn't make the explanation any less
> > inadequate and vague.
>
> Oh, for pity's sake, what do you want?  A computerized list of every
> possible hand and what he would lead from it?  I think the original
> explanation was entirely accurate; and assuming that the opening leader
> is a real bridge player who thinks about what they want to accomplish
> with their lead, rather than a computer who has some sort of
> mechanistic set of rules about what to lead, the only possible answers
> will include some degree of vagueness.
>
>                                    -- Adam

I suggest you read Andrew's post as to why the explanation was
unsatisfactory.

Cheers.

Nick

pumpkin_644@hotmail.com wrote:

> I suggest you read Andrew's post as to why the explanation was
> unsatisfactory.

Done that.  I also read Everett's response.  I think Everett is correct
here.  A simple "What are your lead agreements" question should not
require a detailed explanation about every factor that may go into
selecting a lead on a particular hand.

                  -- Adam

Adam Beneschan wrote:
> pumpkin_644@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > I suggest you read Andrew's post as to why the explanation was
> > unsatisfactory.
>
> Done that.  I also read Everett's response.  I think Everett is correct
> here.  A simple "What are your lead agreements" question should not
> require a detailed explanation about every factor that may go into
> selecting a lead on a particular hand.
>
>                   -- Adam

I quite agree.

I'm sure you will agree that there's a happy medium between asking for
too much and giving nothing of substance.

I share Andrew's view that the OP's answer amounted to 'we lead as we
best see fit.'

That was unsatisfactory and I firmly believe that a competent director
and/or commmitee would have given short shrift to the OP had he
insisted that his opponents were not entitled to a more complete
explanation.

Cheers.

Nick

<pumpkin_644@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133311292.812407.283240@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> dannysprung@aol.com wrote:
>> "That it may be your agreement doesn't make the explanation any less
>> inadequate and vague. "
>>
>>
>> Julian answers this well, but as we have no rule, we use or judgement,
>> it would be impossible to further clarify beyond what I said.
>
> You are confirming my belief that we have a *completely* different
> appreciation of the extent to which you are obliged to provide your
> opponents with meaningful explanations of your agreements. I cheerfully
> expect that a national director and/or experienced appeal committee
> would laugh you out of the room were you to maintain this position
> before them.
>>
>>
>> It's also a bit surprising that the side which has no difficulty
>> getting "pretty ticked off" about the  pro's technical infraction
>>
>
>> I don't consider that a 'technical infraction'; it is an obvious
>> blatant violation of the rules.
>
> I'm surprised at your reluctance to appreciate the equities of the
> situation. Do you really not understand the extent to which your side's
> conduct triggered the pro's mis-step? Do you really not see that as a
> matter of practical consequence he simply put his side back to where it
> would have been had your side made a serious effort at satisfying your
> disclosure obligations?

Whatever you say, dummy is guilty of infraction when he participates in the
discussion.
There is no evidence that the declarer himself was not going to ask
clarifying questions if he needed to ask them. Dummy must be silent.

I don't understand where this urge is originating, to defend a player who
violated the laws.



>
>> If my explanation was inadequate, and
>> the dummy felt his side was injured, he lost no rights; he can
>> certainly call the director the moment play ceases.
>
> And there are those who wonder why the game has become increasingly
> litigious.
>
> Instead of suggesting that the problem could have been resolved with
> more director calls and committees why not simply acknowledge that the
> entire incident would have been avoided had your side made a proper
> effort at disclosure without having to be cross-examined.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Nick
>

pumpkin_644@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> I'm sure you will agree that there's a happy medium between asking for
> too much and giving nothing of substance.
>
> I share Andrew's view that the OP's answer amounted to 'we lead as we
> best see fit.'

Are you reading the same post I was?  The original poster said his
response was, "we lead 4th best from holdings including the queen or
higher, higher otherwise.  Sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d best without
one of the top 3."  That's a *heck* of a lot more than I'd expect when
I ask.  I don't generally expect more than being told whether their
spot leads against notrump are 4th best, 3rd/5th, or attitude; and
that's enough information for me.  My general bridge knowledge tells me
that most players aren't rigid about it and may lead a higher spot from
a suit they don't want to show enthusiasm for.

