[OleBerg]

 gnasher, on 2015-October-27, 06:26, said:

Did the 5D bidder know that it was in the system notes? If so, why didn't he correct the explanation *before* the opening lead?

He had forgotten it at the time.

[helene_t]

I will buy it.

The player on lead has a rather strong hand so when opps bid slam he can expect his partner to be broke. Given the right explanation, he is hoping that ♣K will be the setting trick and his main concern is that declarer's clubs go away on dummy's diamonds. Since dummy may well be short of entries, a diamond lead is no good.

Without the right explanation, the diamond lead is still not great. Presumably both have shown something about diamonds. There are three possibilities:

- Both have length to an honour. Here, the diamond lead will likely blow a trick unless partner has the 10. Partner could have a void but in that case he might have made a lightner double.
- Dummy has shortness. Then a trump lead might be necesary.
- Declarer has shortness. If that is not a void then the diamond lead is ok.

So I think the wrong explanation makes the diamond lead somewhat less unattractive. The trump lead is probably still better (p might have Jxxx but it is unlikely), so maybe a split score would be right.

[Zelandakh]

 OleBerg, on 2015-October-27, 13:53, said:

He had forgotten it at the time.

Not too sure I buy this. He remembered it well enough to bid it and expect it to be understood but forgot again when it came to letting the opps in on the secret? Seems like a warning is in order at a low level, and something more for an experienced player.

As for the level of credit to be given from a self-serving statement, well very little for the statement itself I would say. Usually a player will be able to back up such a statement with reasoning though and that has greater weight, to be judged on a case-by-case basis. In the case of leading a suit known to be void, that would seem to be logical enough to give the statement considerable weight. The choice of a spade (rather than the heart ace for example) is a little more difficult. As of yet we have not really heard what reasoning the player has for that decision so I think we, as proxy TD, have a little more work to do before giving an answer.

[helene_t]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-October-28, 07:58, said:

Not too sure I buy this. He remembered it well enough to bid it and expect it to be understood but forgot again when it came to letting the opps in on the secret?

He made some kind of control bid in a suit that happened to be a void, but didn't remember that it showed specifically a void. That's ok I would think.

[Zelandakh]

 helene_t, on 2015-October-28, 08:04, said:

He made some kind of control bid in a suit that happened to be a void, but didn't remember that it showed specifically a void. That's ok I would think.

If this were the case he would have pointed it out before the OL, no?

[barmar]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-October-28, 08:54, said:

If this were the case he would have pointed it out before the OL, no?

Control-showing bids may not require alerting or volunteering explanations. It's not required in ACBL, for example.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2015-October-28, 09:23, said:

Control-showing bids may not require alerting or volunteering explanations. It's not required in ACBL, for example.

I would question that. The ACBL defines control bids — they are not "cue bids". Control bids are by the definition artificial. So they require an alert. Most such bids will, of course, fall into the "delayed alert" category, but that doesn't mean they don't require an alert.

Yes, I know that "nobody does that". So what? "Everybody" can't be wrong?

[Zelandakh]

It is irrelevant because "no agreement" was given as the explanation before the OL. Also, declarer meant 5♦ as Voidwood and not as some general control-showing bid. These points were established in post #13.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2015-October-28, 09:53, said:

I would question that. The ACBL defines control bids — they are not "cue bids". Control bids are by the definition artificial. So they require an alert. Most such bids will, of course, fall into the "delayed alert" category, but that doesn't mean they don't require an alert.

Yes, I know that "nobody does that". So what? "Everybody" can't be wrong?

I'll bet if you wrote to rulings@acbl.org and asked, they would also say that no alert is required.

Interestingly, I just checked the Alert Procedures. In the "Definitions" section they have a definition for Control Bid, but never actually refer to them anywhere else in the document.

I suppose you're basing your expectation that they're alertable on the section titled Almost all conventions must be Alerted.. This contains a list of exceptions (e.g. Stayman), but qualifies it with "include, but are not limited to". But if it's not limited to those conventions, how are we to know precisely what else is not alertable? I think tradition guides us -- no one, not even the most ethical and pedantic players, alerts control bids, hence they're among the common conventions that are not considered alertable.

It sure would be nice if we had a more detailed document like the EBU does. But given what we have in the ACBL Alert Procedures, we have to resort to intuition for many things.

[helene_t]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-October-28, 08:54, said:

If this were the case he would have pointed it out before the OL, no?

We are told that he meant it as voidvood but we are also told that he had forgotton at the time (i.e. before the opening lead). The story sounds inconsistent to me.

[Zelandakh]

 helene_t, on 2015-October-30, 09:54, said:

We are told that he meant it as voidvood but we are also told that he had forgotton at the time (i.e. before the opening lead). The story sounds inconsistent to me.

Exactly and this is what I was pointing out in #23 (the post that started this little sub-thread). We can only go on the facts as reported to us and if they are as stated I stand by the ruling of a warning/penalty.

I am also interested what the relationship of the OP is to the hand and what the real TD decided. I am guessing he was Opener and the TD ruled in favour of the defenders - am I right?

[OleBerg]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-October-30, 10:50, said:

Exactly and this is what I was pointing out in #23 (the post that started this little sub-thread). We can only go on the facts as reported to us and if they are as stated I stand by the ruling of a warning/penalty.

I am also interested what the relationship of the OP is to the hand and what the real TD decided. I am guessing he was Opener and the TD ruled in favour of the defenders - am I right?

The story of the hand is this: I was on lead, and dummy had given me the "no agreements" explanations and I had decided on the diamond lead. But before I led, declarer corrected and said that 5♦ was Voidwood. I then changed my lead to a spade. So all was well and fair at the table.

My reason for posting is, that I often feel that the non-offending side gets short-changed in these situations, that their claims is not given credit enough. And often this shortchanging is, directly or indirectly, based on the argument, that the actual chosen lead is not to smart anyway. (Which I guessed some might think of my initial choice to lead a diamond.)

And here I have a hand, where I have "evidence" that the correct explanation would change the lead. So I just wanted to hear some opinions.

Thx all for your contributions, and further replies are welcome, naturally.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2015-October-30, 09:33, said:

I'll bet if you wrote to rulings@acbl.org and asked, they would also say that no alert is required.

You're probably right - and they'd probably think it's "obvious".

 barmar, on 2015-October-30, 09:33, said:

It sure would be nice if we had a more detailed document like the EBU does. But given what we have in the ACBL Alert Procedures, we have to resort to intuition for many things.

I started out as a director in the same way people started out to be a lawyer up until a century or two ago: I read the laws (and the regulations). Sometimes they're ambiguous, sometimes they're perfectly clear. And sometimes they're perfectly clear, but it turns out they don't mean what they say, they mean something else entirely. IMO those latter two circumstances ought to be eradicated entirely. In my admittedly limited experience, the ACBL is the worst offender here, and seems the least willing to clean these things up. I find that deplorable.