Are you allowed to play no signals?

[pclayton]

Hamway would say at the table - "we rarely give count".

 

Isn't it just an extension to say, "we don't give attitude, count or SP"?

[jikl]

I remember having a huge argument with about 4 directors and 2 opps over this answer I gave once about a discard: "It means that is the most useless card in his hand and he doesn't think he needs it" :P

 

Sean

[SoTired]

We signal only when we:

1. think partner needs to know

2. think partner will understand

3. think partner is paying attention

4. remember to signal

[cherdano]

We signal only when we:

3. think partner is paying attention

I have my qualms with this one. Sometimes, when I play with an intermediate partner in real life, I can't help noticing that partner is very obviously done with this hand and won't notice any signal I give. I feel the ethical thing to do is to signal exactly the same way I would when partner is awake.

[kenberg]

We signal only when we:

3. think partner is paying attention

I have my qualms with this one. Sometimes, when I play with an intermediate partner in real life, I can't help noticing that partner is very obviously done with this hand and won't notice any signal I give. I feel the ethical thing to do is to signal exactly the same way I would when partner is awake.

I often do not signal. In fact, one of the reasons I don't like agreements such as o/e is that it seems to commit me (although I suppose it really doesn't) to signaling at my first discard and I very well may not want to. It seems to me that "frequently not signaling" is different from "having no carding agreements".

 

Holding the 2,3,5 and needing to discard from that suit I might play the 3 and later the 5, suppressing the 2. I might be trying to withhold information (from everyone). But other times I may wish to send a message and, to the extent that I am sending a message, the 2 would send a different message than the 5.

 

It's not always an easy matter to be honest about your agreements, taking it as given that you wish to. But it seems to me that opponents should understand you will not always be signaling (even if playing o/e first discard you may be just playing a neutral card) but almost everyone has times they wish to signal and ways of doing so. I think it is fair to question people a bit, and maybe check up on them a bit, who claim they do not (making allowance for casual partnerships and beginning players of course).

 

You are defending 4S, you start with the AK of hearts, partner plays the 8 and then the 2. You really have no idea where the Q might be or whether your partner can ruff the third round? Really? Trust but verify comes to mind.

[SoTired]

Actually, I thot I was joking, but maybe not....

 

My main complaint with Lavinthal and o/e is that intermediate players treat the signal as a commandment and neither has a signal that says, "I don't care (or know). Just don't do something stupid."

[mike777]

We signal only when we:

3. think partner is paying attention

I have my qualms with this one. Sometimes, when I play with an intermediate partner in real life, I can't help noticing that partner is very obviously done with this hand and won't notice any signal I give. I feel the ethical thing to do is to signal exactly the same way I would when partner is awake.

I often do not signal. In fact, one of the reasons I don't like agreements such as o/e is that it seems to commit me (although I suppose it really doesn't) to signaling at my first discard and I very well may not want to. It seems to me that "frequently not signaling" is different from "having no carding agreements".

 

Holding the 2,3,5 and needing to discard from that suit I might play the 3 and later the 5, suppressing the 2. I might be trying to withhold information (from everyone). But other times I may wish to send a message and, to the extent that I am sending a message, the 2 would send a different message than the 5.

 

It's not always an easy matter to be honest about your agreements, taking it as given that you wish to. But it seems to me that opponents should understand you will not always be signaling (even if playing o/e first discard you may be just playing a neutral card) but almost everyone has times they wish to signal and ways of doing so. I think it is fair to question people a bit, and maybe check up on them a bit, who claim they do not (making allowance for casual partnerships and beginning players of course).

 

You are defending 4S, you start with the AK of hearts, partner plays the 8 and then the 2. You really have no idea where the Q might be or whether your partner can ruff the third round? Really? Trust but verify comes to mind.

If you never have carding or signalling agreements in 35 years of bridge no problem. :)

 

The issue is the one time you do have an implicit agreement and the opp do not know about it. :)

 

If you ever play high low and then you ruff the third one...hmmm I am going to ask the director for a ruling about this no implicit understanding or agreement issue.

[barmar]

There's a difference between your signalling agreements and whether you choose to signal at any particular time. Unless your agreements include the latter, partner is likely to be guessing whether a particular card is intended as a signal just as much as declarer, so you shouldn't need to disclose this. Many factors influence this; it's as much an art as deciding on the opening lead. Even when you would like to send a signal, you may be precluded from doing so: you shouldn't waste high spot cards, which may be useful in the play; if you're using odd-even discards, you may not have any cards of the appropriate parity.

