Misdescribed carding methods on CC

[MickyB]

You are called to give a ruling in a match played privately.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skt872h963dkqcjt7&w=s543hk85d9865cakq&n=saj96hjt4d743c863&e=sqhaq72dajt2c9542&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1d(4+%21D)p1s(4+%21S)p1n(12-14%20balanced)p3nppp&p=cjcqc8c2d5d3djdq]399|300[/hv]

 

Table result was 7 tricks.

 

East announced his intention to seek a ruling at the end of the hand. The N/S convention card stated that standard count was shown on partner's lead, declarer's lead and when discarding. Underneath this, in the box marked "exceptions to the above", it stated "1st high card revolving; suit preference". It became apparent in the post-mortem that the N/S agreement was to show attitude on partner's lead, with a secondary meaning of suit preference. East claimed that with this information he would have thought it likely that clubs were 3-3, given that the jack had been led without the 9 or 8 to back it up, and attempted to cash 9 top tricks. N/S claimed that attitude and count were both irrelevant with the AKQ in the dummy and thus the card was clearly suit preference - besides, the card stated that the secondary meaning was suit preference and this information was correct. East replied that it could be necessary for the defence to continue clubs if declarer held a doubleton, thus count was still relevant.

 

How do you rule?

[inquiry]

Results stand, this is a very clear S/P situation. East's argument is nonsense.

 

Hoever, if N/S convention card is wrong, they might be subject to a warning at least, and PP would be possible as well (perhaps not in private match of course).

[MickyB]

Results stand, this is a very clear S/P situation. East's argument is nonsense.

 

Care to elaborate?

 

Hoever, if N/S convention card is wrong, they might be subject to a warning at least, and PP would be possible as well (perhaps not in private match of course).

 

I think you may have misunderstood my use of "private match". This was in a national event where matches are arranged privately, to be held in a home or bridge club on a date of the players' choice.

[inquiry]

Results stand, this is a very clear S/P situation. East's argument is nonsense.

 

Care to elaborate?

 

While it is true that opponents are entitled to an accurate description of your partnership agreements, and if they were damaged by misinformation, the director must assign an adjusted score. This adjusted score is an attempt to restore equity, i.e. return the table result to what might have happened if no infraction had occurred. This does not apply to this particular hand for a few reasons.

 

Even if their agreement was "attitude" not "count" as indicated.... it is also true that there is a priority to signals. Just because "count" was indicated as the primary choice (when their agreement was "attitude"), the second priority was "suit preference". We can assume that declarer could have asked north-south their understanding of the meaning of the ♣8? I don't buy for a second that even if I was playing count here, that I wouldn't decide that this was a situation where count was no longer appropriate. And if I was playing attitude, that signal would not be appropriate either. Now, you may not agree with my assessment, and different people could disagree on rather or not count should be given in this situation if that is your agreement. However, it doesn't matter what my understanding of the signal should mean with that dummy nor what yours would be. It only matters what this N-S pair thinks the signal should mean. A simple question to them would have solved that for EW. You should also be aware that (alert?) regulations require a player to protect himself if he suspects he does full information. Here where there is a pecking order to the meaning of the signals to trick one. EAST failure to protect himself is his own fault. Not to mention with our without using count signal, after the diamond hook loses, what does he expect south to lead? Diamond and club are both clearly out of the question. I find the argument that if the club 8 was count then south would continue clubs a specious argument trying to link an infraction (incorrectly filled out CC) to the "damage" of going down here. I for one, would not buy it. East already had the info that clubs were likely 3-3, his partner may have already given mi (depending on how often he has responded 1♠ on a three card suit in the past -- immaterial here of course).

 

Horever, if N/S convention card is wrong, they might be subject to a warning at least, and PP would be possible as well (perhaps not in private match of course).

 

I think you may have misunderstood my use of "private match". This was in a national event where matches are arranged privately, to be held in a home or bridge club on a date of the players' choice.

 

Well then the penalty for incorrectly filled out convention card will be up the national directors. However, as far as the damage on this hand, I think it was self-inflicted and would not adjust the contract to 3NT making.

[paulg]

If a director ruled 'result stands' and East appealed, then I'd keep his deposit. In fact I might ask for more money.

