Complex discard system

[gnasher]

Similarly, on the originally posted hand, one might answer "If it's his first spade discard, it shows a spade honour; if it isn't it has no special meaning." I can't see anything improper about that.

 

For this approach to be fully effective, one would have to sometimes give the same answer when it really is the first discard. That might attract some strange looks.

[duschek]

I am slightly worried when some say that you do wrong in not including in your explanation of the ♠2 the fact that it completes the signal given by the ♠5.

 

This means that you do wrong (legally) when forgetting a card played (because you cannot comply with the "requirement"), which obviously cannot be the case. You can request a review of the auction, but not of the play.

[zenko]

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.

Are you are really buying that? The fact that he just now recall about their carding does not explain in any way, or make it more logical, to ask about the meaning of the second discard first. The claim that they are "complex" is immaterial and does not make the question less strange or less improper in any way.

[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.

Are you are really buying that? The fact that he just now recall about their carding does not explain in any way, or make it more logical, to ask about the meaning of the second discard first. The claim that they are "complex" is immaterial and does not make the question less strange or less improper in any way.

Of course I believe it, just how cynical are you? The fact their methods are complex is completely relevent, it caused him to be unable to understand the entire system when he first asked. Don't forget he tried to find out about their carding just like a normal person at the start of play, but it turned out to be quite difficult to comprehend.

 

He didn't ask about the second discard first because it was logical, he did it because the card was sitting in front of his face when he remembered about their methods.

 

And his question may be strange but is in no way improper.

[peachy]

This means that you do wrong (legally) when forgetting a card played (because you cannot comply with the "requirement"), which obviously cannot be the case. You can request a review of the auction, but not of the play.

Well, it is the case, actually. If you forget your agreement and give either a wrong explanation or a "I don't know", you are not in compliance with the requirement to correctly explain the partnership agreement and you are in violation of the law. The reason why you are *not in compliance* is irrelevant.

 

PS: "you" here is generic, I hope everyone understands that

 

 

Edit: The reason why not in compliance actually is relevant because knowingly lying to the opponents about agreements is a much more serious offense.

[PrinceNep]

To all those who believe that the Offending Side doesn't deserve a penalty should reread what we were told in the initial post:

 

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 way this is presented is that they were completely aware of the ♠5, but gave an intentionally wrong explanation because declarer asked about the ♠2. This is entirely unethical.

 

Had this been a novice player who was capable of not paying attention to the first discard and unintentionally gave an explanation due to their believing it was the first discard ... then there is no reason for this thread in the first place.

 

E/W do deserve a penalty and N/S does deserve an adjustment.

 

Nowhere in the original post or otherwise has it even been a possibility that E/W accidentally or unintentionally gave the wrong explanation. So that argument must be thrown out the window as far as assessing damage is concerned.

[barmar]

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.

Go back and read the first line of the thread: Open Pairs in New Orleans. Presumably he's referring to the NABC that took place last week in that city.

[mrdct]

I think the safest approach for defenders when quized about the meaning of a discard is to outline their general carding agreements as they pertain to the situation but not make any direct reference to a particular card in play. I don't think there is any duty for a defender to draw declarers attention to earlier tricks but I also think it's unethical to be purposefully oblique in one's response to conceal important carding information from earlier tricks. That is to say if the meaning of a particular discard is informed by earlier tricks, the explanation of the carding agreements needs to encompass that possibility but not necessarily confirm or deny the existence of earlier relevant carding.

 

If you are playing a complex carding method and haven't pre-alerted properly I think your obligations for comprehensible disclosure increase, but I don't think that ought to extend, in this case, to having to expressly advise declarer that the ♠5 has already been pitched.

 

As has been said several times already, to intentionally misinform declarer about the meaning of the ♠2 is clear-cut cheating and should be harshly punished.

[Free]

I have mixed feelings about this situation. However I think everyone agrees that the defenders' score should be adjusted for sure.

 

Imo you should never give an explanation about a specific card being played, but explain your agreements. You're not obligated to tell your holding to your opps (example partner plays the 4 and you hold 32, you don't have to say the 4 was a small card).

 

Asking what the ♠2 means is clearly a very poor question since the first discard is way more important, but the defenders made it worse by giving a wrong explanation. Declarer could've asked a more general question like "what has he shown". This encompasses both discards, but doesn't give the show away.