But I don't see at all how the OP's answer is equivalent to "we lead as
we best see fit" or "nothing of substance".  There was plenty of
substance there, especially considering the question was a standard
boilerplate question that didn't ask for anything specific.

                            -- Adam

dannysprung@aol.com wrote:
> "That it may be your agreement doesn't make the explanation any less
> inadequate and vague. "
>
>
> Julian answers this well, but as we have no rule, we use or judgement,
> it would be impossible to further clarify beyond what I said.

If you think about it, I am sure it is possible to clarify what you
said. I bet you can identify the principles that drive your judgment.
For example, if you play a homegrown variant on attitude leads, you
could say, "When we don't have a top honor, our spot cards suggest our
attitude in the suit led, higher cards suggesting a shift."


Andrew

well said!

<axman22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133282008.535327.226810@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Charles Brenner wrote:
> > Anton van Uitert wrote:
> > > I don't know about professionalism in ACBL land. I'd say pro's are
people
> > > who make mistakes.
> > >
> > > A question is at the tip of the tongue and it incidentally rolls out.
A
> > > mistake, so what. Tell the man, call the director or make a joke about
it --
> > > whatever. No harm to the game in this case. Imo severe treatment is in
> > > order, only when the (wo)man has a history of bullying and
intimidation and
> > > this fits in. Or does being a pro imply such history? That would be a
sad
> > > thing.
> >
> > A while back -- maybe the 1965 San Francisco Nationals -- I jumped on a
> > pro named Joe Jabon for asking a question to aid his client. I thought
> > then and still do that it was no accident on his part. Nonetheless that
> > doesn't make him a bad guy, the effect he was going for wasn't an
> > unfair advantage, and I regret that I didn't react in a more friendly
> > fashion.
> >
> > Charles
>
> A psychologist gathered a hundred people.  Told them to not think of a
> white bear- but should a white bear enter their thoughts they are to
> immediately push the feed back button.  Within thirty seconds nearly
> all had pushed the button.  Conclusion: the power of suggestion is very
> strong.
>
> And that is what happens when the unnecessary question about   a lead
> occurs.  It prompts the player to employ knowledge of 27 cards plus the
> bidding  to figure out which holding partner is leading and hopefully
> reveal it by some mannerism; or, the question may even be a  direct
> communication to partner.  If nothing else it delays the game by having
> more information to process.  But importantly, it being a forbidden act
> of a dummy it is an act of abuse and intimidation.  If no TD is called
> the wrong is not righted.  If the TD is called the victim feels guilty
> for being petty.  If he responds with indignation he is going to play
> badly for some number of boards.  The asker gains almost always.  At a
> minimum the player should be warned with a reduction in score.  In this
> case the pro should be assessed a huge PP.
>
> ps   ACBL TDs are quite inept in handling ethical lapses so there is
> something to be said for letting it slide as a cost of doing business.
>
> regards
> axman
>

raija d wrote:
> <pumpkin_644@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1133311292.812407.283240@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > dannysprung@aol.com wrote:
> >> "That it may be your agreement doesn't make the explanation any less
> >> inadequate and vague. "
> >>
> >>
> >> Julian answers this well, but as we have no rule, we use or judgement,
> >> it would be impossible to further clarify beyond what I said.
> >
> > You are confirming my belief that we have a *completely* different
> > appreciation of the extent to which you are obliged to provide your
> > opponents with meaningful explanations of your agreements. I cheerfully
> > expect that a national director and/or experienced appeal committee
> > would laugh you out of the room were you to maintain this position
> > before them.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's also a bit surprising that the side which has no difficulty
> >> getting "pretty ticked off" about the  pro's technical infraction
> >>
> >
> >> I don't consider that a 'technical infraction'; it is an obvious
> >> blatant violation of the rules.
> >
> > I'm surprised at your reluctance to appreciate the equities of the
> > situation. Do you really not understand the extent to which your side's
> > conduct triggered the pro's mis-step? Do you really not see that as a
> > matter of practical consequence he simply put his side back to where it
> > would have been had your side made a serious effort at satisfying your
> > disclosure obligations?
>
> Whatever you say, dummy is guilty of infraction when he participates in the
> discussion.
> There is no evidence that the declarer himself was not going to ask
> clarifying questions if he needed to ask them. Dummy must be silent.
>
> I don't understand where this urge is originating, to defend a player who
> violated the laws.

