[BillPatch]

This BBO forum may not like the low spade lead. But a lead of an unbid suit against a NT contract is not "highly unusual." I repeat: this is not evidence of cheating. Certainly, this is not a "smoking gun".

[gwnn]

BillPatch, on 2015-September-05, 19:53, said:

This BBO forum may not like the low spade lead. But a lead of an unbid suit against a NT contract is not "highly unusual." I repeat: this is not evidence of cheating. Certainly, this is not a "smoking gun".

Did anyone say it was?

[BillPatch]

Now I see. We assume the leader was cheating because he was convicted on the evidence of other deals, and this hand the crime didn't pay.

[wanoff]

BillPatch, on 2015-September-05, 19:53, said:

This BBO forum may not like the low spade lead. But a lead of an unbid suit against a NT contract is not "highly unusual." I repeat: this is not evidence of cheating. Certainly, this is not a "smoking gun".

I agree it's not evidence but neither is ♠s an unbid suit in the normal sense. No bridge player leads a spade here unless........

[lamford]

wanoff, on 2015-September-06, 02:46, said:

I agree it's not evidence but neither is ♠s an unbid suit in the normal sense. No bridge player leads a spade here unless........

... his partner signals for a spade, but does not have the full hand to work out that a club is needed. Potentially poor hacking into the TD's duplimate file, or poor double-dummy analysis by the accomplice in the Vugraph room. Actually, the spade lead still beats the contract, provided North switches to a club, so they would benefit from a second tier of signals when the partner of the opening leader wins the first trick.

[gwnn]

BillPatch, on 2015-September-06, 02:20, said:

Now I see. We assume the leader was cheating because he was convicted on the evidence of other deals, and this hand the crime didn't pay.

Nobody assumed anything except you.

[nige1]

BillPatch, on 2015-September-06, 02:20, said:

Now I see. We assume the leader was cheating because he was convicted on the evidence of other deals, and this hand the crime didn't pay.

gwnn, on 2015-September-06, 04:43, said:

Nobody assumed anything except you

JAllerton's topic-title implies that the defenders might deserve their bad result if they were signalling leads

[aguahombre]

nige1, on 2015-September-06, 10:00, said:

JAllerton's topic-title implies that the defenders might deserve their bad result if they were signalling leads

Or maybe he is just describing his diet.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2015-September-06, 10:36, said:

Or maybe he is just describing his diet.

Unlikely. His spelling is quite good.

[gwnn]

nige1, on 2015-September-06, 10:00, said:

JAllerton's topic-title implies that the defenders might deserve their bad result if they were signalling leads

Smiley aside did you read what BillPatch was getting at and what had actually been written in the thread? Obviously it has to do something with cheating and signalling for leads but nobody said or even suggested that EW were cheating, just basically that the spade lead was unexpected. Definitely nobody said that this was a smoking gun as our apparently dyslexic friend initially asserted and reality is very far from his understanding in his second post as well. If he wants to react to cheating allegations, he should react to cheating allegations (i.e. reply to threads in which actual allegations have been made). You can try to be this reconciliatory neutral person but perhaps you should read the thread first.

[jallerton]

gwnn, on 2015-September-06, 16:10, said:

but nobody said or even suggested that EW were cheating,

That's quite a relief, given that I was East and my partner was West!

I know that bridge journalists often rotate deals to make South the declarer, but I didn't want to distort any of the facts, so I was simply reported what happened on this deal.