Keycard Question

[Finch]

Interestingly enough, there was a very similar case at Brighton a couple of years ago. (trumps were spades then as well!) It was used in a case study this August in a seminar I helped to run on how appeals committees works.

 

We did it as a role play, and I played the part of the questioning West player. Jeremy Dhondy was declarer. The class were the (large!) AC. When asked why I had asked the question about the queen of trumps, I said something like

 

"I was surprised when he didn't mention it, because he said they played RKCB and I thought that was a standard part of RKCB"

 

I was then asked if I had considered whether I might be misleading declarer given that I had the queen myself, and I said

 

"I wasn't even looking at my hand, and I didn't consider it. I was just trying to understand what the auction meant before leading. Anyway, it might become relevant later in the defence to understand what declarer knew about the hand during the auction"

 

Out of an audience of 16 people, the vote was split about 70/30 in favour in letting the score stand. My instinct was to do the same.

 

[bear in mind that neither side is really blameless here. You could also say that declarer was trying for a double shot - took the spade finesse on the basis that either it won, or it lost and he would get it back on Appeal]

[ralph23]

If 5♥ denies the queen, it's odds-on that opponents have all the aces (they might've stopped in 5♠ missing the queen and an ace). This may effect the choice of leads or other defensive decisions.

NS were in fact missing the trump Queen and one Ace, and lost those two tricks.

 

The ten-card-fit theme is interesting, and I don't believe anyone in the actual case ever mentioned it.

 

But *if* West really thought that the 5♥ call might be ambiguous between having/not having Her Majesty, and he learned from his inquiry that 5♥ (contrary to the way everyone around here plays) indeed showed, rather than denied, holding her, then he could conclude that declarer had a 6-card trump suit. (NS had been in a Jacoby 2nt auction whereby N had already promised 4+ trumps by use of that call).

[jillybean]

Didn't read the replies and I'm sure the laws won't back me up on this, but this is blatant cheating and if anyone who knew how to play bridge did this to me I would file a recorder form and would want a conduct and ethics committee on them.

Who is cheating?

[skjaeran]

There was a similar appeal to the Norwegian Bridge Federation's Law Committee some years ago where an opponent holding the trump queen made similar questions about a RKB 5♥ response. Declarer playing in 6♠ went one down after misguessing the trump queen. The LC adjusted to contract made.

[mycroft]

Justin, if I had to ask you whether 5H showed the trump queen, after being told "two keys" - perhaps even "two", which I frequently get - and you wished to file anything, I'd be happy to join you. I would add the blatant incomplete explanation...As far as I'm concerned, South made his own bed.

 

In fact, a nefarious declarer would intentionally misdescribe, and then if West asks a further question, East has the queen; if he doesn't, play him for it. This person (presumably innocently) set West up and then claims damage when he didn't fall into the trap? Sure.

 

Of course, Justin, you would never be in this situation, because your explanation would have been "two keycards without the queen" or "two without" or something equivalent. So would mine.

 

In the ACBL Tech Files (an old version of which is available at bridgehands.com), a very similar auction is given (there, it went 1S-4NT; 5C-5D; 5S-6S). Asking about the queen is "entirely appropriate" whether or not you have it -

 

"Again, this is

because you are not required to give away your hand in order to find

out what the opponents' bids mean.

 

Also, even if you had the queen of trumps you might be very interested

in the meaning of 5 spades. Perhaps the 5 spade bidder decided to

show the spade queen even though he didn't have it (or perhaps he made

a mistake). You are entitled to know if the 6 spade bidder thought

their side had the trump queen."

 

Can't say specifically for other jurisdictions, but it boils down to "if you'd told me what the agreement was in the first place, I wouldn't have needed to ask the so-called 'misleading question'."

 

Yes, I think it makes a difference if the explanation contained the "without the queen" statement.

 

Michael.

[ralph23]

Yes, I think it makes a difference if the explanation contained the "without the queen" statement.

 

Michael.

Would it also make a difference if you knew, immediately before the hand in question, NS had also had a keycard auction against the same EW, like this:

 

North: 1♥

South: 3♥

 

North: 4nt

South: 5♥

West (asking North): "5♥ shows ...?"