I'm afraid you have misunderstood my posts. I am fully aware that the
pro breached the Law.

I am suggesting that when one considers the bigger picture, and
appreciates the equities of the incident, the pro's conduct takes a
back-seat to that of the side that subsequently saw fit to indignantly
call the director.

I am suggesting that the OP realize, as Charles has stated he belatedly
realized after taking Joe Jabon to task in similar circumstances, that
the pro was not seeking an "unfair advantage".

I am suggesting that the pro was trying to get back to even in
circumstances in which the OP's failure to provide adequate disclosure
had put his side at a disadvantage. As Barry has pointed out, the OP's
obligation was considerably greater than he believed then and, judging
from his replies, believes now.

I am suggesting that the OP's perspective on this incident provides
insight into why bridge has become an overly litigious activity that
impedes its growth.

Cheers.

Nick

Julian Lighton wrote:
> In article <1133277042.896058.35610@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> pumpkin_644@hotmail.com <pumpkin_644@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >dannysprung@aol.com wrote:
> >> Thanks for all of your answers, which seem to run the gamut from no
> >> harm to 'make sure this doesn't happen again'.
> >>
> >> Needless to say, I was pretty ticked about it.  A player is not
> >> supposed to ask a question for his parnter's benefit, and of course the
> >> dummy is named such because he is certainly not supposed to ask a
> >> question like this.
> >>
> >> I waited till after the hand was over; then called director, who duly
> >> admonished the dummy, and I put a recorder slip in, so there is a
> >> record of this.  No further action was taken.
> >>
> >> As to the answer being inadequate, or vague, that is in fact our
> >> agreement; we don't woodenly lead 2d highest without queen.  Sometimes
> >> first, second or third, depending on many factors, including
> >> readabillity, etc.; hence higher otherwise.
> >
> >That it may be your agreement doesn't make the explanation any less
> >inadequate and vague.
> >
> >It's also a bit surprising that the side which has no difficulty
> >getting "pretty ticked off" about the  pro's technical infraction
> >apparently (given the last post) remains quite unconcerned about the
> >*substantive* harm caused by their own unsatisfactory disclosure.
>
> What substantive harm?

"Substantive" is an overbid. But the Pro's side could at least
potentially suffer harm. In contrast, the defenders suffered no harm as
a result of the pro's petty rules violation.


> For an initial explanation, it seems
> reasonable. It invites a followup question, maybe it could stand to
> have "based on what seems appropriate" added, but I'm not seeing
> substantive harm.

Let's assume that the primary driver of the choice of spots is leader's
attitude in the suit led. As declarer, I'd like to know that fact--it
affects inferences about the location of outside high cards. If today
my opponent led small from xxx because his outside holdings were weak
and he did not want to encourage a shift, diagnosing that fact is part
of the game and more power to him for making an intelligent choice. I
promise I won't scream foul.


> Dummy's question, however, was way out of line. The people in the
> novice game know that dummy is supposed to stay out of things.

Yes it was out of line but what harm did it cause? Since the answer was
"none" why not ignore the affront, answer the question and play bridge?
Is it so hard to measure the cost of making a fuss against the benefit
before making the fuss?


Andrew

Everett M. Greene wrote:
> agumperz@gmail.com writes:
> [snip]
> > OP states that sometimes they lead 1st, 2nd or 3rd best from a suit
> > that does not include a top honor. This explanation is either vague,
> > because it does not explain how the spot card is chosen, or it implies
> > the spot card is chosen based on whim and therefore communicates no
> > information.
> >
> > It seems more likely that when leading from a suit lacking a top honor,
> > the spot led is chosen to reflect the leader's attitude without
> > jeopardizing a spot position. For example, from T642, I'd guess the
> > lead would normally be the 6, while from T852 the lead is probably the
> > 5, unless the Leader felt very certain he wanted the suit returned, in
> > which case he would lead the 2. If my conjecture is correct, then this
> > fact should have been included in the explanation.
>
> You want an entire encyclopedia of opening lead theory recited
> for a query at the table?

