Complex discard system

[peachy]

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.

Under the given circumstances, and after the mutual agreement that *declarer will ask when a discard comes up (instead of digesting the entire structure before declaring)*, there is nothing wrong with phrasing the question the way it was phrased. Even if you think it is a wrong form of question, in ACBL the answer still has to be complete even if the declarer did not ask the right question. This pair of defenders both

1) gave misinformation - doesn't matter if it was deliberate/intentional or not - which they corrected too late and which caused damage

2) concealed their discarding agreements - it looks pretty intentional to me too

 

The TD (or more than one) have apparently erred. I wonder if it was a TD in charge who made the table ruling and the consultee's were his subordinates :) :)

 

I would fill out a recorder form and appeal the ruling. There are two issues here, not just the ruling.

[awm]

My inclination here would be to let declarer keep his result, but to adjust against the defending pair.

 

I think declarer's question was poorly worded; he should've asked about the first discard or the sequence of discards or the discarding method in general. Also, while declarer's line is not truly "nullo" it is playing for an extremely improbable position (basically, overcaller has a totally normal 3♣ preempt). It seems like his partner could've falsecarded the discard in any case, or not be signaling this late in the hand, or not have the appropriate cards to signal for what he actually has (is there even a signal that says "I have nothing useful any more"?) So I wouldn't want to give declarer a good result on this board, considering the errors which have been made.

 

Nonetheless, the defending side did mislead declarer by explaining what the ♠2 would've meant if it was the first discard, rather than explaining more generally how their discards in the spade suit work or answering truthfully that it means nothing at this point in the hand, or even saying "if it's his first discard, it shows...." This misleading explanation did contribute to declarer taking the wrong line (even though declarer should've found the right line or at least asked a better question in any case). So I'd adjust the E/W score as appropriate; if they are an experienced pair (probably not, given their style) I would also issue a procedural penalty.

[jdonn]

Sorry Adam you have lost your mind here too, and I think shown you don't understand the law here as well. Declarer can ask whatever question he thinks will help him, and your huge overbid of the "extremely improbable" holding is far more probable than what turned out to be the actual holding.

[mycroft]

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!

Josh, may I suggest before I go off to my psychiatrist that you read more than the first sentence of my last reply?

 

The problem is non-trivial. There is a right solution - several right solutions, I think, one of which I posted above - and one of those must be chosen. One is entitled to give one's full disclosure in a way that avoids giving information that is not part of that full disclosure (*); but if there is no way to do that, then full disclosure trumps. Just because the problem isn't trivial doesn't mean that they are allowed to come to the wrong solution.

 

The player in question decided that something trumped full disclosure, and

[t]hat'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.

The TD is within his rights to disqualify the pair for this; *I* wouldn't do it, but I would make it clear that it was within our powers, and let them figure out why. My other reply, earlier, is, in fact, a credible threat (and frankly, likely to them a scarier prospect than the adjustment, penalty, and threat of disqualification): if you fail to correctly disclose your agreement again, you will be barred from playing it until you can prove you can.

 

(*) Two examples, both of which I have seen in practise:

- "what does that lead show?" "The lower the card he leads, the more he wants it returned." "So does it show an honour?" "Neither promises nor denies; the lower the card he leads, the more he wants it returned." (The leader had Txxxx2 and enough entries to run the suit, provided partner had two and didn't switch if he got in!)

- "What are your discards?" "A spade denies interest in spades; low shows interest in hearts over diamonds, high would show interest in diamonds over hearts." "So, what does the 6 show?/So, is that high or low?" "I don't know. (Show me your hand, and I'll be able to tell you.)"

I have also seen exactly the solution I suggested: "Our first discard shows [describe Lavinthal here]. Later discards are whatever he thinks best." Repeated to answer the followup question "So does that show interest in hearts?" When declarer went down and complained, opponent mentioned that the card being asked about was the *second* discard.

[jdonn]

I read the first sentence and it's wrong, the problem is trivial.

 

Declarer asked a question.

 

The defenders merely have to answer the exact question declarer asked. There are no side issues, questions about what else he might have asked, worries about divulging too much information, alternative possible answers to dance around exactly what they want to say. They just have to answer what he asked, nothing more nothing less.

 

They intentionally gave a false answer to what he asked.

 

It couldn't be any more trivial.