 

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♥.

If I read this correctly, I win trick 2 cheaply (still having the A) since there's only 1 card smaller than the 5. So what's the problem to just play ♠ before running ♦? You can make 3-4♠, 5♦, 2♥ and ♣A = 11-12 tricks. In this case the line of play is very poor and I wouldn't adjust the score for NS.

 

Btw, I would never tell my opponents that I'll ask about their discards when it comes up. This is a very easy situation to falsecard for defenders, since you'll ask and get a correct explanation at that time. This may be ethically incorrect, but it happens all the time.

[Humper]

If I read this correctly, I win trick 2 cheaply (still having the A) since there's only 1 card smaller than the 5. So what's the problem to just play ♠ before running ♦? You can make 3-4♠, 5♦, 2♥ and ♣A = 11-12 tricks. In this case the line of play is very poor and I wouldn't adjust the score for NS.

Blah, you're right. Lho covered my card at trick 2, obviously.

 

When I play against people who are unfamiliar with my signalling agreements (which are quuite simple), this often happens:

 

"what are your discards"

 

"upside down"

 

"so the six of clubs"? (the ♣6 is on the table)

 

"well the first discard of a low spot suggests interest in the suit, and the first discard of a high spot suggests that he doesn't"

 

Note that this answer has nothing to do with whether or not the 6 itself is low or high, nor whether it is partners first discard.

 

If the 2345 of clubs is in the dummy, I would say the same no matter what. If the ♣6 was the second discard, and the first was the 8, I would say the same.

 

The directors DID ask me why I didn't ask about the 5. I explained that the answer about the 2 was so clear that it did not seem necessary. I didn't know that my ability to get truthful information about the opponents' signals expired once the first-discard trick was quitted.

[zenko]

You say" The directors DID ask me why I didn't ask about the 5. I explained that the answer about the 2 was so clear that it did not seem necessary. "

 

Well you did not really answer their question at all. The question was NOT: "Once you got the answer about the 2, why you did not ask about the 5 too?" (i.e. thats what you answered). The question was: "Why did you decide to ask first specifically about the meaning of 2, i.e. ignore the fact that the first discard is almost certainly way more informative and important?" On that question you did not provide an answer.

 

In 20+ years of playing bridge I do not recall anybody asking me about the meaning of the second discard unless they already knew the meaning of the first. Since you claim that you do not know the meaning of the first one, the only possible reason why would you ask about the 2 first is that you did not really notice which card he played on the trick before.

[Pict]

I see the point but without sympathy.

 

OP can't be bothered when the opponents play a different set of agreements - commonplace and not complicated.

 

Then much later he blah blah.

 

If I had been OP I'd have taken my licks.

[PrinceNep]

Zenko,

 

You are right that the situation is unusual to ask about the second discard and not the first. It may be that declarer missed the first discard. This does NOT, however, relieve the opponents from accurately describing what the ♠2 shows. This is taking advantage through deceit, which is unlawful.

 

Had the opponent given the correct explanation as to what the second discard meant, but said nothing in regards to the ♠5, then all would seem fine. My example earlier was if someone asked what the ♠2 is I would say "count", as our first discard is lavinthal and all remainder discards are count in the suit discarded.

 

If declarer next asked what the ♠5 meant, I would explain our methods thoroughly without referencing specific spot cards.

 

By letting the opponents get away with this, you are condoning that there are "legitimate times to deceive the declarer with a misexplanation". There is no other way around this argument.

[Humper]

You say" The directors DID ask me why I didn't ask about the 5. I explained that the answer about the 2 was so clear that it did not seem necessary. "

 

Well you did not really answer their question at all. The question was NOT: "Once you got the answer about the 2, why you did not ask about the 5 too?" (i.e. thats what you answered). The question was: "Why did you decide to ask first specifically about the meaning of 2, i.e. ignore the fact that the first discard is almost certainly way more informative and important?" On that question you did not provide an answer.

 

In 20+ years of playing bridge I do not recall anybody asking me about the meaning of the second discard unless they already knew the meaning of the first. Since you claim that you do not know the meaning of the first one, the only possible reason why would you ask about the 2 first is that you did not really notice which card he played on the trick before.

It doesn't really matter if you can or cannot conceive of a reason why I asked about the 2. Frankly, I don't understand why the directors asked me that at all. I asked a question and was lied to. They could have answered using the generic ad truthful style I suggested.