No. I want the simple statement that is probably true: "Without an
honor we tend to lead attitude."

Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Anton van Uitert skrev:
>
> > A question is at the tip of the tongue and it incidentally rolls out.
>
> A football player may accidentally trip his opponents. No referee
> wil make do with a kind reminder. A penalty kick is pure routine.
> If it was done by a professional on purpose, he gets a yellow
> card.

Bad analogy. Tripping an opponent clearly causes harm, and hence should
not be overlooked. In this case, the harm suffered by the defenders is
far less easily established.


Andrew

Adam Beneschan wrote:
> pumpkin_644@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I'm sure you will agree that there's a happy medium between asking for
> > too much and giving nothing of substance.
> >
> > I share Andrew's view that the OP's answer amounted to 'we lead as we
> > best see fit.'
>
> Are you reading the same post I was?  The original poster said his
> response was, "we lead 4th best from holdings including the queen or
> higher, higher otherwise.  Sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d best without
> one of the top 3."  That's a *heck* of a lot more than I'd expect when
> I ask.

I prefer not to confuse volume for substance. In my book the answer
"Sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d best without one of the top 3" does
not fall into latter category.

I don't generally expect more than being told whether their
> spot leads against notrump are 4th best, 3rd/5th, or attitude; and
> that's enough information for me.  My general bridge knowledge tells me
> that most players aren't rigid about it and may lead a higher spot from
> a suit they don't want to show enthusiasm for.

>  But I don't see at all how the OP's answer is equivalent to "we lead as
> we best see fit" or "nothing of substance".

Read it again: "sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d best without one of the
top 3."

If you believe that to be complete then you believe that experienced
partnerships tend to have opening leader's whim determine which of the
three options given is ultimately selected. I don't happen to share
that belief.

>There was plenty of
> substance there, especially considering the question was a standard
> boilerplate question that didn't ask for anything specific.

You seem to ascribe to the cross-examination theory of disclosure. I
suggest you read Barry's post as to the manner in which disclosure
obligations should be fulfilled


Cheers.

Nick

<pumpkin_644@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133323735.412303.157810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Adam Beneschan wrote:
>> pumpkin_644@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm sure you will agree that there's a happy medium between asking for
>> > too much and giving nothing of substance.
>> >
>> > I share Andrew's view that the OP's answer amounted to 'we lead as we
>> > best see fit.'
>>
>> Are you reading the same post I was?  The original poster said his
>> response was, "we lead 4th best from holdings including the queen or
>> higher, higher otherwise.  Sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d best without
>> one of the top 3."  That's a *heck* of a lot more than I'd expect when
>> I ask.
>
> I prefer not to confuse volume for substance. In my book the answer
> "Sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d best without one of the top 3" does
> not fall into latter category.
>
> I don't generally expect more than being told whether their
>> spot leads against notrump are 4th best, 3rd/5th, or attitude; and
>> that's enough information for me.  My general bridge knowledge tells me
>> that most players aren't rigid about it and may lead a higher spot from
>> a suit they don't want to show enthusiasm for.
>
>>  But I don't see at all how the OP's answer is equivalent to "we lead as
>> we best see fit" or "nothing of substance".
>
> Read it again: "sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d best without one of the
> top 3."
>
> If you believe that to be complete then you believe that experienced
> partnerships tend to have opening leader's whim determine which of the
> three options given is ultimately selected. I don't happen to share
> that belief.
>
>>There was plenty of
>> substance there, especially considering the question was a standard
>> boilerplate question that didn't ask for anything specific.
>
> You seem to ascribe to the cross-examination theory of disclosure. I
> suggest you read Barry's post as to the manner in which disclosure
> obligations should be fulfilled
>
>
> Cheers.
>
> Nick

