Or more likely I would have sounded as a cry baby? Reading one of Mr. Wollf's blogs at Aces on bridge where declarer holding ♠KQXX had to duck the ♠ lead twice to ensure the 3NT contract felt a sense of deja vu( kidding it happened yesterday afternoon). I held ♠KQX in a 3NT contract I was declaring. RHO had bid and shown a good hand in the process of bidding. LHO led the ♠10, dummy came down with 2 rags in ♠s. So I asked my RHO what are your leads from an internal sequence? Was told we don't play such. For a moment I thought RHO didn't understand the term internal sequence, so I got more specific, like if LHO held say A109x... would LHO lead the 10 or 9? Again was told would lead the 4th best also told that this was a top of whatever lead. Match Points was the game so when RHO played ♠X I took it with my ♠K and gave up a trick to RHO in ♣s. Back comes the ♠J. What would you do? Later on after the hand was over and the next hands cards had been pulled out by the four of us I told them why aren't you two still not clarifying if you are playing leads from internal sequences or not? In a slightly accusatory tone ;) Till then we were the only pair to bid game on that hand and I finished 3 down when it was making with 1 or 2 OTs. :( Another one which cost us our 1st position). I didn't call the TD as is my normal style for reasons i don't want to get into here. Later after my partner told me you should have blah blah played blah blah, I asked him could the LHO correct RHO's incorrect explanation before I played to the first trick from dummy, partner said should have. Then I asked does that come under the domain of ethics or law? He said the Law. What are your views? May I add from the bidding it was pretty clear if anyone held the length in ♠ it would be LHO.
Plus... it's free!