No lead conventions : random

[jeremy69]

I see my previous writ was concerning a 'Previous' OB as this one states under 10 A 6 The previous ban on Random has been abolished

 

10A6 is about calls not signalling.

[barmar]

Forget cheating for a moment. What legal basis do you have for making a pair agree to lead either the 5 or the 7 from 75? There are arguments in this thread that it is undesirable to allow random leads, but that is not my point, how can you legally stop it?

How do you force them to agree on whether to open 4-card or 5-card majors? Whatever allows that, applies just as well to leads and signals, doesn't it?

 

You have to be careful when trying to apply laws and regulations like this in novice games. They're not being unethical when they deviate from agreements frequently, they just don't know what they're doing and can't remember everything they're supposed to do. But players who have the skills to make and use signals are expected to establish agreements about them, and generally follow those agreements.

[lamford]

I see my previous writ was concerning a 'Previous' OB

I know this thread has caused a lot of mud-slinging, but I think a writ is going just a bit too far B)

[bluejak]

While the argument about bidding agreements has some force, I still feel that telling a pair they have to have carding agreements, and presumably they have to follow them, sees an untenable position.

 

For example, one of my partners has the view that there should be no signalling when defending against slams. So, when following suit to a slam, if I hold 642 I pick whichever card suits may fancy: it has no meaning. Are you telling me this is illegal? Or, at least, could be made illegal?

 

You see, if I open 1♥, I have to have some sort of agreement with partner, so it can be regulated. But I do not think carding is the same: I do not need to signal to partner if I do not want to, surely?

[aguahombre]

Zia/Bob H explain, as do we, "standard signals when given". Or, we have signalling agreements, but if we think we already know what is going on we don't signal for declarer's benefit. That is very different from not having or disclosing any carding agreements at all.

 

I cannot imagine that anyone who claims no carding agreements is telling the truth.

They might randomize their leads with certain holdings --but not all of them.

[bluejak]

Yes, but if you go back to the OP it was about random spot cards, there was no suggestion of leading low from KQJx. Are you sure all people have and follow agreements about spot cards?

[aguahombre]

having general agreements, yes. Following them, not necessarily. Hence, a proper disclosure would be std or upside down, priority on attitude or on count, etc and the caveat that they don't signal frequently or faithfully or whatever.

 

"We have no special agreements about spot cards" and "we don't signal very much" would keep the pair off the radar. Claiming all spot cards are totally random would challenge me to try to break the code.

[shintaro]

I see my previous writ was concerning a 'Previous' OB

I know this thread has caused a lot of mud-slinging, but I think a writ is going just a bit too far :D

:P

 

Now now Paul or I might whisper in a certain Ladies ear what someone writ further up this thread

 

:D

[helene_t]

I cannot imagine that anyone who claims no carding agreements is telling the truth.

They might randomize their leads with certain holdings --but not all of them.

I would agree with that, unless they are noobs or one of them is a substitute and they had less than 10 secs to make agreements.

 

Anyway, there is a difference between having no agreements, and having the agreement to lead randomly. If we have no agreement about how to lead from xxx, I might still not lead randomly from xxx: maybe we do have an agreement of leading from xx, or from Hxx, and when holding xxx I might consider whether I want partner to be able to make the inference that I don't have xx, or that I don't have Hxx.

[mjj29]

I also think there's a difference between 'Random' and 'whichever is least useful in my hand / most likely to mislead declarer'. Declarer can still make inferences from the latter, even if they are more tenuous. I don't have a problem with people describing their discards as the latter.