No matter how this is turned over and kneaded, there is no justification for
dummy's actions.
Even if one WERE to agree the explanation was not complete, two wrongs do
not make right.

raija d wrote:
> <pumpkin_644@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1133323735.412303.157810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Adam Beneschan wrote:
> >> pumpkin_644@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I'm sure you will agree that there's a happy medium between asking for
> >> > too much and giving nothing of substance.
> >> >
> >> > I share Andrew's view that the OP's answer amounted to 'we lead as we
> >> > best see fit.'
> >>
> >> Are you reading the same post I was?  The original poster said his
> >> response was, "we lead 4th best from holdings including the queen or
> >> higher, higher otherwise.  Sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d best without
> >> one of the top 3."  That's a *heck* of a lot more than I'd expect when
> >> I ask.
> >
> > I prefer not to confuse volume for substance. In my book the answer
> > "Sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d best without one of the top 3" does
> > not fall into latter category.
> >
> > I don't generally expect more than being told whether their
> >> spot leads against notrump are 4th best, 3rd/5th, or attitude; and
> >> that's enough information for me.  My general bridge knowledge tells me
> >> that most players aren't rigid about it and may lead a higher spot from
> >> a suit they don't want to show enthusiasm for.
> >
> >>  But I don't see at all how the OP's answer is equivalent to "we lead as
> >> we best see fit" or "nothing of substance".
> >
> > Read it again: "sometimes we lead 1st, 2d or 3d best without one of the
> > top 3."
> >
> > If you believe that to be complete then you believe that experienced
> > partnerships tend to have opening leader's whim determine which of the
> > three options given is ultimately selected. I don't happen to share
> > that belief.
> >
> >>There was plenty of
> >> substance there, especially considering the question was a standard
> >> boilerplate question that didn't ask for anything specific.
> >
> > You seem to ascribe to the cross-examination theory of disclosure. I
> > suggest you read Barry's post as to the manner in which disclosure
> > obligations should be fulfilled
> >
> >
> > Cheers.
> >
> > Nick
>
> No matter how this is turned over and kneaded, there is no justification for
> dummy's actions.
> Even if one WERE to agree the explanation was not complete, two wrongs do
> not make right.

I'm afraid that we're working at cross-purposes. The point of my posts
is to try and put the actions of the respective sides in perspective.

Cheers.

Nick

In article <438c6a66.0@entanet>,
 "Ian Payn" <Ian.Payn@CharterChambers.com> wrote:

> "krallison" <krallison@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1133274456.777976.92180@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >> A player is not
> > supposed to ask a question for his parnter's benefit, <<
> >
> > I'm not sure if my response to this comment got through.
> >
> > That was not the opinion of the late Edgar Kaplan (although he would
> > agree that Dummy should NOT be asking), and he often asked system
> > questions to clarify for his partner, Norman Kay.
>
> ++++I don't really think that's really on. Opponents system is, of course,
> supposed to be an open book, but the onus is on each individual player to
> make sure they avail themselves of disclosure.

Actually, ACBL regulations say that the onus is on the responder to give
a full answer to a question, including answering the implied questions
that aren't asked explicitly.

So I think one way to view this incident is that the pro was just
prompting the opponent to fulfill his requirement.

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA

In article <1133277042.896058.35610@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
pumpkin_644@hotmail.com <pumpkin_644@hotmail.com> wrote:
>dannysprung@aol.com wrote:
>> Thanks for all of your answers, which seem to run the gamut from no
>> harm to 'make sure this doesn't happen again'.
>>
>> Needless to say, I was pretty ticked about it.  A player is not
>> supposed to ask a question for his parnter's benefit, and of course the
>> dummy is named such because he is certainly not supposed to ask a
>> question like this.
>>
>> I waited till after the hand was over; then called director, who duly
>> admonished the dummy, and I put a recorder slip in, so there is a
>> record of this.  No further action was taken.
>>
>> As to the answer being inadequate, or vague, that is in fact our
>> agreement; we don't woodenly lead 2d highest without queen.  Sometimes
>> first, second or third, depending on many factors, including
>> readabillity, etc.; hence higher otherwise.
>
>That it may be your agreement doesn't make the explanation any less
>inadequate and vague.
>
>It's also a bit surprising that the side which has no difficulty
>getting "pretty ticked off" about the  pro's technical infraction
>apparently (given the last post) remains quite unconcerned about the
>*substantive* harm caused by their own unsatisfactory disclosure.

