Lawyering (apologies to MikeH)?

[gnasher]

One should not ask LHO about agreements regarding the lead, as LHO's answer might convey UI.

How? What answer could LHO give that conveys UI to rho?

He could reply "3rd & 5th", when his partner thought they were playing fourth best.

 

Of course, UI would be conveyed in that situation regardless of whom you asked. The advantage of asking the partner of the leader is that the existence of UI becomes apparent once you know what the lead was from. If you ask the opening leader, his partner might unethically use the UI and you might never know.

[CSGibson]

One should not ask LHO about agreements regarding the lead, as LHO's answer might convey UI.

How? What answer could LHO give that conveys UI to rho?

He could reply "3rd & 5th", when his partner thought they were playing fourth best.

 

Of course, UI would be conveyed in that situation regardless of whom you asked. The advantage of asking the partner of the leader is that the existence of UI becomes apparent once you know what the lead was from. If you ask the opening leader, his partner might unethically use the UI and you might never know.

It seems that UI would only occur if the opening leader gave an explanation contrary to the partnership agreements about his opening lead (ie, they play jack denies, but he explains that it is standard leads from sequences and interior honor sequences).

 

If his correct answer reminds partner of thier agreements, well, too bad, you should have asked for a convention card. Their agreements and the rememberence of them is authorized information.

[gnasher]

If his correct answer reminds partner of thier agreements, well, too bad, you should have asked for a convention card. Their agreements and the rememberence of them is authorized information.

The response to a question is unauthorised information. If the answer to a question causes a change in your opinion of what partner's card shows, that knowledge is unauthorised. This applies regardless of what the partnership's actual agreement is.

 

I was a little harsh in suggesting that the purpose of asking a question of the non-leader was to protect you from unethical opponents - it also protects you from people who don't understand their obligations under the Laws.

[barmar]

Just as a player is not allowed to consult their own convention card, they're also not allowed to be "woken up" by their partner's answer to a question. A player should never be reluctant to ask a question because the answerer's partner will hear the answer. It's the partner's responsibility not to take advantage of hearing the answer.

[ArtK78]

Just as a player is not allowed to consult their own convention card, they're also not allowed to be "woken up" by their partner's answer to a question. A player should never be reluctant to ask a question because the answerer's partner will hear the answer. It's the partner's responsibility not to take advantage of hearing the answer.

I cannot disagree with what you have said. I just think it is unrealistic.

 

The fact is that the partner of the player responding to the question will be woken up by the answer if the answer differs from the partner's interpretation. So, as a practical matter, one should be careful about what questions one asks and when the questions are asked.

[barmar]

Just as a player is not allowed to consult their own convention card, they're also not allowed to be "woken up" by their partner's answer to a question.  A player should never be reluctant to ask a question because the answerer's partner will hear the answer.  It's the partner's responsibility not to take advantage of hearing the answer.

I cannot disagree with what you have said. I just think it is unrealistic.

 

The fact is that the partner of the player responding to the question will be woken up by the answer if the answer differs from the partner's interpretation. So, as a practical matter, one should be careful about what questions one asks and when the questions are asked.

Very true. If you have two ways to get an answer to your question, and one of them is less likely to result in UI, it would make things easier on everyone if you chose that way. While players are supposed to avoid taking advantage of UI, in reality this is very tricky. Debates have raged numerous times in various bridge discussion forums about what someone should do in various situations -- if a bunch of players can't figure it out when they have all the time in the world, how realistic is it to expect someone to get it right in the heat of the moment at the bridge table?

[PrecisionL]

In club games (ACBLand) most of the convention cards are not filled out on the signals section and frequently not the leads either. So I am in the habit of asking instead of looking. At tournaments the cards are filled out better. Since the opponents are defenders on 50% of the hands, I don't think asking will provide UI.

 

I tend not to ask about the bidding until the auction is over to eliminate UI.

 

Larry

[nige1]

Yesterday I play against a GLM and her novice partner. I'm in 3N and I have the option of knocking out an ace for 9 tricks or taking a finesse for more. Its a good contract and I don't expect the field to be there. The spades are:

♠T96

♠K7

 

LHO (GLM) leads the 2 to her partner's Ace who returns the 5. I play a side suit and ask, "tell me about your carding". The GLM makes a hand gesture and says "standard".

 

I knock out the Ace and take my 9 tricks. It turned out the club was onside and I could have made 11. I'm not upset about that however. The spade lead was from QJxxx2 and RHO held A5 (!). Fortunately, LHO doesn't have an entry. Apparently she's teaching the novice 'attitude leads'. I politely mention these aren't standard. I asked why this wasn't disclosed and she says, "You asked about carding, you didn't ask about our leads".

 

Later she goes on and on about the importance of concealing your length in a suit from declarer. I also made some comment about how ineffective a spade return would have been if the suit was 4=3=2=4 around the table. Is this rules lawyering on her part or am I being a baby about this?

IMO

• When pclayton asked about carding, his opponents should have divulged that they play attitude leads. (Potentially) he was damaged. Had he called a director, the direcotor should consider adjusting.
  
• In this case, pclayton did ask the correct question (although it could have been more precise). Had he muffed the question, however, opponents should not use that as an excuse to conceal important information relevant in context.
  
• Crowing about the successful deception was the last straw,
  

[syl]

Carding= Leads + Signals

Leads= Opening lead+Subsequent leads

 

Isn't it true?