[mjswinona]

West is declarer in a spade contract. South leads the Ace of clubs, out of turn at trick one. The director is called to the table and options are explained. West refuses a club lead. North leads a diamond, South picks up the club Ace and dummy is tabled, showing 4 clubs to the Queen. West wins the diamond lead in dummy and takes a losing spade finesse. North now plays the King of clubs from K,x, continues with a small club, won by partner's Ace and then ruffs the club return. The club King would never be led unless North knows partner holds the Ace. The director is called to the table and makes no adjustment. Is this the correct ruling?

[aguahombre]

"Deja Vu, all over again." Yogi Berra.

[ahydra]

Did anyone ask North why he led the CK, x? One shouldn't just assume "the CK will never be led" without evidence supporting it.

ahydra

[mjswinona]

ahydra, on 2014-September-12, 08:40, said:

Did anyone ask North why he led the CK, x? One shouldn't just assume "the CK will never be led" without evidence supporting it.

ahydra

The Queen of clubs is on the board. If West holds the club Ace, North gives up a trick by leading the King. The only reason to lead the King is to expect partner to hold the ace. Clubs were never mentioned during the auction.

[TylerE]

That's not enough to say it is the only reason. What if a ♣ ruff is the only possible way of beating the contract? Especially at IMPs you really really don't care about the overtrick when partner is broke so it may well be the only logical play. That's not to say I'm especially happy with N's actions, but I'm not going to shoot him without hearing him out first.

[mjswinona]

TylerE, on 2014-September-12, 09:05, said:

That's not enough to say it is the only reason. What if a ♣ ruff is the only possible way of beating the contract? Especially at IMPs you really really don't care about the overtrick when partner is broke so it may well be the only logical play. That's not to say I'm especially happy with N's actions, but I'm not going to shoot him without hearing him out first.

The issue here is that N has full knowledge partner has the ace. The game was mp.

[aguahombre]

http://www.bridgebas...__1#entry807945

does not apply here since in that case the lead out of turn was caused by the Declaring side.

Laws 50E 2 & 3 seem to govern this case. The knowledge that the Club Ace exists in partner's hand is UI to the defender, and there would have to be undisputed AI from the auction and play to the point in question that partner has the Club Ace --- with any doubt going to the Declaring side --- in order to allow the play as described in this thread.

IMO, the TD making this decision owes the NOS some elaboration about why he ruled the way he did. Did he give any?

[pran]

This thread should have been in "Simple rulings".

The only way North can convince anybody that his lead of ♣K was not suggested by the knowledge that South has ♣A would be if South during the auction has encouraged that lead.

[RMB1]

pran, on 2014-September-12, 10:28, said:

This thread should have been in "Simple rulings".

How can it be a simple ruling when the concensus is that the original TD got it wrong?

pran, on 2014-September-12, 10:28, said:

The only way North can convince anybody that his lead of ♣K was not suggested by the knowledge that South has ♣A would be if South during the auction has encouraged that lead.

North could convince me if a poll of his peers showed that almost all would play ♣K (without knowing about ♣A).

[lamford]

I think we need the full hand, the auction and the strength of the players.

[blackshoe]

What Paul said.

[mjswinona]

lamford, on 2014-September-12, 11:18, said:

I think we need the full hand, the auction and the strength of the players.

All non-vul. Dealer W. Auction: P,1H,X,2H,2S,all pass. North holds Axx, AQxxx, J10x, Kx. East holds QJxx, Kx, Axx, Q10xx. Experienced players.

[pran]

mjswinona, on 2014-September-13, 06:45, said:

All non-vul. Dealer W. Auction: P,1H,X,2H,2S,all pass. North holds Axx, AQxxx, J10x, Kx. East holds QJxx, Kx, Axx, Q10xx. Experienced players.

Honestly I see absolutely no reason other than UI why North should now lead a Club?

[lamford]

mjswinona, on 2014-September-13, 06:45, said:

All non-vul. Dealer W. Auction: P,1H,X,2H,2S,all pass. North holds Axx, AQxxx, J10x, Kx. East holds QJxx, Kx, Axx, Q10xx. Experienced players.

Let us create a sensible layout consistent with the auction where the king of clubs switch is clearly wrong, although I know this is not the layout as I have seen partner's ace of clubs! But I must pretend that I missed my appointment at Specsavers. Something like the following would be plausible:

---

We are not told the form of scoring, but on a layout something like the above, switching to the king of clubs costs an overtrick, so is definitely wrong at matchpoints, and takes advantage of the UI that partner has the ace of clubs. I would be minded to adjust therefore to best play without the king of clubs switch, erring if necessary in favour of the non-offenders. It sounds like 2S= is correct. I am sure I could construct layouts where the king of clubs switch costs the contract too. It looks like continuing diamonds is the normal continuation, and the one that does not take advantage of the UI.

[Bbradley62]

lamford, on 2014-September-13, 10:22, said:

We are not told the form of scoring...

mjswinona, on 2014-September-12, 09:15, said:

... The game was mp.

[aguahombre]

RMB1, on 2014-September-12, 10:49, said:

How can it be a simple ruling when the concensus is that the original TD got it wrong?

He simply got a simple ruling wrong .

[blackshoe]

Did the director mention that knowledge that South has the Ace is UI to North?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-13, 16:25, said:

Did the director mention that knowledge that South has the Ace is UI to North?

Good point. If not, then it would be director error, with a split score which can of course be unbalanced. OP stated "the options are explained", but that does not mean the UI was.

[mjswinona]

lamford, on 2014-September-13, 16:44, said:

Good point. If not, then it would be director error, with a split score which can of course be unbalanced. OP stated "the options are explained", but that does not mean the UI was.

Director did not mention UI. only that N could not lead a club until he lost the lead.

[lamford]

mjswinona, on 2014-September-14, 07:58, said:

Director did not mention UI. only that N could not lead a club until he lost the lead.

I know that directors in the UK are taught to explain the UI of a withdrawn card, but, on reflection, I do not think North gets redress for his use of UI because he was not told. Generally, ignorance of the Law is no defence, and I think was wrong to suggest director error. All we are doing in disallowing the king of clubs switch is to restore equity, so I think we can have the same score for both sides, which would be normal play without the king of clubs switch.