Misdescribed carding methods on CC

[campboy]

Why was the word "revolving" on the card at all? It seems to me that the card gives MI not only about the primary meaning but the secondary -- if it was revolving, wouldn't a low club suggest a spade switch?

 

:ph34r:

 

Anyway, I think this is an "obvious MI situation" since "1st high card revolving; suit preference" was presumably intended to mean something but in fact doesn't. That may mean we deny redress, but it does not mean we do not adjust for the OS.

[inquiry]

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.

 

 

Well, I am will to defer to you on the general issue of the law. You quoted my personal view and said you would still give count yourself. However, you failed to address the part of my reply that dealt with views like you state here (that you yourself would give count signal)..... I quote my earlier statement below.. What is wrong, legally, with the view I expressed?

 

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.

[Trinidad]

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.

The point is that he will put his side's interests at risk if he asks. If the answer is what it is supposed to be ("standard count" as is written on the CC), he will have to make a play that depends on a defender's error. It is much less likely that this error is going to happen if he first tips off the defenders that his line of play depends on the count in clubs.

 

I agree that the CC cannot explain every situation, but that is not what we are dealing with here. This CC said that the pair was playing count and then revolving suit preference, while in reality they play attitude signals and then suit preference (and most likely Lavinthal rather than revolving). The failure was not that the CC did not describe every situation correctly. That would indeed be too much to ask. The failure was, at least as I understand this case, that the CC did not describe any situation correctly.

 

Rik

[gnasher]

This CC said that the pair was playing count and then revolving suit preference

The puncutation in the OP implies that there are two distinct secondary methods "1st high card revolving" and "suit preference". If I had to guess, I'd think that the first applied to discards only, and the second applied more generally to cards that didn't have some other meaning.

[Trinidad]

The puncutation in the OP implies that there are two distinct secondary methods "1st high card revolving" and "suit preference". If I had to guess, I'd think that the first applied to discards only, and the second applied more generally to cards that didn't have some other meaning.

I interpreted the ';' as a line break or something similar. After all revolving is a method for suit preference, just like Lavinthal is a method for suit preference.

 

IMO your interpretation just isn't logical. (You may be correct, but in that case the players have been very illogical and sloppy in filling out the CC.) It would mean that the CC says:

 

1) We play standard count (nicely specified purpose of signal and the method)

2) We play revolving (?!?, only specifying a method, but not a purpose)

3) We play suit preference (only specifying a purpose, but not a method)

 

At the same time it would be a pure coincidence that 2) and 3) combined just happen to be a perfectly logical and popular signalling method and purpose.

 

It is like writing that a car has "separate driver and passenger climate control and automatic; transmission". I could certainly interpret this to mean that the car has something automatic as well as a transmission: That is what it says, and it could even be true, but that doesn't mean that it makes any sense.

 

Rik

[Zelandakh]

It is like writing that a car has "separate driver and passenger climate control and automatic; transmission". I could certainly interpret this to mean that the car has something automatic as well as a transmission:

Perhaps the "automatic" refers to the "separate driver". It seems like an excellent idea to give climate control only to passengers - less distraction for the driver that way. Of course a separate driver would not need climate control if it was also automatic...

[c_corgi]

The puncutation in the OP implies that there are two distinct secondary methods "1st high card revolving" and "suit preference". If I had to guess, I'd think that the first applied to discards only, and the second applied more generally to cards that didn't have some other meaning.

 

I can't see that the "1st high card revolving" bit is anything other than gibberish: any attempt to interpret it without clarification would be unduly optimistic. This leads to an argument that declarer should protect himself.

 

 

 

If the card had correctly stated attitude is the primary signalling method, declarer could have reasoned "North cannot want to encourage clubs. Looking at my own hand, it is implausible that he wants to discourage a switch. Very likely he wants to encourage a spade switch. It is probably suit preference which means that Clubs are likely 3-3 and anyway, if I play on Diamonds the defence will not go wrong.

 

Given that the card stated count as the primary signalling method, it is plausible that North would employ it, simply to help partner build up a picture of the hand. It is also possible that he would switch to some sort of suit preference/revolving (in which case he would probably play a card that asks for a spade), but as Trinidad has pointed out, declarer clarifying this is not practical if he expects to play on Diamonds anyway.

 

In the first case above, declarer has a fairly clear reason to get it right. In the second case he has to guess what to do. The difference between these is surely damage.

[jallerton]

The point is that he will put his side's interests at risk if he asks. If the answer is what it is supposed to be ("standard count" as is written on the CC), he will have to make a play that depends on a defender's error. It is much less likely that this error is going to happen if he first tips off the defenders that his line of play depends on the count in clubs.

 

Why? Declarer is entitled to know the agreements about defensive signalling, and it is seems entirely proper to ask as soon as the card is played, so he can take this information into account when he plans the play and makes subsequent decisions how to play the rest of the hand (it may or may not turn out to end up affecting his line of play). Furthermore, with dummy's AKQ tripleton winning the first trick, it will be clear in this case that declarer's play from hand at trick 1 is not going to be affected to the answer to the question.

 

Are you suggesting that on every hand declarer should first spend time working out whether the meaning of a defensive signal could affect his line of play, and only if he decides it could does he proceed to ask a question about the defensive signalling?

 

I haven't got much idea what is meant by "1st high card revolving; suit preference" so i would want to clarify at the earliest opportunity what this means and when this might apply .