[paulg]

Phil, on 2013-March-12, 07:12, said:

paulg, on 2013-March-12, 04:06, said:

I understand the sense of frustration but, in reality, the same might have happened if LHO had led fourth best.

No way I duck if LHO starts with the 5. The 7, at worst, is Q97.

It's true you may lose an immediate ruff, but the leader could also hold ♣52 and you've pitched a trick by not finessing? (depends on the hand of course)

[Zelandakh]

Phil, on 2013-March-12, 07:17, said:

Does an opponent have to explain this? There is a husband and wife that routinely psyches game tries. I auto lead the suit now but one time I asked her why she made the call and I got a dismissive, "because I chose to".

If they do it routinely then one of the club's TDs should politely explain to them that they have an implicit agreement to do this and it should be alerted and explained to the opponents. It is not really a psyche if partner expects it is it? And if someone had answered me in that way I would have retorted "And why did you choose to?" More than that, if a pair is routinely cheating, and giving MI in this way is either ignorance or cheating, then I see no reason not to involve the TD. If they continue to do the same once the TD has explained their responsibilities then we can rule out ignorance.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-March-10, 12:52, said:

20F2 is jolly good, but it isn't always just one player's action which is being explained; so Phil's thread has interest to me.

I'm not sure I understand your point. I posted Law 20F2 because it addresses the question of which defender should explain the defense's actions (the part I highlighted in red). I did not say or imply that this thread should not be of interest.

[blackshoe]

Phil, on 2013-March-11, 07:48, said:

I called the director who was adamant that either opponent can explain their lead agreements after the opening lead and that nothing was improper.

The director was wrong.