 

As has been mentioned, beginners often don't use any signalling method. They play cards with little regard for how partner will interpret them, usually just trying to keep cards in their hand that they think are important. And while it would probably be an inferior way to play, I don't think there are any rules prohibiting more experienced partnerships from adopting a similar approach. There's a law saying that you can't play capriciously, you're supposed to try to win, but I think it would be a stretch to apply this (presumably you've decided that the drawbacks of signalling outweigh the benefits, despite what most experts say). But if you say you don't signal, you'd better be consistent about it -- since signalling is considered to be "normal bridge logic" for experienced players, you're going to have a hard time convincing others that you don't do it when they see defensive plays that are consistent with a recognized signalling method.

[cherdano]

There's a difference between your signalling agreements and whether you choose to signal at any particular time. Unless your agreements include the latter, partner is likely to be guessing whether a particular card is intended as a signal just as much as declarer, so you shouldn't need to disclose this.

Do you really believe this? I think defenders always have a better chance of guessing when partner is signaling, just because they know their partner better, and because it is difficult for declarer to ask the right questions (in particular as the questions might help the defenders guessing his hand).

[blackshoe]

[it is difficult for declarer to ask the right questions

In theory, declarer doesn't have to ask the right questions, because any question should result in full disclosure of all relevant partnership agreement and experience. In practice, unfortunately, I'd have to say about 80 percent of the players I know around here either don't know that, or don't believe it. Getting full disclosure in even simple cases is like pulling teeth.

 

It would help if directors did something other than crap all over the questioner in such cases, but that doesn't happen. :P

[barmar]

There's a difference between your signalling agreements and whether you choose to signal at any particular time.  Unless your agreements include the latter, partner is likely to be guessing whether a particular card is intended as a signal just as much as declarer, so you shouldn't need to disclose this.

Do you really believe this? I think defenders always have a better chance of guessing when partner is signaling, just because they know their partner better, and because it is difficult for declarer to ask the right questions (in particular as the questions might help the defenders guessing his hand).

Do many pairs actually have detailed agreements about WHEN they signal? I expect most are like the examples mentioned earlier in the thread, "I signal when I think partner can use the information." This is a judgement call, not a partnership agreement. The signaller has to decide whether this is one of those situations, and his partner has to figure out whether to treat the signal as honest or not.

 

There are some situations where general bridge principles supply the answer. Most defense tutorials recommend that a defender with a very weak hand give honest count; partner has is essentially defending on his own, and the best you can do is help him figure out declarer's shape. So does this mean that players should be required to disclose "We give frequent count signals when we don't think we can get the lead"?

 

Yes, partner is in a position to judge whether you're doing this. He can usually figure out whether you have a really weak hand from the auction, dummy, and his own holdings. But this isn't a matter of partnership agreement, it's bridge logic. You certainly wouldn't expect him to say "Partner is giving honest count because he probably has at most 2 HCP."

 

The best you can expect from an explanation of signalling methods is something like "When we choose to signal, we use UDCA" and "We tend to give count signals rather than attitude." But it's very rarely that you can expect someone to disclose whether a particular card is likely to be a signal or not (maybe something like a Smith Echo is one of them).

[Elianna]

I'm pretty sure that ACBL requires all partnerships to have an agreement about carding.

I'm pretty sure they don't. :P

Sorry, just got around to this. But in their general conditions of contest (in the PDF file on page 6 http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...-AllEvents.pdf) it says, under play #7:

Carding Agreements: - A pair may not elect to have no agreement when it comes to carding. There have been pairs that say they just play random leads or that they lead the card closest to their thumb. They must decide on a carding agreement and mark their convention cards accordingly. Of course, some leeway needs to be given to fill-in pairs or very last minute partnerships.

 

It's still not clear that these apply to club games, as I have never, ever seen these CoCs posted in a club, even though it says that it should be, below. It definitely seems to apply to regionals, sectionals, etc.

 

These conditions apply to all events, and should be posted. There are General Conditions for specific event types that apply and there may be additional specific conditions for specific events. In cases where there is disagreement between these conditions and more specific ones, the more specific conditions will take precedence.