What substantive harm? For an initial explanation, it seems
reasonable. It invites a followup question, maybe it could stand to
have "based on what seems appropriate" added, but I'm not seeing
substantive harm.

Dummy's question, however, was way out of line. The people in the
novice game know that dummy is supposed to stay out of things.

>From where I sit, the pro's side deserved a parking ticket while the
>side that self-righteously cried "foul" deserved demerit points.

Fortunately, where you sit isn't at the director's table.
--
Julian Lighton   jl8e@fragment.com
/* You are not expected to understand this. */

<pumpkin_644@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133315481.172551.280650@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Adam Beneschan wrote:
>> pumpkin_644@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > I suggest you read Andrew's post as to why the explanation was
>> > unsatisfactory.
>>
>> Done that.  I also read Everett's response.  I think Everett is correct
>> here.  A simple "What are your lead agreements" question should not
>> require a detailed explanation about every factor that may go into
>> selecting a lead on a particular hand.
>>
>>                   -- Adam
>
> I quite agree.
>
> I'm sure you will agree that there's a happy medium between asking for
> too much and giving nothing of substance.
>
>
In your judgement!  The pro knew better and had other ways to correct lack
of disclosure after the hand.  The disclosure that was given was completely
adequate!

"pumpkin_644@hotmail.com" <pumpkin_644@hotmail.com> writes:
> Adam Beneschan wrote:
> > pumpkin_644@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > I suggest you read Andrew's post as to why the explanation was
> > > unsatisfactory.
> >
> > Done that.  I also read Everett's response.  I think Everett is correct
> > here.  A simple "What are your lead agreements" question should not
> > require a detailed explanation about every factor that may go into
> > selecting a lead on a particular hand.
>
> I quite agree.
>
> I'm sure you will agree that there's a happy medium between asking for
> too much and giving nothing of substance.
>
> I share Andrew's view that the OP's answer amounted to 'we lead as we
> best see fit.'
>
> That was unsatisfactory

Why?  If that's the partnership's agreement, that is the
correct answer.  You are required to reveal agreements,
not speculate on what you surmise partner is doing.

> and I firmly believe that a competent director
> and/or commmitee would have given short shrift to the OP had he
> insisted that his opponents were not entitled to a more complete
> explanation.

Marcia Masterson wrote:
> <pumpkin_644@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1133315481.172551.280650@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Adam Beneschan wrote:
> >> pumpkin_644@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > I suggest you read Andrew's post as to why the explanation was
> >> > unsatisfactory.
> >>
> >> Done that.  I also read Everett's response.  I think Everett is correct
> >> here.  A simple "What are your lead agreements" question should not
> >> require a detailed explanation about every factor that may go into
> >> selecting a lead on a particular hand.
> >>
> >>                   -- Adam
> >
> > I quite agree.
> >
> > I'm sure you will agree that there's a happy medium between asking for
> > too much and giving nothing of substance.
> >
> >
> In your judgement!  The pro knew better and had other ways to correct lack
> of disclosure after the hand.  The disclosure that was given was completely
> adequate!

Ummm.....I think the we're losing sight of the forest for the trees.
The point is to try and avoid the needless litigious activity that
increasingly threatens the game.

Cheers.

Nick

Gordon Rainsford wrote:
> pumpkin_644@hotmail.com <pumpkin_644@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Declarer (particularly a
> > client) should not have had to cross-examine ...
>
> Since when does being a client give you extra priveleges?

I suggest you read Barry's post as to the manner in which disclosure is
required to be effected on this side of the pond. The defenders were
*obliged* to *volunteer* that which you perceive to be a privilege.

Cheers.

