[blml] Clubbed Queen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au
> Sven Pran:
> 
> >I see no possibility for an Alcatraz coup here?
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> Tim did not refer to a specific Alcatraz Coup, rather he was
> using the general term "such Alcatraz positions" - that is,
> what used to be known by the euphemism "coffee-housing".
> 
> As a Norwegian, perhaps Sven is unaware of the etymology of
> the name of the specific Alcatraz Coup.  It was named after
> the former San Francisco prison Alcatraz, due to the
> connotation that a perpetrator of an Alcatraz Coup deserved
> to be locked up there.

I had the pleasure of visiting Alcatraz in September 2001. I am also
familiar with the tactics that are usually referred to by this name and I
see no reason to refer to Alcatraz with the scenario described here. Instead
I see every reason to ask East why he paid so little attention to the game
that he didn't even notice no card had been played from Dummy when he
"contributed" his own QC to the trick? 
 
> Similarly, in Tim's constructed endgame, the Alcatraz-ish
> declarer can call for the "five of clubs" from dummy.  The
> Alcatraz-ish dummy carefully delays playing a card, and the
> coffee-housed East carelessly "follows" with the queen of
> clubs.
> 
> If Sven was TD, Sven would rule that East's queen of clubs
> was a lead out of turn.  

Of course I would. Declarer has not called for any card that could be led
from Dummy. Dummy has not placed any card in the played position. If East
"thinks" he has heard a call for a card that existed in Dummy then why can
he be so sure Declarer did not say to Dummy something like: "Can you get me
a coffee please?" (although not in so many words).

The Alcatraz-ish declarer would
> refuse to accept the lead out of turn.  TD Sven would now
> rule that the queen of clubs was a major penalty card.  Now
> the Alcatraz-ish declarer would call for the "five of spades"
> from dummy, East would be forced to discard the queen of
> clubs, and the contract would make.
> 
> In response to an earlier suggestion that the TD should rule
> under the could-have-known Law 72B1, Sven previously posted:
> 
> "This is a too far shot for me to believe in."
> 
> Ergo, if Sven was TD, his unbelievable ruling would see the
> Alcatraz-ish partnership laughing all the way to the bank
> robbery.

Is it normal in your environments that RHO "follows suit" to a card led from
Dummy in response to a call from Declarer before Dummy places that card in
the played position or otherwise indicates a positive response to the call?

I have never seen that happen when the called card does not exist in Dummy.
And even when the called card is available in Dummy I have only seen it
happen when that play is obvious to everyone.

Sven