Leads and Carding and ZT

[wyman]

On the third day of the LMs here in Atlanta, I had the following situation arise. I ended up in 3N with

 

void

QJT97

KQJT6

QJ2

 

AKT76

void

873

AK863

 

on the lead of the club 10.

 

After thanking dummy, I asked "leads and carding?" and that was all that I asked (no probing about 'what does the 10 show', etc). RHO helpfully told me "fourth best," after which I laughed and said "...and carding?" It did not occur to me at all that anyone would interpret this as a probe about the 10, and I really only cared about the carding when I asked, and I asked about "leads and carding" out of habit.

 

Long story short, I won the club with the Q and banged diamonds down from the top. RHO won the ace on the second round iirc (unable to see that his partner had a stiff), but his partner did get a discard in on the second diamond, and RHO returned a small club, which I won with the J. I ran diamonds and clubs now, and RHO pitched away two spades from QJxx (!?!?!) and LHO pitched one or more from 9xxx, and I made 6.

 

Mid defense, LHO starts telling his partner "you see, this is what I'm talking about, doing that with the AK." I thought he was talking about hearts, since I was wide open, but the discussion continued and I realized he was talking about the question I asked when dummy hit. And RHO/LHO had some back and forth about calling the director, and I encouraged them to do so. When the director arrived, they accused me of asking leading questions about the lead of the 10, and I interjected that I asked "leads and carding?" which is what I always ask when I inquire about opps' defensive methods.

 

LHO continued harping on it in such a way that I said to the director that I didn't appreciate LHO's tone, because it "sounds an awful lot like an accusation that I'm somehow being unethical."

 

LHO fires back "IT IS AN ACCUSATION!"

 

And now I asked the director to issue a ZT ruling.

 

The director said, "Let's play the next board," after which I kind of stared at the director mouth agape, and LHO directed me to "quit looking at the director" like I'm his child or something. The director again did nothing. We played the next board, and it was a cold grand basically impossible to not bid, and the director and the opps left, and the next rd started.

 

I was a little (ok a lot) peeved, because the director did nothing (and incidentally, we followed a well-known pair in the morning that was 5 minutes late on > 6 rounds on a 15 minute round clock -- and the director never dinged them once, but he made sure to tell us to catch up, so I really felt damaged -- now twice -- by not being a name pair), so at the break I went to another director and told him that I didn't think that they could fail to issue a ZT. The directors conferenced, and my LHO got dinged a quarter board for ZT.

 

Here are my questions:

 

1) Is "leads and carding?" standard enough that I am ok here? Is it better since it's what I always ask? Should I just ask "what are your defensive methods?" (I've never heard that asked before..) I don't want to mislead opps, and I do everything I can to be actively ethical at the table, but I also think it's unfair that opps get to infer information about my hand if I ask about their honor leads. I should be entitled to their agreements without giving up information. Yes, I understand that just looking at their CC would have solved this problem, and I will try to go about it this way from now on. Before answering (1), see (2)...

 

2) Am I allowed to specifically ask about the lead of the 10? For us, we lead second from Txx(x)(x) and high from Tx; after thinking about it, I don't see why I would not be allowed to probe about the lead, since understanding leads from bad holdings and taking inferences about their possible shapes is a legitimate bridge reason to ask. I shouldn't have to be like "[he has a bad holding:] what do you lead from Txx(x)(x)?"

 

3) I'm curious why an accusation of cheating fetches a quarter board penalty, but a cell phone going off is a full board. Surely this can't be right.

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

[ggwhiz]

1. I see nothing wrong with your question and you only got 1/2 an answer. With a full one neither you or your pard need ask again and you do have another board to play. It might be best to ask before play begins but I get the same question at this point all the time and think nothing of it. I've even had an answer of "coded 10's and 9's throughout the hand". Rare but important.

 

2. Asking specifically about the 10 here is very poor form but rarely actionable. Since you only got 1/2 an answer it would be better to ask for their CC.

 

3. The only reason I can think of such a lenient penalty is for the director(s) to avoid admitting TOTAL incompetence. In my time as conduct and ethics chair before ZT such a scene resulted a couple of times in a conduct committee being scheduled on the spot with the understanding that 1 side or the other would come out of it with a bridge holiday and enough lead time for a sincere and public apology to be made instead.

[billw55]

Thanks for your thoughts.

I think your LHO is an asshat. Not sure if that is what you meant.