Nick

Everett M. Greene wrote:
> "pumpkin_644@hotmail.com" <pumpkin_644@hotmail.com> writes:
> > Adam Beneschan wrote:
> > > pumpkin_644@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > I suggest you read Andrew's post as to why the explanation was
> > > > unsatisfactory.
> > >
> > > Done that.  I also read Everett's response.  I think Everett is correct
> > > here.  A simple "What are your lead agreements" question should not
> > > require a detailed explanation about every factor that may go into
> > > selecting a lead on a particular hand.
> >
> > I quite agree.
> >
> > I'm sure you will agree that there's a happy medium between asking for
> > too much and giving nothing of substance.
> >
> > I share Andrew's view that the OP's answer amounted to 'we lead as we
> > best see fit.'
> >
> > That was unsatisfactory
>
> Why?  If that's the partnership's agreement, that is the
> correct answer.  You are required to reveal agreements,
> not speculate on what you surmise partner is doing.

I suggest you read Andrew's further posts on the nature of the OP's
agreements.

Cheers.

Nick

In article <FYhjf.2195$4v.1435@fed1read03>,
 "Marcia Masterson" <mmasterson4@cox.net> wrote:

> In your judgement!  The pro knew better and had other ways to correct lack
> of disclosure after the hand.  The disclosure that was given was completely
> adequate!

Ugh!  Trying to resolve a "what if" question when calling the TD after
the hand is over is likely to cause much more trouble.

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA

Everett M. Greene wrote:
> "pumpkin_644@hotmail.com" <pumpkin_644@hotmail.com> writes:
> > Adam Beneschan wrote:
> > > pumpkin_644@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > I suggest you read Andrew's post as to why the explanation was
> > > > unsatisfactory.
> > >
> > > Done that.  I also read Everett's response.  I think Everett is correct
> > > here.  A simple "What are your lead agreements" question should not
> > > require a detailed explanation about every factor that may go into
> > > selecting a lead on a particular hand.
> >
> > I quite agree.
> >
> > I'm sure you will agree that there's a happy medium between asking for
> > too much and giving nothing of substance.
> >
> > I share Andrew's view that the OP's answer amounted to 'we lead as we
> > best see fit.'
> >
> > That was unsatisfactory
>
> Why?  If that's the partnership's agreement, that is the
> correct answer.

Because it is not the correct answer. No pairs who play at Danny's
level choose their leads at random.


> You are required to reveal agreements,
> not speculate on what you surmise partner is doing.

This counter argument is a red herring. The opening leader is not being
asked to speculate on his partner's or his own actions. He is being
asked to explain concisely why he chooses a spot.


Andrew

pumpkin_644@hotmail.com <pumpkin_644@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Declarer (particularly a
> client) should not have had to cross-examine ...

Since when does being a client give you extra priveleges?


--
Gordon Rainsford
London

"Charles Brenner" <cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:1133264224.506140.45080@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Anton van Uitert wrote:
> > I don't know about professionalism in ACBL land. I'd say pro's are
people
> > who make mistakes.
> >
> > A question is at the tip of the tongue and it incidentally rolls out. A
> > mistake, so what. Tell the man, call the director or make a joke about
it --
> > whatever. No harm to the game in this case. Imo severe treatment is in
> > order, only when the (wo)man has a history of bullying and intimidation
and
> > this fits in. Or does being a pro imply such history? That would be a
sad
> > thing.
>
> A while back -- maybe the 1965 San Francisco Nationals -- I jumped on a
> pro named Joe Jabon for asking a question to aid his client. I thought
> then and still do that it was no accident on his part. Nonetheless that
> doesn't make him a bad guy, the effect he was going for wasn't an
> unfair advantage, and I regret that I didn't react in a more friendly
> fashion.
>
> Charles
>

Edgar Kaplan wrote about an incident in which he asked numerous questions to
aid his partner (one Norman Kay), since Kaplan knew the opponents' system
very well and Kay didn't, so Kaplan knew which questions to ask. Against
pairs whose disclosure is less than satisfactory it can be necessary. The
same situation occurs frequently with professionals, since they probably
know the opponents' system better than they do themselves, but need to make
sure that their partner is up to speed. I think there was something against
this in some old versions of the laws, but it's long been gone.

Tiggrr