North: "2 keycards, without the Queen of trumps"

West: "OK", and he passes

[Echognome]

One part I don't understand. Why focus your question on the Q of trumps? It's like when the opponents have an auction with an artificial bid and you ask specifically about that bid. You are focusing attention on that suit. It just seems to make things a whole lot easier if you say, "Can you take me through the auction and tell me if there's anything I need to know?" Then declarer can say things like "Natural. Natural. Natural. Sets suit. Cue bid, 1st/2nd round control and we we play serious 3NT. Keycard. 2 without Queen. To play," etc. It doesn't take long at all. That way you not only draw attention to one aspect, you also may learn something you didn't know!

[jdonn]

One part I don't understand. Why focus your question on the Q of trumps? It's like when the opponents have an auction with an artificial bid and you ask specifically about that bid. You are focusing attention on that suit. It just seems to make things a whole lot easier if you say, "Can you take me through the auction and tell me if there's anything I need to know?" Then declarer can say things like "Natural. Natural. Natural. Sets suit. Cue bid, 1st/2nd round control and we we play serious 3NT. Keycard. 2 without Queen. To play," etc. It doesn't take long at all. That way you not only draw attention to one aspect, you also may learn something you didn't know!

What seems to often be happening in these situations, in the Washington casebook for example, is the asker does ask about the whole auction but gets answers that are obviously incomplete. Obviously what you suggest is best, but it only works if the explaining side lives up to its obligations, and if they don't it creates a difficult situation. Like in this thread, where people seem to think that either side could be cheating when this sort of situation occurs...

[Codo]

I join the chorus for the result stands fraction.

Michael gave the best reasoning:

IF I just ask if I do not possess the queen, the opps know where the queen is.

Even if this clue is not a 100 % clue, it still is a clue.

So I must ask to clarify the situation even if I am quite sure about the meaning (and I had been quite sure even without looking at my cards).

 

North is to blame for his explanation and south for his try to read something in a question instead of playing the cards. They deserve their result.

 

I wholehearty agree with MAtts statement that you should ask for the complete auction, but even then you sometimes have to ask again because the statements are not understandable or too short.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Results stands.

 

You take interference from opponents behaviour

at your own risk.

You may try to get a ruling against West, but it

will be hard to get one.

 

You would need to have fairly strong evidence:

1) the same sequence occurred a board ago

2) West has a track record

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Washington_DC_Sum02.pdf

Case 35....

Hi jdonn,

 

do you have other links to case books?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jtfanclub]

One part I don't understand.  Why focus your question on the Q of trumps?  It's like when the opponents have an auction with an artificial bid and you ask specifically about that bid.

It wasn't. She had to ask a dozen questions to get a straight answer....it was something like:

 

"And what does the 5♥ bid show?"

"Blackwood."

"Blackwood?"

"Yeah, Blackwood. Maybe you've heard of it"

"Not Roman Key Card?"

"Of course it's Roman Key Card."

"So this shows?"

"Two Aces"

"Two Aces?"

"Yes."

"Out of..."

"Five."

"Five aces?"

"Yes, five aces."

"What was the fifth ace?"

"The king of trumps"

"What was trumps?"

"Hearts."

"Does it say anything else?"

"No."

"What about the queen of trumps? Does it confirm or deny that?"

"It denies the queen of trumps"

"OK, go ahead and lead, partner"

 

I'd be in favor of a Procedural Penalty against the idiot giving the answers. I'm sure he doesn't consider himself an idiot, though.

 

(Edit: Going off the description in p55 of jdonn's link. All discussion is hypothetical)

[ralph23]

I'd be in favor of a Procedural Penalty against the idiot giving the answers. I'm sure he doesn't consider himself an idiot, though.

 

(Edit: Going off the description in p55 of jdonn's link. All discussion is hypothetical)

As I recall, both the AC and the commentators thought the answerer (with a load of masterpoints) had really done badly and was even contemptuous of the questioner who had fewer points.

 

He probably didn't think he was an idiot, but he may have been an imbecile or a moron.

