Complex discard system

[Humper]

Playing in an open pair event in New Orleans, I had this play problem:

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sqjt9haxxdkqxxxcj&s=saxhxxxdajxxcatxx]133|200|Scoring: Matchpoints[/hv]

 

I open 1♦ in first seat, partner responds 1♠, and my RHO overcalls 2♣, after which we somehow get to three notrump. Not much of a problem -- I figure I'll hook the spade since most of the cards should be on my right.

 

Before the lead, I asked "leads and carding", and they started explaining a very intricate discard system wherein even and odd cards of different colors meant different things. There was no way I could keep it in my head, so I said "I'll ask when it comes up". They agreed that this was a good idea.

 

My LHO led the 6♥, ducked to RHO's K♥. RHO returns the 2♥, and LHO follows with the 5♥. I still haven't seen the 3♥.

 

I start running the diamonds, and my LHO's first discard is the 5♠. His next discard is the 2♠, and I remember about their funky discarding agreement. I point to the 2♠ (still on the table), and ask RHO "what does that mean?"

 

RHO replies "it shows a spade honor".

 

Thinking now that the spade finesse is off, I place RHO with ♠x ♥Kx ♦xxx ♣KQxxxxx (not much of an overcall, but even so, I don't think LHO would signal for spades holding nothing in spades and looking at ♠QJT9 in dummy).

 

So I finish the diamonds, lead the Q♠ to the A♠, and play a small ♣ to the J♣, hoping to win two tricks in the forced club return. Of course, RHO produces the 3♥, so I go down a bunch.

 

It turns out that RHO has overcalled on ♠Kx ♥K32 ♦xxx ♣Qxxxx (!), so the normal spade finesse would score up the game.

 

I ask about the non-spade honor, and they inform me that the 2♠ was actually meaningless, and that the first spade discard (the 5♠) was the only one that had meaning (it showed a club honor, making the spade finesse about 150%), but of course I hadn't asked about that card.

 

The directors ruled that even though I asked a very specific question and was lied to, I trapped myself by not asking about the first discard. They said that if I was legally able to ask the question I asked at the table, lazy declarers could use it as a memory aid if they couldn't remember whether someone had followed to the last round of a suit (ask about the discard, and if they say "well it was his second, so it doesn't mean anything", then I know that they didn't follow on the last round).

 

I pointed out that they could have just said "if it were his first discard, it shows...", in which case I would have asked about the 5♠, but they stuck by their memory-aid argument.

 

Surely I could have protected myself by asking more questions, but the answer I got was *so* clear, I didn't think I needed to. Thoughts?

[pran]

The answer to your question about the discard of the ♠2 was clearly misinformation because it concealed the important effect of the previous ♠5 discard on this discard as if there was no such "modifying condition".

 

Consequently a "full" disclosure of their discard signals should have included this condition which implicitly would have suggested a follow-up question about the previous discard of the ♠5.

 

In my opinion the disclosure of the ♠5 should be given without any explicit request as part of the disclosure on the ♠2 discard.

 

I would have ruled a deliberate (not accidental!) misinformation and adjusted the score. (I would also seriously have considered a PP on your opponents)

[Humper]

In my opinion the disclosure of the ♠5 should be given without any explicit request as part of the disclosure on the ♠2 discard.

Interesting, so does that mean I don't have to remember what the first discard actually was? Is that true if I point to the seventh discard and say "what's that"?

 

I didn't think to go that far, but if they had modified what they had said with "if this were his first discard", then I surely would have asked about the ♠5. I don't think I should be able to say "Oh, then what did his first discard mean". Surely I should have to say something like "Oh, then tell me about the five of spades from the previous trick" or something like that.

 

Seems like you could really trap a pair -- what if I couldn't remember which low spade spot was played, but I remember it was a small one. Can I guess and say "Oh, well then tell me about the four of spades on the previous trick"? Should the opponents tell me what the FOUR would have meant? Should they say "if the previous discard was the four, it would have meant XXX"? Should they say "Um, it wasn't the four" (in which case I say "oops I meant the five, duh" until I get it right)?

[jdonn]

They explained the meaning of the 2 of spades incorrectly. They said it shows a spade honor when it actually was, by their own later admission, meaningless. And that clearly caused you to go wrong. You don't even have to consider whether you could have asked about the 5 of spades or whether they should have explained its meaning anyway to reach the right ruling here.

 

So I adjust the score for both sides to 3NT making 5. Then, as usual, I will simply state whether I do or do not want to add on a further penalty to EW (DO in this case) but leave it to legal experts to tell me whether I have any legal justification to do so here.

[pran]

Then, as usual, I will simply state whether I do or do not want to add on a further penalty to EW (DO in this case) but leave it to legal experts to tell me whether I have any legal justification to do so here.

You certainly have.

 

East and West have deliberately given an incorrect explanation on the discard of the ♠2 in a position where they could very well know that this misinformation was likely to damage opponents.

 

The legal justification is Law 23 and Law 90A (violates correct procedure). I'm sure we could find other lustifications as well, but I think this is more than enough.

