Join Bridge Winners
How should I act after a BIT?

My question is inspired by the recent controversial Blue Ribbon Pairs hand (reproduced here for convenience), but what I am looking for is general advice. I'm not interested in rehashing the hand, but I am hoping to learn something from it. What is unclear to me after reading hundreds of comments is how the opening leader in the given scenario is supposed to act. 

7NT West
NS: 0 EW: 0

I will start by saying that my personal opinion on the hand in question is that a diamond lead is completely clear based on bridge logic. I respect the opinions of other people who would not lead a diamond, but if I was at the table that's what I would lead if partner insta-passed 7NT.

My judgement is that it is more likely partner stopped paying attention and forgot they had an ace than it is that we are beating the contract in any other way, based on looking at my hand. I have done this myself (insta-passing with an ace against 7NT) at least twice. Once I was on lead. Perhaps if I was playing in the final of a major pairs event I would be paying complete attention all the time (I'd like to hope so), but I certainly couldn't guarantee it.

However, I understand that after the BIT a diamond lead is indicated and I accept that following polling there are logical alternatives and that the diamond lead should not be allowed. 

I don't understand what things opening leader is supposed to consider and act upon in this scenario. From what I gather, opening leader is required to consider what other people who are judged by a director to be their peers would lead, and what the director would then conclude to be a logical alternative. I find this to be an extremely difficult task. I wouldn't know where to begin, and even if I did it would certainly take me a long time to try and detach from my own thought processes about the hand and guess what other people might think.

From the comments in the main article, it seems clear that if a particular subset of Bridge Winners participants happened to be polled, the outcome would be that they would all lead a diamond, consider it clear, and presumably it would then be ruled that there is no logical alternative. This further complicates the issue in my mind - the assessment of a logical alternative depends on a very small sample size and surely it is impossible to predict the outcome in many cases.

Trying to figure this all out at the table seems like a poor use of my mental energy. I don't know how other people think or what they consider logical in general. This is reinforced by decisions I see people make every day, at and away from the bridge table. Other people also don't know how I think (trust me, you don't want to).

Part of the wording from the appeal (posted elsewhere) is as follows: 

• A lead away from a king against a grand slam is high unlikely, especially when the location of the king is known, so there is no guess on alternative lines of play.

• Only with the knowledge that partner has an ace would one choose a lead that could give away a trick.

• It was the unethical use of partner’s BIT that produced the diamond lead.

I would be absolutely mortified if I was the diamond leader and I read that. My opinion is that the first two bullet points are very wrong and indicate that the hand has not been considered properly (I understand your opinion may vary). The conclusion reached on the basis of this is in my opinion also wrong; but worse than that, it objectively reads as offensive. I want to make it clear again that I do agree with the overall outcome of the case though: that the diamond lead should not be allowed.

If I thought a diamond lead was completely normal and that there was no logical alternative, then what am I supposed to do? How far should I go out of my way to make what I consider to be an inferior and even illogical lead because after consideration I have decided to predict that future pollees will consider there to be a logical alternative? Perhaps this is the best thing to do, but this would give up the chance of my 'peers' considering a diamond to be the only logical option.

If I was the opening leader in the BRP hand, I would hope that I could make what I consider to be a clear-cut lead, and if my opponents were damaged they would call the director (hopefully politely) and request a ruling. The director would then poll some people they consider to be my peers, determine that there were logical alternatives, and disallow my diamond lead. I would have absolutely no problem accepting this ruling. Can I do this? Or is this likely to be later viewed as unethical? I consider myself to be an ethical person in general and try my hardest to act in the most ethical manner I can at the bridge table.

Honestly, I would much rather make an inferior/illogical lead and lose a bridge board or whole event than be written up in a bulletin and forum website as being an unethical bridge player. I'd appreciate any advice on how I should approach thinking about logical alternatives in tempo-sensitive situations in general. Bonus points if you can do so in a non-condescending manner. TIA.

p.s. If you consider that it is completely obvious that there is a logical alternative lead with this hand and accordingly it should be made, I would appreciate it if you replaced the hand in question with something different such that you consider a given lead clear and obvious, but which might not be considered as such by a group of your peers. I think everyone would be able to do this if they tried. That would provide me with something more useful to go on and use in future than making an assertion about this hand in particular would.

Getting Comments... loading...

Bottom Home Top