Ethics in the local club

[jcreech]

Sorry, this is more of a vent than an interesting problem.

A little background.  A few years back, there was a player who was suspected of less than ethical behavior.  The hands for the next game were being dealt by the director while another game was being played.  The player in question was also a director, and a few of us decided that he was studying the hands he was dealing that would be played in the next session.  The problem was solved by having the director deal the hands just before the game.

Fast forward, the player directs fewer games now, there are fewer open games, and management at the bridge center decided that the problem never truly existed.  He happened to direct the afternoon game and dealt last night's game.  I directed (and filled out the movement) for the night game, which he also played in.  The following hand came up against him:

Dlr:  S
Vul: None

                       ♠J75
                       ♥KJT62
                       ♦9
                      ♣AJT2

♠A2                                            ♠Q86
♥9854                                         ♥Q
♦AT753                                       ♦KQ864
♣73                                            ♣9654

                       ♠KT954
                       ♥A73
                       ♦J2
                       ♣KQ8

Auction:
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 ;
4 -  P -     P -    5 ;
P -      P -    5 -   P;
P -      P

The opening lead was the 9, when in with trump ace, out comes another high , to the ace, and a third . Pretty close to double dummy defense.

I thought the overcall was a bit frisky, but I have seen worse at the table.  Nonetheless, it did help identify the entry to his hand.  But where did the lead come from?  And when the lead pickled the Q, where did the continuation come from?  The suit was never bid.

If I held the West cards, I would either start the A or the 7.  I might start the because I have a trump entry to continue the suit, and hope for the ruff.  The A is more pedestrian, but once we got them to the five level, it may be good to make sure the trick gets cashed and see dummy.  A would be my last choice.

I now wish I had known early enough to replace the boards before play, but I am very suspicious of this result, and there are other results from last night's game than make me wonder if this player previewed the hands.

[kenberg]

The 2 bid would not occur to me, but of course that's me.  Moreover, if I were E and W overcalled 2 I would at least give some thought to jumping to 5 . But again that's me.

 As to the defense, on the auction he expects at most one trick in . So if he counts his two aces he has to ask himself where another trick is coming from.  The ruff is not exactly the key. If, say, dummy has the A and partner has the K then yes you can get your ruff for down 2 but down 1 is apt to be a good score so you just need to find a (cashable) K somewhere in pard's hand.  The "cashable" might lead a defender to favor a lead at T1. If declarer has a stiff, it's not likely to be in the suit that you have four of than the suit that you have two of. Added: Of course maybe we get no tricks and then I do need a ruff (speaking as W)

One more thing: At T2 presumably declarer, after winning T1 in hand,  went to the board with a to run the J. W takes his A and, at this point, I can imagine that he sees no future in so a follow-up is not crazy.

So: With these things I think history is crucial. There have been times on BBO (yes I saw this was at the club but the argument is similar) where I got a little suspicious of a pair after some odd bids or plays that remarkably worked. I would then go look at their history and find that they made a lot of odd bids and plays, most of which didn't work. The were simply odd but honest, and I just happened to be there when odd paid off. It happens.

I have always thought that if a dictionary writer wanted to illustrate the meaning of "pathetic", cheating at a club game or at online bridge would be a fine example. But it does happen. You want to be very cautious about any accusation, but keeping a record of hands played and then quietly and privately discussing this with the club owner could be right, depending on what the record shows.

[jcreech]

I ran a poll in BridgeWinners.  The A was the runaway choice (22 votes, 79%).  Next was the 7, with 4 votes.  A and 9 each got one vote.  So far no other leads have been selected.

BTW I was unhappy that anyone selected a lead on this hand until I saw a lead problem vs. 7NT.  On that hand, every card was selected by at least two players.  Based on that result, I am guessing that the player was trying to find the trick to the hand rather than selecting what they would do at the table.  I see that type of action all the time when a player approaches with a bid or lead question at the club; I try to answer honestly, but others try to figure out what works.

[OliverC]

On a practical level, why not have all of the hands dealt "at the table" on the opening round by the players themselves. Alternatively ensure that you have a non-playing TD. I ran a Bridge Club in the late 1970's and 1980's (Bury Athenaeum) and we would never have arranged things any other way. The hands were never pre-dealt and we always had a non-playing TD.


For the record, I'd not have found a Heart lead on this hand in a million years. 7 would be my choice every time.

[007 joosth]

I have seen defence that was far more 'strange'. For me the leadof the diamond ace is out. I don't like to lead unsupported aces.  OK, the 5 level may be an exception; however as long I have the trump ace it's not to big a risk that I wont make this anymore (I hope:))
I cant see a reason to lead the spade ace. I do see the risks however.
So I would lead a heart or a club. I think the doubleton lead is more dangerous when it's about giving a trick away. I difficult decision and I would probably lead a heart.  Sorry:)
A good East might have made a signal in the spade suit to show West that he liked the lead. Smith Echo?
Some people have a system.

[Curls77]

I know people can have all kind of agreements, but .. quote "The Smith Echo is a delayed attitude signal employed against no-trump contracts."
And if Qxx of trumps were "used" to show atitude towards opening lead is quite impressive, not even vugraph has such good show imho

[kenberg]

I might add a little to what I previously said They set the contract 2 tricks on their defense but, matchpoints or not, I would be concentrating on setting it 1 if possible. Generally this is a good idea, but very much so on this hand. Some pairs might be in 4S their way, some pairs might be in 5DX our way, so if the hand can be held to 10 tricks in spades the one thing I really don't want is for them to make 11 tricks when where is the third defensive trick? Forget the fourth, where is the third? Might partner have a stiff heart? It would mean that the opponents have an 8 card fit but we seem to have a lot of so that's not impossible. If partner has a trick coming he will probably get it. So I think a is not crazy. Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't, but not crazy.

So suppose I lead the 9. It goes 9-T-Q-A, I suppose. Of course declarer might put up the A at T1 but then the fall of the Q would clearly be stiff, and if declarer had played small from the board then also the Q would be a stiff since the 9 was already going to force declarer's A so why play the Q?

Ok, 9-T-Q-A, back to the board with a , perhaps the Q to the A, but the K is still known to be with declarer, and then a spade, probably the J,  losing to the A.

Now what? What I would not do is lead the 8. If this is not ruffed then all three on the board are good and even if declarer started with 5=2=3=3 shape he is making 6. He wins the on the board, picks up the , goes back to the board and tosses all of his .   The 4 would be a little better, declarer will surely hop up, and now, while in theory he has enough pitches the transportation gets a little tough so if he started with the 5=2=3=3 shape we probably still hold him to 11 tricks. But why risk it? Surely I just cash the top and lead another . As the cards lie, we set 1 trick. If the is not ruffed, he makes it.

So, matchpoints or not, I am not going after a 2 trick set.  As to some message via the trump suit, say on the lead E plays the 8, it could be from Q8. Or Q98. Even if we were playing some system, I would not be confident of what is being said, not so confident as to let it alter my play. When in with the A I cash the A and lead the 4. It gets ruffed or it doesn't. The we go on to the next hand.

Added: Pairs have, as Sanya mentioned, developed various carding agreements including with the trump suit. One that goes way back, at least to Goren, is that when declarer plays on trumps and you hope that partner can get in, playing spots high then low says that you started with three trump and that you are able to ruff something.  So, in this case, playing the 8 from Q86 would be an attempt to convince partner that you can ruff something. Usually, as here, he will have no trouble figuring out what it is.  This has nothing to do with udca, it simply applies to the trump suit regardless of other carding agreements. This meaning was once very standard, and I think it is still the default meaning.