[pran]

In my opinion the disclosure of the ♠5 should be given without any explicit request as part of the disclosure on the ♠2 discard.

Interesting, so does that mean I don't have to remember what the first discard actually was? Is that true if I point to the seventh discard and say "what's that"?

 

I didn't think to go that far, but if they had modified what they had said with "if this were his first discard", then I surely would have asked about the ♠5. I don't think I should be able to say "Oh, then what did his first discard mean". Surely I should have to say something like "Oh, then tell me about the five of spades from the previous trick" or something like that.

 

Seems like you could really trap a pair -- what if I couldn't remember which low spade spot was played, but I remember it was a small one. Can I guess and say "Oh, well then tell me about the four of spades on the previous trick"? Should the opponents tell me what the FOUR would have meant? Should they say "if the previous discard was the four, it would have meant XXX"? Should they say "Um, it wasn't the four" (in which case I say "oops I meant the five, duh" until I get it right)?

No, you most certainly do not have to remember or specify the previous discard that "modified" the meaning of the discard in question.

 

The correct explanation here would have been something like: "The ♠2 discard does not signal anything due to the previous discard of the ♠5. My partner has only signalled a club honor". Notice how this explanation corresponds to the original explanation eventually given at the table after the play!

[OleBerg]

The TD has simply lost his sense of logic.

 

The TD would obviously have wanted you to ask: "What are your discarding methods." (And it is indeed the correct way to ask.) BUT that does under no circumstance allow them to misinform you.

 

Their correct action, if they felt you were trying to take advantage, would be to call the TD. I have never given a PP in my life, but this would be just about the spot.

 

And if a TD has some strong feelings about players who ask in this sligthly incorrect fashion, he should not go on a singlehanded-crusade. Rather he should take it up with the organizing body. They might then decide to make an effort to change peoples habits.

 

So under absolutely no circumstance, can your opponents keep their score.

 

There might be a case for ruling that you should keep your score, but (Bridge)Law is not an excact science, and I find it beyond silly.

[Humper]

Well, the initial ruling was that there was no damage because the table director felt that my line was nullo. When I showed them the 1237 hand I was playing for, they said "oh" and showed it to a few other directors, *then* they came up with the memory aid stuff. This sounds silly to me, but more than one director looked at the hand.

 

I'm really skeptical about the idea that their proper answer would reveal the precise spot of my LHO's prior discard. This seems to go against the idea that once a trick is quitted you can't examine it further. I don't think there should be any question I can ask that requires the opponents to tell me what their prior discard was. What if *they* don't remember?

 

In case I'm not being clear, it was not the ♠5-♠2 sequence that showed a club honor, it was the fact that they discarded an odd black card. I believe they were doing something like odd black shows clubs, odd red shows diamonds, even red shows hearts, and even black shows spades. They were all excited about how this allows you to signal that you have an entry in trumps when partner is trying to get a ruff.

[barmar]

The opp gave an incorrect answer to your question. You asked what the ♠2 showed. He answered what it would have shown if it had been the first discard, which is not what you asked, and not at all helpful.

 

ACBL regulations further state that when responding to questions, players should provide all relevant information, not just pedantically answer the precise question that was asked. They're expected to discern the intent of your question, you don't have to phrase the question correctly.

[mrdct]

Adjustment to 3NT+2 and throw the book at RHO for clearly being a cheat in every sense of the word.

 

Having said that, "what does that mean?" is a pretty inappropriate question to be asking and I have a modicum of sympathy for the director coming down hard on you for querying the carding methods in that manner.

[cherdanno]

The correct explanation here would have been something like: "The ♠2 discard does not signal anything due to the previous discard of the ♠5. My partner has only signalled a club honor". Notice how this explanation corresponds to the original explanation eventually given at the table after the play!

It wouldn't occur to me to say anything like that. I would say "Our first discard shows blah, later discards are bleh."

[mjj29]

I agree with everyone who thinks the score should have been changed. Regarding disclosure of carding methods, I am someone who plays quite a complicated carding method (http://www.prismsignals.com/) and so have experience trying to disclose it. My approach here would be to say "The first discard shows an honour in a particular suit depending on the colour and parity of the card. Spades is shown by an even black card, Hearts by ...., subsequent discards are meaniingless". Or, since a specific question was asked: "The first discard shows an honour in a particular suit depending on the colour and parity of the card. This is an even black card and therefore would show spades". If they then say "well, what did the previous discard show" I would feign to have forgotten what that was until they ask "what would the 5♠ show", at which point I'd say "That would show clubs".

[PrinceNep]

Everything here seems pretty logical with the exception of what the appropriate response is to the ♠2. Wouldn't the correct response be to explain whatever the 2nd order of signaling is?

 

For example, my partner and I play lavinthal first discards. The following discard would be count. Should my opponent ask "what does this card mean?", my response should be "count".

 

The earlier post where the defender must point out that it is not the first discard and explain what the ♠5 said earlier seems to be way over the top in the reverse direction. Should the declarer be allowed at any time throughout the hand to ask what a defenders first discard was? Absolutely not, but that is about the equivalent of explaining the agreement of the ♠5. Had declarer asked specifically "what did the ♠5 show", then a correct explanation seems in order.