[Fluffy]

I don't see any missdescription, I have a lot of missunderstandings for when to show attitude, count of S/P with my partner, its a thin line between all of them.

 

EDIT: I see the missdescription now, the card says count as primary, when count is actually the third option after attitude and S/P.

 

 

to Ben: asking what the ♣8 means is wrong, the correct question is: what do you signal with AKQ in dummy?

[pran]

I feel puzzled.

If I understand OP correct then the opening lead was a club, to me which one is rather irrelevant here.

 

Now if East counts his tricks he will find that he has 7 top tricks with the possibility of ♥ and/or ♣ breaking for extra tricks. As defenders have at least 5 tricks in ♠ ready to be cashed is there any other line of play relevant than cashing his tricks and discover that both ♥ and ♣ break?

 

(Result stands)

[Lanor Fow]

I thought one of hte key questions that shouldn't be asked is what the meaning of the 8♣ is. I know that they have to give their agreements, including information about when they swicth from primary to seconardary signals, but they don't have to tell you what a particular card means. I would be interested for more experienced directors than I to correct me if I am incorrect in this, with regards to whether partner will use attitude or suit preference.

 

I also beleive that the regulations on protecting onesself are stronger in the US than the EBU, the following is the EBU reference:

 

"It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious

misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and

they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their

side’s interests at risk (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the

opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would

otherwise be entitled."

 

Which speaks about obvoius cases and implausable explinations, when not putting ones side at risk. I'm not sure it applies in a situation where the misinformation is whether the primary method is count or attitude.

 

 

That said, if the signal is going to be suit preference whether they play count or attitue as the primaryu method, there is no damage.

[gnasher]

You should also be aware that (alert?) regulations require a player to protect himself if he suspects he does full information. Here where there is a pecking order to the meaning of the signals to trick one. EAST failure to protect himself is his own fault.

It says "EBU" at the top of the page. ACBL regulations don't apply in the EBU.

 

Not to mention with our without using count signal, after the diamond hook loses, what does he expect south to lead? Diamond and club are both clearly out of the question. I find the argument that if the club 8 was count then south would continue clubs a specious argument trying to link an infraction (incorrectly filled out CC) to the "damage" of going down here. I for one, would not buy it. East already had the info that clubs were likely 3-3, his partner may have already given mi (depending on how often he has responded 1♠ on a three card suit in the past -- immaterial here of course).

 

If West had AQx QJx AJ10x xxx, a club continuation would be right on South's actual hand, and a spade switch would be disastrous. South knew that this layout was impossible. West didn't know that South knew this layout was impossible.

Edited February 19, 2013 by gnasher

[gnasher]

I feel puzzled.

If I understand OP correct then the opening lead was a club, to me which one is rather irrelevant here.

 

Now if East counts his tricks he will find that he has 7 top tricks with the possibility of ♥ and/or ♣ breaking for extra tricks. As defenders have at least 5 tricks in ♠ ready to be cashed is there any other line of play relevant than cashing his tricks and discover that both ♥ and ♣ break?

 

Yes, of course there is. You can finesse in diamonds and hope that they don't switch to a spade. If you think that clubs are 4-2, this is a better line because (a) they are more likely to continue clubs and (b) you know that cashing your tricks isn't going to work.

[Fluffy]

As Andy said, if north encourages no switch should be expected.

[paulg]

If West had AQx QJx AJ10x xxx, a club continuation would be right on South's actual hand, and a spade switch would be disastrous. South knew that this layout was impossible. West didn't know that South knew this layout was impossible.

West didn't know because he didn't ask. The EBU card (like all others) has minimal space for carding and does not have space to clarify precisely when you use the secondary method of signalling. But when secondary methods are listed then it is reasonably to assume that they will occasionally be used as the first signal. For example, if dummy had a singleton ace of clubs, then you would tend to ask what signals do they play in this situation. I think the same question is reasonable and should be expected when AKQ is in dummy.

 

I guess you'd also have to ask whether they have an agreement over signalling with AKQ in dummy or is it something that is general bridge knowledge at their level. The fact that they consider it obvious is not quite the same as an implicit agreement, in the sense that I believe the Laws use this term (I tend to believe that general bridge knowledge is an implicit agreement and should be treated as such, but I always seem to be in the minority on this).