 

http://www.neatorama.com/2006/12/11/whats-...idiot-vs-moron/

[jtfanclub]

As I recall, both the AC and the commentators thought the answerer (with a load of masterpoints) had really done badly and was even contemptuous of the questioner who had fewer points.

 

He probably didn't think he was an idiot, but he may have been an imbecile or a moron.

In his defense, this was a team game, and this particular player asked about EVERY bid in EVERY auction EVERY time she was on defense. There was a case with the same players on a different hand earlier in the appeals which was a whole lot closer, and made it clear just how annoying she was.

 

So maybe this was simply a case where the guy is normally nice and polite, and this particular opponent had gotten him down to his last nerve, and was enthusiastically jumping up and down on it. Which is why, IMHO, he didn't get a PP or an AWMW. The AC sympathized.

[Free]

I don't have much sympathy with both players here...

 

- North didn't give a complete explanation. In theory, you could do this deliberately just to help you find the trump Queen, even if your partner is playing (if you work together you can do anything)! Like it happened, they placed the Q in a hand based on the question asked. On the other hand, if he wouldn't ask the Q-question, one might give the other player more chance of having the Q. So you may just give an incomplete explanation with cheating in mind here.

 

- West asked the Q-question, but what's the reason, and why did he do it before the opening lead? He may have several reasons: wants a ♥ lead, doesn't want a ♥ lead, always wants a full explanation (maybe his partner is afraid of asking questions), wants to make some point by dragging all the info out of north,... But he may also try to mislead declarer on purpose. It's quite hard to figure out why he needed to ask the question, and why he did it before the opening lead, but it's quite suspicious to say the least.

[Echognome]

I don't understand any concern about receiving incomplete information. If you ask for the opponents to explain the auction, then it is their duty to inform you fully. It is not sufficient, for example, to give the name of a convention. Once I ask the opponents, I rarely follow up. If they have failed to give proper disclosure and I was damaged, then I can call the TD later. Of course, I'm a reasonable person, so if I need a small clarification, I don't mind asking. So I find the whole dialogue that happened a bit mind boggling. First off, what's the problem if someone asks you to explain your auction. They have kindly waited to ask before the lead. It seems appropriate now to give them as much information as they want. Sometimes this is an art form as opponents may just want cursory information. But once they inquire further, then just give them everything you know. I would certainly give a warning to describer about their behavior.

 

Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an

opponent’s inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information

conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience,

but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and

experience.

 

Now for West, I would also give a warning if not penalize. At first it wasn't clear to me whether West was truly ignorant (in which case warning) or was just bating South. But upon re-reading, West initiated the question about RKCB, meaning West was aware of what RKCB is. So it seems to me that West was being overly obtuse to make a point. I find that very unnecessary and bordering on being unethical.

[awm]

A few notes here:

 

When the auction ends, the declaring side should give any delayed alerts. Typically this means alerting and explaining bids above the level of 3NT which may have been artificial. One such responsibility is to indicate when an ace-asking auction has occurred; frequently when people do this they also explain the response "We've had an ace asking sequence; 4NT was keycard and 5♥ shows two without the queen" although this explanation is not strictly required without prompting. On the hand in question, there is no indication that the declaring side fulfilled this responsibility.

 

While it certainly makes sense to ask "please explain the auction" and this is what people are supposed to do, I've found that in many attempts to ask this question I have never received an accurate and complete answer. Most of the time people say things like "it's standard" or "it's natural" or "we play 2/1" none of which is a full explanation. I find that I virtually always need to query specific bids or ask specific questions like "does opener's high reverse here show extras?" or "was this bid necessarily a suit or just control showing?" Typically I start with "explain the auction" and then become more and more specific until opponents reveal the information I want. If I never asked the more specific questions, I would never get useful information, and would probably end up calling the director on many many hands. Director would not look favorably on this, and would probably say "if it really mattered whether this bid showed extras, why didn't you ask that?" I certainly would not be inclined to make a ruling against folks who asked for an explanation of a bid, received an incomplete explanation, and then asked for further clarification on the basis that "they didn't need the further clarification and might only have asked to confuse declarer" since this is tantamount to accusing them of cheating and declarer really should have given the complete explanation the first time.