[awm]

Sorry Adam you have lost your mind here too, and I think shown you don't understand the law here as well. Declarer can ask whatever question he thinks will help him, and your huge overbid of the "extremely improbable" holding is far more probable than what turned out to be the actual holding.

Well, I think declarer took a really bad line of play on this hand. Yes, there is one very precise lie of the cards (overcaller with 1-2-3-7 shape, 8 hcp, both club honors) where his line of play works. But this layout is unlikely (especially since most people bid 3♣ on such a hand and not 2♣). It's got to be more likely that the spade king is onside and opponents have simply stopped signaling by this point in the play, doesn't it? We have plenty of precedent (including a recent discussion in these fora) for letting declarer keep his bad score when he took a line which seems very poor even given the MI.

 

It seems to me that declarer asked a very badly phrased question, took the (admittedly stupid) answer he received at face value, and then selected a line of play which can't be right unless opponents absolutely never falsecard their signals.

 

With that said, I'm not condoning what the defending side did on this hand, and would adjust their score appropriately.

[bluejak]

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.

Cr.... errr rubbish. It was a completely trivial position for a non-cheating pair.

 

Remember that they had already said it was a good idea to just explain it as it goes along. They then did not, they lied, they made no effort to produce the carding they played.

 

That the TDs condoned cheating is incredible.

 

How do you explain it? Well you tell him what you play, not something you do not. To my mind that is trivial.

 

As for the idea that when playing a complex system a player should try to gain an advantage by hiding the fact that it is a second discard and make sure that he discloses the wrong meaning in an attempt to do so, then I do not want to see such a player in the same team as me, the same bridge club, the same event, or the same continent.

 

Ok, there is more than one way to answer the question legally, and some people will try to hide the fact that it was a second discard. I hope such people are proud of themselves, and if they ever win anything are proud of how they go about it.

[jdonn]

Sorry Adam you have lost your mind here too, and I think shown you don't understand the law here as well. Declarer can ask whatever question he thinks will help him, and your huge overbid of the "extremely improbable" holding is far more probable than what turned out to be the actual holding.

Well, I think declarer took a really bad line of play on this hand. Yes, there is one very precise lie of the cards (overcaller with 1-2-3-7 shape, 8 hcp, both club honors) where his line of play works. But this layout is unlikely (especially since most people bid 3♣ on such a hand and not 2♣). It's got to be more likely that the spade king is onside and opponents have simply stopped signaling by this point in the play, doesn't it? We have plenty of precedent (including a recent discussion in these fora) for letting declarer keep his bad score when he took a line which seems very poor even given the MI.

 

It seems to me that declarer asked a very badly phrased question, took the (admittedly stupid) answer he received at face value, and then selected a line of play which can't be right unless opponents absolutely never falsecard their signals.

 

With that said, I'm not condoning what the defending side did on this hand, and would adjust their score appropriately.

Given the very specific answer he got, I would have played it exactly as he did at imps for sure and maybe at matchpoints. True he was playing matchpoints, but taking what looks like the best line of play to make the contract is so very far from the threshold at which you wouldn't adjust their score that you are baffling me.

 

What is so unlikely about the hand he is playing for anyway? 3 diamonds is proven. 2 hearts is very likely with the 3 still missing. 5+ clubs is known and surely is likely to include both honors. And the opponents made a signal that showed the spade was off. On top of that west didn't lead a club nor did he raise (I assume?) greatly increasing the odds east has long clubs. I would say what declarer played for was extremely likely! Not only that but declarer was breaking even if east had Kxx Kx xxx KQxxx.

 

I sound like bluejak but I don't recall agreeing with this any more than I do this time - I can't believe how far out of your way you are going to punish the non-offending side.

[mrdct]

I'm not sure of the alerting regulations in ACBL-land, but in Australia you would be required to pre-alert an unusual defensive carding method like this, so we might even be able to give EW a PP for failure to pre-alert.

 

The answer to the question ought to have been:

 

"We generally play our first discard as blah blah and subsequent carding is either blah or blah depending on blah".

 

If there is a follow-up question of "what does the ♠2 show?" the answer should be:

 

"That depends on what other cards he has in his hand and what his earlier carding may have been. If it's his first discard it indicates blah blah and if it's a subsequent discard it's either blah or blah depending on blah".