[Fluffy]

I though the same as you paul, but then I read more carefully and it looks like NS primary signal (Count) happens to be the third on partner's lead. Not the second.

[ahydra]

Do you guys mean East rather than West?

 

Clearly the card is wrong, and I can't figure out what "1st high card revolving; suit preference" is supposed to mean. While one would normally expect a card to be suit preference if dummy has AKQ, such a fact should be clearly marked on the CC (I normally write "Suit preference when attitude already known / leading to ruff / clearing a suit", or when I'm lazy "Suit preference when attitude already known / other obvious situations"). I'm therefore going to rule in East's favour here. (OK - East should probably ask to be sure - but technically the passage Lanor Fow quotes from the White Book doesn't apply because the explanation of "count" is not "implausible".)

 

On the flip side, how strong a player is East? If he's not a beginner/low intermediate player (likely not, since he's reading the opponent's count signals), I think he can see that the only way he is making 9 tricks is if both rounded suits break - diamonds can never provide another trick without setting up an entry for NS to cash spades. As such I'd be tempted to rule "serious error" which would in effect result in NS getting 3NT= and EW getting 3NT-2.

 

ahydra

[MickyB]

On the flip side, how strong a player is East? If he's not a beginner/low intermediate player (likely not, since he's reading the opponent's count signals), I think he can see that the only way he is making 9 tricks is if both rounded suits break - diamonds can never provide another trick without setting up an entry for NS to cash spades. As such I'd be tempted to rule "serious error" which would in effect result in NS getting 3NT= and EW getting 3NT-2.

Yes, of course there is. You can finesse in diamonds and hope that they don't switch to a spade. If you think that clubs are 4-2, this is a better line because (a) they are more likely to continue clubs and (b) you know that cashing your tricks isn't going to work.

[sasioc]

Fwiw when I was given this hand without being told what the problem was I changed my line depending on the carding information I was given, rightly or wrongly. When the 8♣ might have been count it just seemed less likely that the suit was breaking and that my last chance was that by letting LHO in early I might make it harder for him to know what to play. If you are hypothetically certain that clubs are not breaking you surely have to try a diamond up - what else is there?

 

I might have asked oppo if they have clear agreements about when they play which signal but this can be a tricky area to disclose properly imo. When people ask me stuff like that I always feel that I have an understanding about partner's card but that it isn't an explicit agreement and any explanation that starts with "I think..." and ends with "...but I can't be 100% certain" feels suboptimal. Plenty of less serious players haven't really discussed this kind of thing in depth anyway and there are many players who will give you their personal preference when asked for the partnership agreement and not make it clear that the situation has not been discussed.

 

I would not have necessarily expected that the answer to the question "if the 8♣ is high/low, what would it mean in this situation?" would be helpful, clear or correct.

[mycroft]

Looks like N/S agreements on carding as written down on their card are as accurate as E/W agreements about their bidding.

 

And I've "misbid" a 3-card major once or twice in this auction. I'd *like* to be allowed to have an agreement to do it (in which case I'd do it more often), but I'm not allowed to.

 

Is this normal enough in EBU that it's expected? Is false-carding/deciding that AKQ is enough to switch to S/P and hoping partner gets it as common as bidding a 4-card suit with 543? If so, that's my ruling...

[MickyB]

Looks like N/S agreements on carding as written down on their card are as accurate as E/W agreements about their bidding.

 

And I've "misbid" a 3-card major once or twice in this auction. I'd *like* to be allowed to have an agreement to do it (in which case I'd do it more often), but I'm not allowed to.

 

Is this normal enough in EBU that it's expected? Is false-carding/deciding that AKQ is enough to switch to S/P and hoping partner gets it as common as bidding a 4-card suit with 543? If so, that's my ruling...

 

I assume this is in jest, but for the record, N/S have been playing together for a decade or so, E/W were playing together for the third time.

[barmar]

I've been playing with my regular partner for 11 or 12 years. I don't think we have an explicit agreement about how we signal in a situation like this -- we listen to the auction, look at dummy, and use bridge logic. Sometimes we're on the same wavelength, sometimes not.

[mycroft]

It was intended as humorous, but not purely joking.

