this one I just made up

[gwnn]

3NT, declarer has to play xxx (in hand) vs AQJT. no other entries in dummy but plenty of stops in hand. Let's say except this suit there are 7 tricks available.

 

He plays low to the Q and J the first two tricks, his LHO playing low-high, RHO playing also low-high (standard count). Declarer asks RHO, how often does your partner falsecard? RHO says yea he falsecards often. So declarer plays low to T and RHO wins it with the K and a nice score at MP of -400 when most people had -430. Declarer calls the director claiming that RHO obviously trusted his partner's signal when ducking twice. RHO says 'my partner falsecards often but not when I obviously need his signal'.

 

Law question: what do you rule? Sorry I don't know the exact laws that cover this sort of (mis)information.

Bridge question: doesn't this kind of question from declarer make ducking twice like this just a bad strategy? Just wondering.

[WellSpyder]

Surely if you false-card often enough that partner is expected to take this into account then you are no longer playing the advertised system and are guilty of MI unless you always disclose this - a bit like fielding a psyche. So RHO will say "partner may be false-carding here, but he does so at his own risk since I will always play him to be carding honestly when I need to know."

[iviehoff]

He asked a question, he got an honest answer, and just the answer the question invited. False-carding is a common and legitimate ploy and no question can reveal when it is happening. At the end of the day it is bluff and double-bluff...

[mrdct]

Surely if you false-card often enough that partner is expected to take this into account then you are no longer playing the advertised system and are guilty of MI unless you always disclose this - a bit like fielding a psyche. So RHO will say "partner may be false-carding here, but he does so at his own risk since I will always play him to be carding honestly when I need to know."

I think a better answer is "we don't false card per se, but our general agreement is to give count in situations where we think it's important that partner knows what the correct count is".

 

If playing natural count the guy with Kxx probably should've played high-low while the guy with three small plays low-high in the hope that declarer will play the guy with Kxxx onside to have false-carded.

[Rossoneri]

How good is declarer?

[gwnn]

He can count to 13 and can easily tell whether numbers such as 2, 3, 4 are odd or even. :)

[ahydra]

Surely this must be at quite a high level. Most beginner and intermediate players aren't going to duck the K on the second round...

 

As for whether this counts as MI or not, I don't think it does. LHO may "falsecard often" but that doesn't mean he does it all the time (or 100% of the time in this situation).

 

ahydra

[bluejak]

Poor declarer. What a shame. Next board.

[Xiaolongnu]

Result stands I think. The logic I am basing on is the fact that in 40 as well as in many other threads in this forum, the law is roughly explained as "opponents are only entitled to know our system and agreements, not our bids and plays". Specifically, in 40, "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."

 

What is the agreed signal? Count. Correct.

 

What is the frequency of falsecards? High. Correct.

 

That sounds like an accurate account of the system to me. Explicit or implicit. The rest is under judgment. I think it is just bridge.

[Phil]

Furthermore, once declarer knows our methods, isn't there a prohibition about asking questions to elicit hints and 'tells'?

[WellSpyder]

He can count to 13 and can easily tell whether numbers such as 2, 3, 4 are odd or even. :)

Surely this must be at quite a high level.

:D

[Xiaolongnu]

Could he tell whether a 6 is high or low, perhaps not? (:

 

What's with leading and self-misleading questions? Logically it should not be allowed, rigourously which law is that? 74?

[bluejak]

Of course they are allowed. Why not?

[r_prah]

He plays low to the Q and J the first two tricks, his LHO playing low-high, RHO playing also low-high (standard count). Declarer asks RHO, how often does your partner falsecard? RHO says yea he falsecards often. So declarer plays low to T and RHO wins it with the K and a nice score at MP of -400 when most people had -430. Declarer calls the director claiming that RHO obviously trusted his partner's signal when ducking twice. RHO says 'my partner falsecards often but not when I obviously need his signal'.

 

This is a situation where if LHO has the king (the relevant case being Kxxx), he has the luxury to falsecard, while if he does not have the king (the relevant case being xxx), he is obliged to give true count. Declarer needs to guess right. Since people are less likely to duck with Kxx offside, declarer's best bet is to finesse (unless his table presence suggests otherwise), and pay off to RHO's fine play when he has ducked with Kxx offside.

 

If I were asked "How often does your partner falsecard?", I would not say "yes, he falsecards often" as stated in the OP but something general like "whenever he believes they are appropriate". I'm guessing that's what RHO intended to say here.

[mrdct]

Perhaps declarer would've been better off asking a more specific question such as "in your partnership experience, when holding Kxxx under an entryless AQJ10 in dummy, would your partner tend to give false count or true count?".

 

Another twist here is who you ought to be directing your question to. Law 20F2 tells us that in relation to carding, explanations should be given by the partner of the player whose action is being explained which is sometimes a little bit ambiguous when you have two opponents following suit and/or discarding. When I'm interested in my opponents' carding what I usually try to do, if the tempo of the hand allows it, is defer any question until as late as possible and then ask a for a general description of their entire carding regime from the player who looks more competent and/or honest. I try to avoid like the plague asking "what are you discards?" immediately after someone has discarded something unless I really need know right then and there. In this case I'm probably most interested in my LHO's view of the world so I'd probably be asking him about their general partnership approach to falsecarding and then maybe drill down on the specific relevant holding of Kxxx with a question to RHO.