Sponsoring organizations may, with ACBL approval only, amend these conditions for a specific event. Such amendments should appear in all printed tournament schedules and be posted prior to the start of event.

[blackshoe]

It's kinda hard to get a straight answer out of Memphis on the question what acbl regulations are supposed to be enforced in clubs, and what clubs are supposed to do to let their players know what's what. A few years ago, my partner and I were told, after we'd been playing a strong and artificial (and GCC legal) 1NT opening for about 3 months, "that bid is banned in this club". I was told by the "clubs" people in Memphis that clubs are supposed to post their convention (and other) regulations. The TD involved told me, when I told him what Memphis had said, "I've been directing this club for 25 years. I've never done that before, and I'm not about to start now."

 

It is my impression - and that of the club owners around here - that so long as the money keeps coming in, Memphis doesn't really give a damn whether clubs follow the rules. :P

[peachy]

Are a partnership allowed to not have any agreements as to defensive cardings?

 

On the one hand, a partnership might claim that a good declarer gets as least as much use out of defensive signals as the defenders do themselves, but on the other hand (and the real reason I ask) allowing this would seem to allow a practically undetectable way to cheat (i.e. claim that your defensive cards are at random but actually have some meaning attached to them).

In ACBL, one must have lead/carding agreements. Just this month, I asked them this question and the answer is *YES*, in accordance with the Conditions of Contest in ACBL events.

[Richardrls]

My two cents on this...Last time I looked, the ACBL expected each pair to have prepared a Convention Card for use by the opponents, prior to play. Now this card does in fact contain a bunch of information as to what the pair plays in the way of leads and signals. I do not for a moment believe that the use of this card will explain for the opponents all of the signals that may be used by the opponents, but for 50 years of duplicate play I have found it sufficient. Second point, although I personally feel that even pickup partnerships can and should prepare a convention card to be used even here in BBO, I recognize that many of you would not agree with me on this. However, no one should in fact disagree with me that a regular partnership has no business playing in BBO without such a card. So...these two facts lead me to the inescapable conclusion that yes, the ACBL does in fact require and expect a regular partnership to have agreements on signals by virtue of what is said on that card.

[blackshoe]

Heh. The ACBL card has default meanings for most leads already indicated. I had occasion to run afoul of this today: LHO led the ♣A against my 4♠ contract. I looked at her CC; no changes to the default meanings were indicated. So the lead denies the king. So I later led a low club from dummy, playing her partner for the king, and played my Queen when RHO played low. LHO promptly laid down the king.

 

After the hand, I asked LHO what their agreement was regarding the Ace lead. "We don't have one," she said. Club game, LHO is a dead ringer for Mrs. Guggenheim, and the TD would ask me why I was wasting his time if I called him, so I didn't. ;)

[Richardrls]

I might point out, Blackshoe, that a player can always choose to ignore any agreements that he/she has with partner or as is shown on the convention card. That is the risk that any Declarer takes in playing the contract. It is also the risk taken by the defender who ignores his/her convention card. That is why I have two more points to make about signals in general:

 

first, too many defenders try to make signals way more important than they really are -- they just aren't nearly as important as good bridge analysis; second, defenders' signals are of even less importance to good Declarer play.

[ArtK78]

I believe that we have gone way off-track here.

 

The original poster asked if a partnership could have no agreements as to their defensive carding.

 

The discussion has moved into the default agreements as to carding on the ACBL convention card, and now to the ability of a partner to depart from the agreed upon meanings of their defensive carding.

 

Going back to the original poster's question, I believe that the proper way of phrasing the question would be: "Can a partnership agree not to have any set agreements as to the significance of the card chosen for the opening lead and any other carding methods?" That is different from having no agreements (at least it is to a lawyer). One is not forced to play the default agreements on the ACBL convention card - that is why there are choices. If one merely circles ALL POSSIBILITIES or indicates "NONE" on top of the lead area of the ACBL convention card, that would indicate an agreement to have no agreement - i.e, that an opening lead has no significance as to honor holding or length in the suit led (nor any other significance, such as suit preference, etc.).

 

It is perfectly legal to have an agreement that the card chosen for the opening lead is to have no significance relating to the honor holding in the suit led, the length in the suit led, or its relationship to any other suit. However, this agreement, like all other agreements, must be disclosed.