 

West has violated his agreements, and managed to pick off N/S' suit. He did this in a situation where normal system agreements mean that this hand has choice of lies, and you can't tell me that it wasn't chosen to minimize the chance of the most dangerous lead (over the other lies of say 1♥, 2♦, or whatever level of NT shows this hand). It worked, so I'm going to look at the agreement. If this is expected (which, given it's the third session they've played together, probably it isn't), then we have another infraction to deal with.

 

N/S agreements don't match what they wrote on the card (I still don't know what "first high card revolving; SP" means - first *discard*, maybe?), but North's meaning for his signal was equally "obvious second choice" with either agreement (count or attitude). Were I North at the table my argument would have been "AKQ on the dummy? How could either count or attitude be more useful, or more expected, than suit preference?" (Okay, so count could be useful, to let South know that he can pitch the 4=3=3=3 13th club, but still not likely more useful than "partner my stuff is in this major" - and partner's only going to have 4 if JT9x(x), and he chose to lead the sequence rather than whicheverth best) I think that the card is zero-information to East, no matter what the "expected" meanings are; it's about as obvious that it's "lead spades" as West's 1♠ is "could only be 3 in very rare circumstances" (hence the "joking").

[Zelandakh]

West has violated his agreements, and managed to pick off N/S' suit. He did this in a situation where normal system agreements mean that this hand has choice of lies, and you can't tell me that it wasn't chosen to minimize the chance of the most dangerous lead

There is a well known German player who is reputed to do this all the time, often enough that someone warned me about him when I attended an event he would be playing at. In my opinion, when this is done so commonly it is an implicit partnership understanding and should be alerted. The player in question has played with the same partner for several years and therefore I think what they do is a clear case of MI. Of course, that is unlikely to be the case here since it was their third time playing together. This kind of agreeemnt is of course encapsulated/immortalised by Mollo in the "weaker minor" opening concept.

[bluejak]

Results stand, this is a very clear S/P situation. East's argument is nonsense.

It is? I play count, myself.

 

There is a danger in ruling, which is sometimes seen here, that players have a fixed idea that something is right. I think this happens often in carding situations. They then follow that view when ruling, or giving opinions on a ruling.

 

Interestingly it also affects declarers. What happens is that they have a view as to what is obvious, and the defence have a different view. But if the defence have told declarer something, and treat a situation as an "obvious" exception, my sympathy for ruling purposes is with declarer.

[Trinidad]

I agree with David here.

 

If the first priority would have been to signal attitude, it makes perfect sense that the second priority may apply when AKQ appears in dummy. This wouldn't be certain in a NT contract, but declarer should ask in this case.

 

In this case the first priority is listed as count. I don't see any reason why a pair that focusses on count signals would stop doing that when there is AKQ in dummy. After all, showing count in clubs helps in counting the other suits. As declarer, I wouldn't ask at this point, particularly not since asking too much may hurt my chances when I play on diamonds. I understand from the discussion that NS first priority actually is to signal attitude. That is MI.

 

If clubs are 4-2, playing on diamonds is the only chance to make the contract. Yes, it requires NS to make a mistake, but bridge players do make mistakes and playing on clubs would concede down 1 or 2 (if clubs are 4-2). Hence, playing on diamonds is not only not a SEWoG, it is the correct play with the available (mis-)information. The fact that East chose a line of play that required an error by NS over the legitimate chance of cashing clubs and hearts from the top indicates that he was influenced by the misinformation.

 

Rik

[StevenG]

Rik, you seem to be saying that if the card had said "attitude, suit preference" you would have been happy(ish), but with a card saying "count, suit preference" you are not. Isn't that argument one of the "I play this way, so everybody else should" type?

 

What do you think the card should say? I ask because I've never seen this situation in real life, but I do use a lot of suit preference, and if it did come up I suspect I would give suit preference rather than count, and that my partner would understand. It wouldn't have crossed my mind that "count, suit preference" on the card could draw an adverse ruling.

[jallerton]

If I had been declarer, and if the defensive carding might have made a difference to my line of play, I would have asked the opening leader what the trick 1 signal means in this situation. The convention card cannot be expected to apply to explain every situation, and declarer has a duty to protect himself where, as here, he can do so without putting his side's interests at risk.