[nigel_k]

This is not a case where RHO obviously needs a signal. The signal benefits declarer as well as much as the defence. Obviously it would be ideal if partner could rely on the signal but declarer could not. But there is no way to achieve this, unless of course partner was to tell declarer you false card all the time despite knowing it is a situation where you wouldn't false card.

 

Probably they had no agreement about this situation and, like most people, tend to give accurate count when it is likely to benefit partner more than declarer, and play randomly otherwise. But RHO's comment does give us a reason to doubt that since he seems to be suggesting partner's carding could be relied on even in a situation where it is crucial that declarer cannot do so.

[bluejak]

This is not a case where RHO obviously needs a signal.

Says who?

 

It may be your view, but as far as ruling is concerned we are interested in the views of the players at the table and not your opinions on whether one should false-card here.

[mrdct]

This is not a case where RHO obviously needs a signal.

If Kxxx is sitting over dummy there is every chance partner needs count here, but we'd need to see the full hand and auction.

[Xiaolongnu]

Is it even important to go to such fine details and mention that falsecards are usually on in this class of situations and off in this class of situations? I have never had a good sense of sympathy of players who try to "make use of and abuse" concepts like UI and MI to their advantage, often involving setting traps where opps will be led on to give UI or might explain wrongly.

 

I like to call this a "reverse L23 situation" where one tempts the opponent to commit an infraction knowing full well that if the infraction is found guilty it would be to the opponent's advantage. Edit: Just to clarify, what I meant is, for example, NS tempts EW to commit an infraction knowing full well that the Director will (be required to) rule for NS, rule against EW. Nothing to explicitly do with rulings, just expressing my disapproval for sort of poor sportsmanship, dunno what word is appropriate here.

 

Here the defenders have answered what signals they supposedly play honestly, and indemnified themselves further by saying great frequency of falsecards. Isn't that enough already? Players, or rather, PAIRS who like defence more than declarer play, like my partner and I, know very well that we should only signal WHEN IT MATTERS, otherwise give neutral, opposite or just generally confusing signals, esp in situations where partner is going to be able to work it out anyway. Isn't this just sort of general bridge knowledge and common sense? If we think that defenders are in the wrong, what is the next thing that we are going to allow? For declarer to ask RHO "from your judgment, is your partner falsecarding?" and RHO has to answer honestly? In that case there is no more bridge already. I believe strongly that whatever the wording of the law might be, the spirit of the law should not demand that players declare their systems to such a self damaging extent. After all, in bridge we always talk about what happens in percentage. Giving the answer that is true in percentage, I think it is already good enough. Bridge should not be a game where people have to watch their words carefully, just like how it is impossible to define every word in Algebra. A bit estoric, this analogy, but highly appropriate.

 

Debate is welcome.

[gnasher]

In this situation an experienced partnership will know whether they always signal honestly, always signal dishonestly, vary their honesty depending on their holding, play their cards at random, always play upwards, etc. If the defenders know that, declarer is entitled to know it too.

 

On this occasion, however, declarer asked the wrong question. He should have asked RHO "What would your partner play here with (a) xxx and (b) Kxxx?" Then he should have asked LHO "What would your partner play here with (a) xx and (b) Kxx?"

[iviehoff]

To which a careful player will carefully constructed his answer to cater for the possibility of false-carding, or signalling only when they desire to do so. But I would not give a MI ruling if they failed to carefully construct the small print: carding practices are a polite arrangement with partner, not a contract with the opposition, and the opposition should take that as read when asking questions about it. You obviously cannot ask questions like "how strong a player is your partner, does your partner understand the all the well-known automatic false-cards situations, would it occur to your partner to false-card in such a situation." Nor can you obtain such information by trying dress up more innocent-sounding questions cutely.

[gnasher]

To which a careful player will carefully constructed his answer to cater for the possibility of false-carding, or signalling only when they desire to do so.

Yes, but only if that's relevant to the question that was asked. If RHO knows that his partner will always signal honestly with xxx in this position, he should say so when asked.

[iviehoff]

Yes, but only if that's relevant to the question that was asked. If RHO knows that his partner will always signal honestly with xxx in this position, he should say so when asked.

In what position? When he is sitting under dummy holding AQJx? I really think that is explaining to the opposition how to play bridge, not explaining your signalling agreements. It is not disclosable.

[gnasher]

In what position? When he is sitting under dummy holding AQJx? I really think that is explaining to the opposition how to play bridge, not explaining your signalling agreements. It is not disclosable.

I believe that:

(1) In some partnerships, the hand under AQJx will always give correct count with xxx. In some other partnerships, the hand under AQJx will play randomly with xxx.

(2) If your partnership falls into one of those two categories, and you know that as a result of partnership experience, you have an implicit agreement about what to play with xxx sitting under AQJx.

(3) If you have an implicit agreement about what to play with xxx sitting under AQJx, and you are asked what your partner would play with xxx sitting under AQJx, you should disclose that agreement.

 

Which of these do you disagree with?

Edited February 22, 2012 by gnasher

[gwnn]

Nice. I was afraid I'd end up the creator of the first ever thread in the Laws section where there's no disagreement whatsoever between replies. Worse still, it was about a situation made up by me!