 

The only reason this is actually an issue is the fact you were blatantly lied to. For that, the defenders deserve to be severely punished.

[mycroft]

Exactly. "our first discard is Revolving Lavinthal, further discards are 'what partner needs to know or what I need to pitch'. Do you understand Revolving discards?" and explain it if the answer is "no".

 

If declarer can't remember that the S2 is the second discard, it's not up to me to remind her. If she can, then she'll have the information she needs.

 

In the ACBL, as people have said, "any question" is the trigger for full disclosure; they didn't do that, but this might not be the ACBL. However, they didn't only not do that, they actually gave the wrong explanation - the S2 is meaningless, not "denies a spade honour", and answering as if it were a different discard was actively attempting to conceal the fact that it was the second discard, *and* misinforming, *and* not providing full disclosure.

 

I don't necessarily know if I'm resolving for declarer (probably, just haven't thought about it), but the defenders are getting 3NT+2. And maybe a PP. And almost certainly a warning that "if you continue to not be able to describe your agreements correctly and clearly to opponents, you will be denied permission to play them. (Law 40B2a, almost all Regulating Authorities 'allow conditionally' Special Partnership Understandings on the condition that they can describe them to the opponents)"

[MickyB]

I think suggesting they be "severely punished" is way off. Yes, the defender didn't handle the situation optimally, but it's not easy to know what to say in this situation - several posters in this thread have suggested explanations which disclose what the first discard was - for all the defender knows, declarer may have failed to notice that this wasn't the first discard!

[jdonn]

I think suggesting they be "severely punished" is way off. Yes, the defender didn't handle the situation optimally, but it's not easy to know what to say in this situation - several posters in this thread have suggested explanations which disclose what the first discard was - for all the defender knows, declarer may have failed to notice that this wasn't the first discard!

So what? At least answer what the card that was asked about actually means. The correct answer would be "meaningless". You don't lie about what it means to fool declarer into thinking it may have been the first discard!

[MickyB]

Given the previous discussion, replying "meaningless" would basically give away that it wasn't the first discard. I'm not saying that what he did was right, just that he was put into a non-trivial position.

[MickyB]

BTW, anyone who plays that discard system in the UK is guaranteed to be terrible at bridge. If that isn't the case here then my opinion may change slightly.

[TimG]

Given the previous discussion, replying "meaningless" would basically give away that it wasn't the first discard. I'm not saying that what he did was right, just that he was put into a non-trivial position.

I disagree, I think it was a trivial position. There was a simple and correct answer to the question asked, these defenders chose not to give that answer. Further, they chose to give what they knew to be an incorrect answer.

[mycroft]

It's not trivial. The problem is that declarer might have missed the first discard, and we don't want to clue her in. The defender decided on a "solution" to that problem, and hoped to be following the Laws while doing so. That's the wrong order, by law.

 

The punishment for the non-solution that was selected *is* trivial, because the meaning of the card was not the meaning given to declarer for *that card*. That's deliberate misinformation - it *can't* have been accidental - and they're lucky to get away with adjustment, a PP, and a stern talking to.

 

If they have a system that they can't describe easily to the opponents without giving information that they don't want to give to declarer, they have two options: suck it up, or play a different system.

[pran]

The opp gave an incorrect answer to your question. You asked what the ♠2 showed. He answered what it would have shown if it had been the first discard, which is not what you asked, and not at all helpful.

 

ACBL regulations further state that when responding to questions, players should provide all relevant information, not just pedantically answer the precise question that was asked. They're expected to discern the intent of your question, you don't have to phrase the question correctly.

This is not only ACBL - it is the law. See Law 40B6:

 

{a} When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to opponent’s enquiry (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 knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

 

{b} The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation is crucial for opponent’s choice of action and opponent is thereby damaged.

[pran]

The correct explanation here would have been something like: "The ♠2 discard does not signal anything due to the previous discard of the ♠5. My partner has only signalled a club honor". Notice how this explanation corresponds to the original explanation eventually given at the table after the play!

It wouldn't occur to me to say anything like that. I would say "Our first discard shows blah, later discards are bleh."

Fair enough.

 

I wrote "something like" and this seems to be "something like"?

[jdonn]

Mickyb and mycroft, sorry I believe you have both absolutely lost your minds here. Aw the poor defender didn't want to clue declarer in so decided lying would be the best solution in this horribly difficult situation!

[MickyB]

Most players who play this discard system in the UK probably aren't even aware that a second discard can be played to mean something.

[cherdanno]

I think suggesting they be "severely punished" is way off. Yes, the defender didn't handle the situation optimally, but it's not easy to know what to say in this situation - several posters in this thread have suggested explanations which disclose what the first discard was - for all the defender knows, declarer may have failed to notice that this wasn't the first discard!

But defender explicitly and intentionally lied, in a situation where it was obviously beneficial for him to do so! You can't lie about your signaling just to avoid reminding declarer about what happened on the previous trick.

If you don't give a PP for this explanation, do you ever give one for intentional misexplanations?