Re: Ethics question

On Jun 26, 1:53 pm, Alan Malloy <alan.NO.S...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6/26/2008 1:29 PM, Andrew wrote:



On Jun 24, 12:42 pm, Alan Malloy <alan.NO.S...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6/24/2008 12:10 PM, raija d wrote:

"Nick France" <gandal...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:a6c3bebf-7bac-44e1-ac61-9cf48b5b2467@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 24, 12:08 am, "raija d" <musti...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Nick France" <gandal...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0ae317dc-6bf0-40f8-87f4-9cdc99b04115@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 22, 2:50 pm,Andrew<agump...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 21, 7:25 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <692r54to1qn6i7t348c4995vba9j6e0...@xxxxxxx>,
OldPalooka <ashut...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Then you don't disagree. Obviously you are entitled to know whether
the opps lead ambiguous king to understand 3d hand's play. "Leads
and
signals please?" gets the job done without giving scope to jump to
the
wrong conclusion. There is no valid bridge reason to ask a question
which you know could create a false inference when there is an
equivalent question which could not.
The problem is that a general question like "Leads and signals" often
receives a general answer like "standard leads, upside-down count and
attitude". As a result, you frequently have to press for more specific
information by asking about King leads.
Why? In the US, the term "standard leads" includes the information you
are looking for.
Not really. Both those that lead Ace from AK and King from AK say
they lead standard. Against suit contract both those that lead 4th
best and those that lead 3/5 say they lead standard. In truth, they
aren't trying to fool you, since to them, what they do is standard.
Nick France
Aren't these sidetracks from OP question? Declarer held the ace of the
suit
that was led so he did not need to know whether they led the king or the
ace
from AK. For the hand at play, I don't really see what information about
leads there COULD be that declarer now needs. He already knows they didn't
lead from a suit headed by the AK so it cannot possibly matter what they
hypothetically would lead from that combination. Or can someone construct
a
valid bridge reason to ask the question in the given circumstances?
Raija- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I disagree. I want to know what the partner of the opener knows.
This may well be important to know and in any event it is information
I am entitled to. I don't want to deceive the opponents, just to
know what they know.
Nick France
If that is the case, you can ask a general question about leads. But
personally, I do not consider it a valid bridge reason to find out if RHO
knows what their partnership lead agreements are, PARTICULARLY in the OP
case. At least I am fairly certain that Nick or an ethical person would not
say "Do you lead the K or the A from AK" when holding the ace of the led
suit in his own hand.
Raija
You are missing the point. Nick does not want to know if RHO remembers
their agreements. He wants to know if RHO knows where the outstanding
card is. For example:

832
KQT5 76
AJ94

Suppose first that the defenders always lead A from AK. Now East knows
that his partner has KQ, and will not encourage. Nick might then choose
to falsecard with the 9 to encourage a continuation.

Now imagine that the defenders lead an ambiguous king. East does not
know whether his partner has AK or KQ, and might try encouraging in
order to get a ruff. Given that East may already be encouraging, Nick
might want to save his 9 to catch East's (hypothetical) 10 on a later
trick, in case West switches, or as a later threat card for a squeeze or
throw-in against West.

Now, I am no expert and the reasoning I used here may or may not be
tactically valid, but the point is that knowing what the defense knows
can affect your play, and you are entitled to that information. There is
nothing in the least unethical about this question.

There is nothing unethical about shouting "Fire!" either, but if you
do it in a crowded theater without cause the local police department
will probably reward you with a ticket.

Though you are welcome to ask a question at this point in the play,
the question must be carefully phrased. Your utterances will always be
interpreted by others in the context in which they are spoken. When a
king is led and you hold the ace, the primary defensive concern is
obviously the location of the ace in that suit. The opponents are very
likely to interpret your question ("what do you lead from AK") as an
implicit statement that you do not hold the Ace.

So either ask a neutral question that does not mislead, or better yet,
ask about their leads before a hand begins.

Andrew

This argument is perfectly valid, and I can understand if someone is
misled by the question, so declarer should be careful to avoid the
appearance of bad ethics in this situation. My previous post was mainly
to correct Raija, who seems to think that the only reason to ask what
their leads are is to deceive, when in fact there are plenty of valid
reasons to need this information.

Revisiting this discussion, though, has made me think of another
possibly-interesting point. The general instinctive premise seems to be
that, if declarer asks about K leads, then he must not know what
sequence LHO is leading from. If he has either the Q or the A, then he
has no reason to ask, because he knows which other honor LHO holds.
However, holding none of the relevant honors why would declarer care
whether the lead is from AK or KQ? It seems like regardless of
declarer's holding in the suit led, he never needs to know the defensive
lead agreements in place in order to decipher the lead: either he has
one of the missing honors himself and can figure it out, or he has none
and it doesn't matter.

So why do posters think that asking about leads implies non-possession
of any high honors, when having no honors will usually leave declarer
uninterested in lead agreements?

Usually, but not always. The location of the missing honors in the led
suit could help you place honors in other suits.


Andrew


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why lead K from AKx and KQx?
    ... in a suit he had bid at the 4 level. ... It used to be standard to lead king from either KQ+ or AK+ against ... clubs and no strong desire for any shift, do you encourage partner ... Many players have switched to Ace from AK+ which reduces the times ...
    (rec.games.bridge)
  • Re: Why lead K from AKx and KQx?
    ... in a suit he had bid at the 4 level. ... this "ambiguous ace"); generally, an ace lead, lacking the king, is ... Partner leads the king, and you hold Jxx against a suit contract. ...
    (rec.games.bridge)
  • Re: checking trump quality
    ... is just a jump in Responder's suit. ... My answers to this inquiry don't necessarily address your concern, ... has neither the Ace nor King of spades. ...
    (rec.games.bridge)
  • Re: Ethics question
    ... the opps lead ambiguous king to understand 3d hand's play. ... Both those that lead Ace from AK and King from AK say ... Against suit contract both those that lead 4th ... For the hand at play, I don't really see what information about ...
    (rec.games.bridge)
  • Re: Einsteins relativity, the postmodern patch to physics, must be neglected
    ... A patch always presupposes the existence of the object to be patched. ... This is the story of the King's new clothes: ... this is a magic suit." ... Naturally, the King not wanting to appear a fool, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)