 

There is a potentially innocent explanation for east's apparent cheating by lying about the meaning of the ♠2 discard. East himself may not have been paying full attention and wasn't aware that there had already been a discard of the ♠5. The fact that declarer quized him on the ♠2 and not the ♠5 may have confused east into thinking that the ♠2 was the first discard. This explantion won't get him off the hook for the misexplanation though. Particularly at non-elite levels, this is a very frequent occurence (that is defenders not remembering what partner has pitched).

[MickyB]

Ok, there is more than one way to answer the question legally, and some people will try to hide the fact that it was a second discard. I hope such people are proud of themselves, and if they ever win anything are proud of how they go about it.

Sorry, are you implying that the defender should ensure that declarer knows that his partner failed to follow suit on the previous round? I don't understand this at all.

[MickyB]

In fact, the more I think about this, the more I think that declarer was pretty likely to be trying something on with his line of questioning. Why would you ever ask what the two of spades meant if you knew the first discard was the five of spades?

[mycroft]

I read the first sentence and it's wrong, the problem is trivial.

Maybe.

Declarer asked a question.

The defenders merely have to answer the exact question declarer asked.

Absolutely and by the letter of the regulation incorrect (at least where you and I play); and for very good reasons. The defenders are required, whatever the question asked, to provide full disclosure.

 

Apart from everything else that goes along with it (because most of the time we have issues between "answering the question asked" and "providing full disclosure", it's because the answering side is trying to hide *systemic information* by "answer[ing] the exact question asked"), where does it end?

 

"What does that show?"

"Meaningless."

"No, seriously, what does that show?"

"That he thinks that is a safe card to pitch."

"But what about all of that crazy discarding system that you talked about earlier?"

"doesn't apply to this play."

"Why not?"

...okay, so do I have to answer this question? Is "all of that applied to a previous trick" an "answer to the exact question declarer asked"? If I do have to answer that question, or the obvious next one, or have to say "he's shown a club card with his previous plays, this card doesn't mean anything", does that mean I can ask the same series of questions of the pair tonight that play standard discards when I can't remember whether the first discard was the D9 or D2? Now, if declarer asks "what did the spade 5 show?", I'm happy (and required) to tell him.

 

I see nothing wrong, bluejak aside, with the answer "standard signals, revolving Lavinthal on the first discard, further discards 'as possible'", provided the opponents understand revolving Lavinthal (and if not, I'll happily explain that). If the players playing the "complex discarding system" can't explain it with that kind of simple response, then they have to come up with some way to do it that is complete, correct, and not misinforming. If they can't do that without providing information that declarer might have forgotten about, well, sucks to be them, doesn't it?

 

They intentionally gave a false answer to what he asked.

It couldn't be any more trivial.

Oh, true, true, that couldn't be more trivial. I have no sympathy whatever for what E/W actually did.

[Humper]

In fact, the more I think about this, the more I think that declarer was pretty likely to be trying something on with his line of questioning. Why would you ever ask what the two of spades meant if you knew the first discard was the five of spades?

It's true, I definitely could have asked more or better questions. If their answer to my initial question were even a little doubtful or had a hint of "if it were his first" or something I would have probed further.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "this late in the hand", Adam -- the 2 of spades was trick 5. For what it's worth, they mentioned during the initial attempt to explain the whole system that not only could you signal for trumps, you could also signal for the suit in which you were discarding, which would suggest that you have nothing.

 

It's also true that even if the ♠K is in the slot, if my RHO has two hearts this line of play should break even, so even if they're falsecarding like fiends, it pays off only to, well, basically the exact hand my RHO had. I have to play for *something* :)

 

I'm totally sympathetic to the fact that the defenders wouldn't want to "wake me up" to the fact that he had discarded already. I think that rather than answering "nothing" (waking me up to the diamonds being 1-3), or saying "if it was his first discard" (again waking me up), they could just say:

 

"In a black suit, the first discard of an even card would show a spade honor, and of an odd card would show a club honor. Subsequent discards are random". That would be totally sufficient, and if I badgered them about "WELL TELL ME ABOUT THE TWO, DAMMIT", then they could call the director.

[mrdct]

The manner in which dislcosure of carding agreements in made is generally a matter for local regulating authorities. In most places of the world where I've played you can ask what your opponents' carding agreements are, you can ask about style and priorities for 1st and subsequent discards and you can ask about style and priorities for suits led and/or bid by either side; but asking what a specific card means is highly inappropriate imho as it is often dependent on cards that have already gone by and/or what the person answering the question has in his own hand and could place a defender in an awkward situation where a card from partner might indicate a card that he is actually looking at in his own hand.