[mike777]

I think the question was are you allowed to have no carding agreements, not just lead agreements.

 

If you say you have zero, fair enough....the first time you play high low and get a ruff at trick three I will call and ask for a ruling.

 

We all know you must fully complete and fill out your cc. If you leave that whole section blank...I hope not see you start carding stuff that is not on your blank cc.

[awm]

If one merely circles ALL POSSIBILITIES or indicates "NONE" on top of the lead area of the ACBL convention card, that would indicate an agreement to have no agreement - i.e, that an opening lead has no significance as to honor holding or length in the suit led (nor any other significance, such as suit preference, etc.).

 

It is perfectly legal to have an agreement that the card chosen for the opening lead is to have no significance relating to the honor holding in the suit led, the length in the suit led, or its relationship to any other suit. However, this agreement, like all other agreements, must be disclosed.

From the ACBL conditions of contest:

 

Carding Agreements: - A pair may not elect to have no agreement when it comes to carding.

 

This is not a statement about filling out the convention card. In fact, the need to fill out a convention card and have it on the table, etc. is covered elsewhere in the conditions of contest. This statement directly indicates that You cannot "agree to have no agreement" with regard to carding in ACBL events.

 

Of course, some ACBL-sanctioned club games don't really follow the letter of the ACBL conditions of contest. And any competition held outside of ACBL is unlikely to follow the ACBL conditions of contest. But at least in one (sizable) population of bridge players, you have to make an agreement about leads and signals.

[blackshoe]

I might point out, Blackshoe, that a player can always choose to ignore any agreements that he/she has with partner or as is shown on the convention card. That is the risk that any Declarer takes in playing the contract. It is also the risk taken by the defender who ignores his/her convention card. That is why I have two more points to make about signals in general:

 

first, too many defenders try to make signals way more important than they really are -- they just aren't nearly as important as good bridge analysis; second, defenders' signals are of even less importance to good Declarer play.

You might point it out. I might thank you. But it's not really necessary - I'm well aware of it.

 

"I decided to deviate from our agreement" is very different to "we don't have an agreement".

 

Your second paragraph sounds like a dig at my declarer play. If so, you have scant evidence to make it.

[blackshoe]

...You cannot "agree to have no agreement" with regard to carding in ACBL events.

 

Of course, some ACBL-sanctioned club games don't really follow the letter of the ACBL conditions of contest. And any competition held outside of ACBL is unlikely to follow the ACBL conditions of contest. But at least in one (sizable) population of bridge players, you have to make an agreement about leads and signals.

This is the nub of it, I think. Are the two statements equivalent?

 

The lady who was my LHO in the situation I described upthread is one of that huge majority of players (or so it sometimes seems to me) who don't bother to discuss agreements. particularly about stuff that's on the "back of the card". Is that the same as "agreeing to have no agreement"?

 

FWIW, I think it violates the spirt, if not the letter, of the regulation.

[ArtK78]

From the ACBL conditions of contest:

 

Carding Agreements: - A pair may not elect to have no agreement when it comes to carding.

Thank you for pointing this out to me. I had never read the ACBL Conditions of Contest. That particular CoC goes on to address the problem directly:

 

"There have been pairs that say they just play random leads or that they lead the card closest to their thumb. They must decide on a carding agreement and mark their convention cards accordingly. Of course, some leeway must be given to fill-in pairs or very last minute partnerships."

 

I am not aware of anything in the laws which requires a pair to have a carding agreement. But it is quite clear that the ACBL requires it.

[blackshoe]

The laws give broad authority to SOs to make regulations on various things. There is (at least in theory) always a law under which any regulation has been made. In this case the relevant laws are, I believe, 80F, 40D, and 40E1.

[Richardrls]

Folks, I think some of us here are just mincing words. To have a convention card that is simply blank where it asks for leads and signals is to not have a card at all. The convention card is supposed to be complete, Right? And to mark a card so as to say that your partnership has no agreements on signals, is in fact to have an agreement not to signal. That is in fact an agreement. A partnership that has made such an agreement should certainly advertise that fact to their opponents on their card and probably up front before playing. Why the partnership would do such a silly thing is their own business, but allowable.

 

My point is that none of this gives anyone the right to simply make signals to partner and when asked as to the meaning of a particular signal simply say "We have no agreements" and "Oh, by the way, we also have no convention card to offer you..."