Jump to content

Possibly inappropriate questions

gwnn

By gwnn
in Simple Rulings

 Share

Recommended Posts

gwnn

gwnn

Posted
Posted

"Does your partner underlead honours often?"

"How often does he underlead aces?"

"Does he falsecard in slams often?"

"How often do you give count?"

"When partner leads trumps does he usually lead the same spot as he'd do in another suit?"

 

Is there a good guideline to decide what I may ask/what I should answer when asked? Thank you.

 

These are carding related questions because I think it's completely legal to ask about overcalling style etc, even things that are not really on the CC ("what was the worst hand you raised in this position?")

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peachy

peachy

Posted
Posted

If I were asked any of these questions that pertain to my partnership style and methods, I am obligated by law to answer.

 

If I were playing with a pickup partner with whom I have no history then I will answer questions about methods we agreed, and explain that this is a pickup partnership with no history so style is unknown.

 

It is perfectly legal to ask these questions if you need to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kenrexford

kenrexford

Posted
Posted
"Does your partner underlead honours often?"

"How often does he underlead aces?"

"Does he falsecard in slams often?"

"How often do you give count?"

"When partner leads trumps does he usually lead the same spot as he'd do in another suit?"

 

Is there a good guideline to decide what I may ask/what I should answer when asked? Thank you.

 

These are carding related questions because I think it's completely legal to ask about overcalling style etc, even things that are not really on the CC ("what was the worst hand you raised in this position?")

"Does your partner underlead honours often?"

 

Yes.

 

"How often does he underlead aces?"

 

When it's right.

 

"Does he falsecard in slams often?"

 

Yes.

 

"How often do you give count?"

 

When it's right.

 

"When partner leads trumps does he usually lead the same spot as he'd do in another suit?"

 

I have no idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peachy

peachy

Posted
Posted
It is perfectly legal to ask these questions if you need to know.

Where in the law does it say it's not legal to ask them if you don't need to know? And what does "need to know" mean, anyway?

Other reasons than *need to know* seem like harassment or slowing down the game. But then again *need to know* could be driven by idle curiosity, so there we are. If there is no law saying we should have a reason then we don't have to have a reason. What I meant by *need to know* is to count the hand, place honors, plan the play or some rational *need* in those lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Elianna

Elianna

Posted
Posted
What about when declarer has stiff A, and there is KJT-?- on the board. Asking a lot of questions about underleading the A, and then playing the J in the hopes that opp will then play the Q thinking leader has the A seems to trying to mislead. It seems that it should not be legal. Are you two saying that it is?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ant590

Ant590

Posted
Posted

I think the problem is that there are many pairs who do not know that "no agreement" is an adequate response to these questions (provided you have no explicit or implicit agreement).

 

For such a pair, the questions will seem like an attempt at fishing a ruling if their response is "wrong". Luckily, in games where players are ignorant of the rules usually don't matter, so I would only ask (and expect to hear a reasonable answer) in higher-standard games, compared to your average club night or low tables of a national event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluejak

bluejak

Posted
Posted
What about when declarer has stiff A, and there is KJT-?- on the board.  Asking a lot of questions about underleading the A, and then playing the J in the hopes that opp will then play the Q thinking leader has the A seems to trying to mislead.  It seems that it should not be legal.  Are you two saying that it is?

No, I am not. You cannot extrapolate answers like that - well, you can, but you should not.

 

If you ask a question out of idle curiosity it is not illegal. That does not mean that actions that mislead are legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
barmar

barmar

Posted
Posted
It is perfectly legal to ask these questions if you need to know.

Where in the law does it say it's not legal to ask them if you don't need to know? And what does "need to know" mean, anyway?

Well, you're not allowed to ask questions solely for partner's benefit. But I guess there's nothing specifically prohibiting asking questions for no one's benefit. And I suppose there's no UI problem; if the you might not need to know the answers, partner can't infer anything about your hand from the questions.

 

Does this suggest that it's reasonable to ask irrelevant questions from time to time, so there's no UI when you ask relevant questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bd71

bd71

Posted
Posted

As a prelude to asking questions about pre-empting style, I once asked "how long have you and your partner played together", hoping to establish the credibility of the subsequent answers. Opponent told me that was an inappropriate question, so I simply moved on to ask the style-related question (I believe it was frequency/likelihood with which 3C might be opened with 6).

 

Was opponent right, or are you allowed to ask how long/frequently they play together to assess the likely quality of other answers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mbodell

Mbodell

Posted
Posted
There are some questions which you can get in trouble for asking. An obvious one would be if they led the K against your suit contract and you had the AQ in your hand, and you ask about their honor leads.

Couldn't you want to know (presumably you ask about their leads and carding in general and only if they only talk about spot leads do you ask about the card led) to tell which cards the defender might think are in partner's hand. For instance, if they lead Q from KQ and K from AK then if you win this first trick RHO will know you have the Q. If they lead top of both then RHO will not know you have the Q. How you choose to defend could be influenced by this because it would effect how RHO is likely to play the hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rogerclee

rogerclee

Posted
Posted
There are some questions which you can get in trouble for asking. An obvious one would be if they led the K against your suit contract and you had the AQ in your hand, and you ask about their honor leads.

Couldn't you want to know (presumably you ask about their leads and carding in general and only if they only talk about spot leads do you ask about the card led) to tell which cards the defender might think are in partner's hand. For instance, if they lead Q from KQ and K from AK then if you win this first trick RHO will know you have the Q. If they lead top of both then RHO will not know you have the Q. How you choose to defend could be influenced by this because it would effect how RHO is likely to play the hand.

You could want to know a lot of things. However Law 73F says that if you had no demonstrable bridge reason to ask a question, do not be surprised if your board gets adjusted (usually at the NABC+ level I think) because:

 

i) Your RHO decided to play his partner for the Q, and it turns out shifting to your weak suit would have been better.

ii) Your RHO decided to shift to your weak suit, and it turns out playing his partner for club shortness would have been better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pict

Pict

Posted
Posted

I've being looking at appeal cases for a long time.

 

I have not noticed a case about people asking about carding methods.

 

As a player I don't recall anyone telling me about such a case from either side - director decision or appeal.

 

This has always seemed slightly odd to me, but that is my impression. If this represents a new battlefield opening, I await with interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluejak

bluejak

Posted
Posted
You could want to know a lot of things. However Law 73F says that if you had no demonstrable bridge reason to ask a question, do not be surprised if your board gets adjusted (usually at the NABC+ level I think) because:

It is a perfectly normal directing decision at any level: why NABC+?

 

:lol:

 

As a player I don't recall anyone telling me about such a case from either side - director decision or appeal.

 

This has always seemed slightly odd to me, but that is my impression.  If this represents a new  battlefield opening, I await with interest.

No, I do not think they are common, But remember a discussion after such a question in the Spring Foursomes sometime around 1970.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...