 

Instead, they lied to me while I was declaring and I took a losing line based on their lie. I don't think the line is unreasonably bad. It's certainly not nullo. Frankly, considering how many high cards I was missing, I'm not sure I would have believed them if I had asked about the 5 and been told (truthfully) that it showed a club honor, since that would place the overcaller with, well, the hand she overcalled with.

 

I could have asked a different question. Why does the existence of a superior question give the opponents the right to lie about the inferior one? Keep in mind that the person looking at kx of spades in the slot was the one who said "it shows a spade honor". It is impossible that she didn't know this answer could screw declarer.

 

Again, i ask, where in the laws does it say that if a better question exists than the one actually asked, the opponents may lie to declarer without consequence even if they know their lie was likely to cause declarer to go wrong?

[bluejak]

A player was asked a question. He lied and gave an answer that he knew would be misleading.

 

Please explain to me, Pict and zenko, why anything that the non-offending side did, however silly, gives this player the right to gain from his lies and misleading answers?

[MickyB]

David -

 

Say you were the director in this sort of situation, and due to your knowledge of the players involved, you suspected that an experienced declarer was trying to take advantage of the low-standard opposition, who may have -

 

forgotten the first discard

 

not known that a second discard could mean something, and struggled to understand the question

 

suspected declarer of having missed the first discard, and not known how to deal with the situation

 

 

Would you really allow declarer to get away with this sort of sharp practice, and penalise the defenders on top of this? Even if you saw the same declarer pull the same trick more than once?

[gerry]

Hijack Alert...

 

When I get this type of...

 

"first low odd shows blah, high red even shows blah, later low prime shows reverse blah blah blah....."

 

I usually just think 'morons' and ignore it as anyone who plays this will probably f&^% up later anyway.

 

However (and here is the hijack) it does annoy me that these idiots are allowed to play this sort of ***** when I'm not allowed to open 2♥ multi.

[bluejak]

In all situations, Micky, my actual ruling at the table depends on all the facts. So, change the facts, change the ruling.

 

But I am not sure that I think your scenario likely at all, nor do I worry too muh about it Maybe this declarer does indulge in sharp practice: maybe he does try to take advantage. Ok, I can deal with him at another time. But if he was lied to on this occasion, the fact that he is a rogue does not give his opponents the right to cheat.

 

Ok, Gerry, and I think it disgraceful that I am not allowed to drive at 90 mph on a British motorway while players in South Africa are allowed to play reverse signals. Just as relevant.

[mycroft]

Ugh. This is getting ugly.

 

I was going to reply to "those who believe there shouldn't be a penalty" that "nobody believes that". Then, I see people believing that. Ick.

 

Barmar - too much posting, not enough reading. Oops.

 

Humper - what happened to you was despicable, and I hope that at least adjustment for E/W and PP to East was applied (as I said at the beginning, and is still true, I haven't looked at the hand enough to decide whether I would recommend adjustment for N/S. That doesn't mean I wouldn't, just that I haven't done the work).

 

And those who don't have sympathy with choosing not to try to understand their crazy discarding system in a pre-alert in a two-board round (where we might be defending both hands), especially when we know we can get the relevant part of the agreement when we ask (anything, it doesn't have to be the right question), I'll be happy to play EHAA against you for the two-board round. Especially since I hear that the BoD have decided to drop the mandatory pre-Alert for EHAA two-bids (well, for very weak pre-empts), in exchange for an Alert. After all, that's effectively what happened anyway. "10-12 NT all seats, all vulnerabilities, insanely weak preempts, and our 2 bids are wildly variable in playing strength (could be very weak, could be very strong)." "You'll just Alert that when it happens, right?" "(well, we don't have to, technically, but) Of course (, anything else would be totally unfair)". Of course, I won't lie about 2H!-2s!; 3C! when you ask about 3C.

[Pict]

A player was asked a question. He lied and gave an answer that he knew would be misleading.

 

Please explain to me, Pict and zenko, why anything that the non-offending side did, however silly, gives this player the right to gain from his lies and misleading answers?

Just said I saw the point without sympathy.

 

Rule as you please.

 

Someone commented on lack of TD calls on play rather than bidding. Careful what you wish for.