[blackshoe]

People ask far more questions about bidding than they do play. People also tend to get into habits. When asking about bidding, people often ask about specific calls, particularly when those calls are alerted, in spite of Law 20's admonition to ask first about the entire auction (I'll grant you there are some situations in which asking about the entire auction seems silly). People who are in the habit of asking about specific calls are likely to carry that habit over into asking about specific card plays, and will not think they've done anything wrong — particularly if, as has happened to me, they ask for an explanation of the opponents' auction, the opponents call the TD, and the first thing out of the TD's mouth is "which call were you interested in?". :blink: So while I agree that asking "what does that card mean?" or similar should be deprecated, I don't think you can shoot players for doing it.

[zenko]

this story simply does not add up - they tell you about ther funky leads and 30 second later you manage to already forget all about it, then when you wake up you decide for some mysterious reason not to ask about ther discards in general (the proper way), or about the 5 (inproper but understandible) but you ask about the 2? why? there is no way that you would like to know what the 2 means and do not care about the 5, so what gives?

 

regarding defenders, are they even obliged to say anything, cant they just give you their convention card and point you their written discarding agreements? the fact that they are"complex" is immaterial, what matter only is are they allowed and are they correctly disclossed on their convention card.

[pran]

There is a potentially innocent explanation for east's apparent cheating by lying about the meaning of the ♠2 discard. East himself may not have been paying full attention and wasn't aware that there had already been a discard of the ♠5. The fact that declarer quized him on the ♠2 and not the ♠5 may have confused east into thinking that the ♠2 was the first discard. This explantion won't get him off the hook for the misexplanation though. Particularly at non-elite levels, this is a very frequent occurence (that is defenders not remembering what partner has pitched).

This is not at all an "innocent explanation".

 

If you have a "complicated" signalling system where the meaning of a discard depends heavily on previous discard(s) then it is your responsibility to notice and remember all previous (relevant) discards so that you will be able to give correct explanations if asked.

[pran]

In fact, the more I think about this, the more I think that declarer was pretty likely to be trying something on with his line of questioning. Why would you ever ask what the two of spades meant if you knew the first discard was the five of spades?

Say that the second discard in a suit is the three. In nearly every signalling system the meaning of this three depends on whether the first discard in the suit was the two or the four. Is there anyone who would argue that an explanation should not bring this into the answer by for instance saying (when the first discard was the four) "it completes a high-low signal indicating an even number of cards"?

 

Here the "meaning" of the ♠2 was varied due to the previous discard of the ♠5. Concealing such fact in an answer is as close to cheating as it is possible to come.

[bluejak]

this story simply does not add up - they tell you about ther funky leads and 30 second later you manage to already forget all about it, then when you wake up you decide for some mysterious reason not to ask about ther discards in general (the proper way), or about the 5 (inproper but understandible) but you ask about the 2? why? there is no way that you would like to know what the 2 means and do not care about the 5, so what gives?

 

regarding defenders, are they even obliged to say anything, cant they just give you their convention card and point you their written discarding agreements? the fact that they are"complex" is immaterial, what matter only is are they allowed and are they correctly disclossed on their convention card.

They are required to answer questions. No, refusing to answer questions is rude and illegal, so I will give them a DP for being rude and a PP for failing to disclose adequately.

 

A lot of the answers do not seem related to this particular situation: the opposition encouraged declarer to leave it to the time and ask questions: do they really expect then to hide what they were playing and get away with it?

 

As for asking questions badly, yet again several responses to this thread seem to be along the lines of let's screw the non-offending side. In bridge you disclose your agreements as fully as you are able to: if you do not, you are breaking the Laws: if you do not deliberately you are a cheat. This pair made made no effort to adequately disclose their methods - and worse.

 

Who cares whether declarer acted like a tosspot ;) or not? Well, obviously some of you do, but why? Declarer acting like a tosspot does not give the other side the right to bend the rules, break them, cheat or otherwise act in any such manner. To make it worse this is the ACBL which has a specific regulation that requires Full Disclosure in the face of a poorly worded question.

