| About conceding tricks and removing doubles |
|
Dear Martin,
Those are, somewhat later, declarer's words as well, after he has played the ♦J instead of the ♦A. I win with the ♦K, which is the setting trick. South remarks: 'We should be able to trust your agreements.' Thank you in advance. Kind regards, Answer Martin Sinot Dear Evert, Next time please submit the full layout. This enables me to give better-founded answers.First and foremost: next time, after any irregularity at once call the director. Does an opponent have a problem? Call the director! If the opponent subsequently deems such unnecessary, he makes it clear that the problem isn't that serious. The quickest way to end nagging is to have the director judge the case. Furthermore it prevents you from feeling uncomfortable. What you certainly should not do, is conceding tricks on your own initiative (and even less removing doubles — the contract is 4♠ doubled, period). After all, these actions certainly haven't removed your uncomfortable feeling (it shows: why else did you submit this question?). As a result you have presented the opponents with a trick they are not entitled to at all. About the case itself I can only speak in common terms (due to the lack of a full lay-out). Players are under obligation to fully inform the opponents about all agreements concerning the bidding and play. On the other hand you may bid and play as you like, as long as partner doesn't know if you deviate from your system — your deviation may not be based upon an explicit or implicit agreement with partner. So if, playing attitude leads, in an exceptional case you were to lead your lowest while not having an honour (as in your case: lowest of a doubleton), there is no problem. Partner is as ignorant of your deviation as the opponents (usually, that is — sometimes, of course, he can see what is going on, for instance if he can see all honour cards, but so can declarer). However, if you were to make such plays more often, your partner may start taking the possibility in consideration. If so, this has become an agreement, of which the opponents should be notified. And sometimes of course, your card is simply unclear. Suppose, you have ♦32 and decide to lead the ♦3, top of nothing. To you, that is, but partner and declarer will most probably take that three-spot to be attitude, showing an honour. Or you have ♦K1087 and lead the ♦7. Now doesn't that look very much like a top-of-nothing lead? I stress that declarer is not entitled to information about the whereabouts of the honour cards. As mentioned, he is entitled to receiving correct explanation of the defenders' agreements. So partner is allowed to return the ♦2 without having an honour card, as long as you and he have no agreement about this and as long as he doesn't do it regularly. But my most important message is: after any irregularity: call the director (also if it only looks like an irregularity; it is therefore most certainly appropriate to call the director in case of doubt!). If an opponent has a problem with the lead of the lowest from a holding without an honour (or the lead of a middle card from a holding with an honour): call the director and let him solve the problem. If he turns out to judge that your explanation was wrong: fine, next time you know what to do. If, on the other hand, he judges that there hasn't been any irregularity: that's fine too, at least after this procedure you are at ease about the whole thing. Please show this answer to your opponents, since I am under the impression that they need it as well. Kind regards, Martin Sinot |
||||||||||||||||||