[barmar]

Note that this answer has nothing to do with whether or not the 6 itself is low or high, nor whether it is partners first discard.

I had a partner who would explain "If it's a low card, then...; if it's high, then..." when the card in question was a 2. :)

[mycroft]

Note that this answer has nothing to do with whether or not the 6 itself is low or high, nor whether it is partners first discard.

I had a partner who would explain "If it's a low card, then...; if it's high, then..." when the card in question was a 2. :D

"Sorry partner, it was the highest spade I could afford. I was hoping you'd be able to work it out."

[MFA]

I'm having qualms about making bombastic claims about this one. I would very much like to hear from the director(s), since all we have is a one-sided testimony from the guy that was ruled against. :D

 

But it is illegal to lie about your agreements. That much is very clear.

[zenko]

You say" The directors DID ask me why I didn't ask about the 5. I explained that the answer about the 2 was so clear that it did not seem necessary. "

 

Well you did not really answer their question at all. The question was NOT: "Once you got the answer about the 2, why you did not ask about the 5 too?" (i.e. thats what you answered). The question was: "Why did you decide to ask first specifically about the meaning of 2, i.e. ignore the fact that the first discard is almost certainly way more informative and important?" On that question you did not provide an answer.

 

In 20+ years of playing bridge I do not recall anybody asking me about the meaning of the second discard unless they already knew the meaning of the first. Since you claim that you do not know the meaning of the first one, the only possible reason why would you ask about the 2 first is that you did not really notice which card he played on the trick before.

It doesn't really matter if you can or cannot conceive of a reason why I asked about the 2. Frankly, I don't understand why the directors asked me that at all. I asked a question and was lied to. They could have answered using the generic ad truthful style I suggested.

 

Instead, they lied to me while I was declaring and I took a losing line based on their lie. I don't think the line is unreasonably bad. It's certainly not nullo. Frankly, considering how many high cards I was missing, I'm not sure I would have believed them if I had asked about the 5 and been told (truthfully) that it showed a club honor, since that would place the overcaller with, well, the hand she overcalled with.

 

I could have asked a different question. Why does the existence of a superior question give the opponents the right to lie about the inferior one? Keep in mind that the person looking at kx of spades in the slot was the one who said "it shows a spade honor". It is impossible that she didn't know this answer could screw declarer.

 

Again, i ask, where in the laws does it say that if a better question exists than the one actually asked, the opponents may lie to declarer without consequence even if they know their lie was likely to cause declarer to go wrong?

Of course you opponent deserve score adjustment plus 30 lashes with wet whip, I think everybody who wrote in this tread agrees with that, so please do not equate my reluctance do give you adjusted score with me having any sympathy to your slimy opponent and his action.

 

To decide do you deserve a better score I first need to know something that you so fair failed to clarify: did you or did you not catch what card your opponent played on the trick before?

 

If you did, then you get your adjustment and a lecture about the proper way to ask such questions. If you did not, you will not get your adjustment, and you will get either stern warning (in case you did not do it on purpose, which I tend to believe happened), or if I have grounds to think you did it on purpose (unlikely, but not impossible) you will get your disciplinary committee hearing scheduled right after your opponent's.

[barryallen]

A player was asked a question. He lied and gave an answer that he knew would be misleading.

 

Please explain to me, Pict and zenko, why anything that the non-offending side did, however silly, gives this player the right to gain from his lies and misleading answers?

The problem that you have seriously over looked, is that no unfair advantage shall be denied or gained from such a question. By asking regarding the S2, there is no knowledge declarer remembers the S5.

 

Let's say declarer has forgotten the discard of the S5, is it right for a defender to have to clarify with, "on it's own it means nothing, but in combination with the first discard it implies ......." Just the statement "on it's own it means nothing" is enough to trigger the memory banks?

 

I really dislike people being accused of lying when they are responding correctly to the question asked. If a further question had been asked regarding the two discards, then the defender should have laid out the various combinations depending upon whether the card was high, low, odd or even. They have no obligation to mention it was the 5, or the fact the second discard has definition combined with the first discard, when asked solely about the later.

 

What would have been better was for the defence to hand over their notes on discards, high lighting the relevant section. Or even declarer looking at the notes. What I should add is what position do you take if the defender asked, forgets the play of the S5. Very unlikely I know, but if that was given as a defence, just explain how that hurdle is going to be cleared.