[cherdanno]

As for the idea that when playing a complex system a player should try to gain an advantage by hiding the fact that it is a second discard and make sure that he discloses the wrong meaning in an attempt to do so, then I do not want to see such a player in the same team as me, the same bridge club, the same event, or the same continent.

 

Ok, there is more than one way to answer the question legally, and some people will try to hide the fact that it was a second discard. I hope such people are proud of themselves, and if they ever win anything are proud of how they go about it.

This seems an overreaction. If a declarer plays to a trick, and then when he is finished, asks me to show the card I played to a previous trick, I would refuse to do that. (And I would be insulted if an opponent would volunteer to show me his previously played card when he thinks I may have forgotten it.)

 

If in this situation I had the impression that declarer has not noticed the previous discard, why should I help him? I will make any attempt to make sure he does not misunderstand my explanations. But if you miss that a defender already made a pitch on the previous trick, well it's part of bridge to notice and remember discards, and if a declarer is about to miscount the distribution because he missed a discard, then I won't help him just to make sure he does not misunderstand the signal partner is giving me.

 

(To make things simpler - say declarer pulls two rounds of trumps, partner following with 76, and me following with the 5 then pitching. If declarer asked you what the 6 means, would you also tell him "high-low means he is signaling for hearts", rather than saying "we play suit preference in the trump suit, in this case telling me his preference between diamonds and hearts"?)

[mjj29]

regarding defenders, are they even obliged to say anything, cant they just give you their convention card and point you their written discarding agreements? the fact that they are"complex" is immaterial, what matter only is are they allowed and are they correctly disclossed on their convention card.

As bluejak says, you are still required to answer, but more to the point, there is limited space on the convention card, so explanations there are necessarily terse and often it's either helpful or required for you to give a more long-winded explanation in order for oppo to understand - or they just don't like reading detail system cards in small writing, which is fine. They are entitled to a full explanation when they ask.

[mrdct]

There is a potentially innocent explanation for east's apparent cheating by lying about the meaning of the ♠2 discard.  East himself may not have been paying full attention and wasn't aware that there had already been a discard of the ♠5. The fact that declarer quized him  on the ♠2 and not the ♠5 may have confused east into thinking that the ♠2 was the first discard. This explantion won't get him off the hook for the misexplanation though.  Particularly at non-elite levels, this is a very frequent occurence (that is defenders not remembering what partner has pitched).

This is not at all an "innocent explanation".

 

If you have a "complicated" signalling system where the meaning of a discard depends heavily on previous discard(s) then it is your responsibility to notice and remember all previous (relevant) discards so that you will be able to give correct explanations if asked.

I meant innocent in that he can avoid the lifetime ban from bridge and 28 page BBO thread flaming his poor ethics. He will not escape a penalty (be that procedural, adjustment or both) for the misexplanation.

 

I wish I was a good enough bridge player to never miss a pip from partner and be able to read the 2nd card played in a suit 100% of the time with 100% accuracy. The reality is that all bridge players of all standards will miss a pip from time to time, particularly in circumstances where you determine the moment that dummy goes down that partner's hand is irrelevant and the outcome is going to depend solely on declarer guessing everything correctly.

 

On this hand, it is quite unlikely that any carding from west is going to be of any assistance to him so he could well have just tuned-out and not realised that the ♠5 had already gone.

[zenko]

The defender's response was despicable, thats for sure, but if I am director I would first ask the declarer the obvious question: "why did you inquiry specifically about the 2, why not about 5?", and if I do not hear something convincing (which I doubt would happen) I would let him have his bad score, adjust the score for defenders and send them all to ethics committee.

 

If you, even after strong clues that the declarer simply missed the card, choose to award him for being verbally resourceful you are creating a moral hazard. Or to say it more bluntly, next time I miss the card I am sure I will remember this neat trick, of course I will not use it, but I know many that would if they know about it.

[jdonn]

The initial post said why he asked about the second card, because that is when he remembered they play a weird discarding system so he just asked about the card on the table.

[gnasher]

Say that the second discard in a suit is the three. In nearly every signalling system the meaning of this three depends on whether the first discard in the suit was the two or the four. Is there anyone who would argue that an explanation should not bring this into the answer by for instance saying (when the first discard was the four) "it completes a high-low signal indicating an even number of cards"?

Yes, I would argue that. I think it's perfectly OK to answer "High-low shows an even number; low-high shows an odd number."