 

1. I think "leads and carding" is normal and nonspecific, no problem.

2. Not sure about this one, but you didn't ask about the ten specifically, so no matter.

3. Agree, is weird. I wonder if there are any "standard" ZT penalties, or if this is entirely TD's discretion.

[ahydra]

I don't see anything wrong with asking "leads and carding". This whole story sounds utterly ridiculous (as in ridiculous, not as in "you made it up"), from the opponents talking in the middle of the hand to somehow taking inferences from your perfectly reasonable question and blaming you for it. Oh, and throw in the (original) Director not issuing the well-deserved DP.

 

I've seen a few pairs ask about / check the CC for leads and carding agreements at the beginning of the round - this might not be a bad idea should you come up against the same opponents again :/

 

In the clarification period you're allowed to ask about a particular bid and alternative things available (e.g. "would 2NT instead of 3x been good/bad"), so I don't see why you wouldn't be allowed to ask about signals in a particular situation or special meanings of particular cards.

 

And as for your cell-phone question, I guess that's just to strongly clamp down on cell phones going off in tournaments rather than any representation of the relative seriousness of the two offences.

 

ahydra

[blackshoe]

The ZT policy is very clear. When a TD becomes aware of a ZT violation, he has no choice but to apply the prescribed penalty, which is at MPs a quarter of a board for a first offense. A second offense in the same event shall result is expulsion from the event. In cases of serious offense, or for a third offense at the same tournament, the TD may refer the case to a disciplinary committee. Who started it doesn't matter — all parties who have committed ZT offenses shall be immediately penalized.

 

A DP cannot be overturned by an AC, but it can be appealed. An AC might recommend the TD reconsider the penalty, or it might refer the case to a disciplinary committee.

 

The DIC is required to report all ZT violations to the Tournament Committee and/or the Recorder.

 

As to the OP's questions:

 

1. There should be no problem with asking "leads and carding?" Such a question should result in a complete dump of all pertinent information. See Laws 20F1 and 20F2.

2. Asking supplemental questions about specific plays is expressly allowed by Law 20F3 (it says "call" but should be read as "call or play" IMO). I would not call it "poor form" if the opponents have not adequately informed you of their methods, particularly with the ten sitting there on the table.

3. The regulations are what they are. I would agree that it seems strange that having a cell phone go off should draw a larger penalty. I suggest you take that question to your district representative. ;)

 

It is always a good idea to look at the system card before you start a round, and perhaps again before you start to play (or defend) a hand. Whether you do or do not do so, however, has no bearing on your right to ask questions. You may get some flak if the TD considers the question adequately answered on the card, but it should most certainly not affect a ruling, unless your question rises to the level of harassment (unlikely, IMO).

 

Edit: I see ahydra got a reply in while I was typing this, and said much the same thing.

[pran]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the questions asked, they are certainly not suited to mislead opponents (Law 73D2).

 

In your place I would seriously consider demanding a ZT ruling based on the self incriminating evidence: LHO fires back "IT IS AN ACCUSATION!"

 

With this director I would have called him at each and every round your were delayed 5 minutes because of slow play by the players you followed. The director has no justification requesting you to finish on time after such delays and Your table is entitled to Ave+/Ave+ on any Board you cannot reasonably play because of such delays.

[Bbradley62]

Unfortunately, I probably would have earned myself a ZT penalty (or at least lost my ability to get one against the opponents) after hearing "fourth best".

[billw55]

Unfortunately, I probably would have earned myself a ZT penalty (or at least lost my ability to get one against the opponents) after hearing "fourth best".

You know, it is kind of hypocritical of them to complain about the question, when their answer was evasive at best.

[blackshoe]

Unfortunately, I probably would have earned myself a ZT penalty (or at least lost my ability to get one against the opponents) after hearing "fourth best".

Nope. If they rate a ZT penalty, they get it (if the TD is following the regulation) even if you earn yourself one too.

[paua]

"When the director arrived, they accused me of asking leading questions about the lead of the 10, "

 

Well it was a leading question ;)

[blackshoe]

"When the director arrived, they accused me of asking leading questions about the lead of the 10, "

 

Well it was a leading question ;)

Suuure it was. It leads to the conclusion that they did not fully answer the question. The question was "leads and carding" and the answer was about only one aspect of leads.

 

Aside from that, I don't know about anyone else, but an honor lead — and the ten is an honor — is almost never "fourth best" so clearly if the opponents were trying to be helpful, which seems unlikely from the rest of what went on, they failed.

 

There's almost no point in asking about leads and carding, either generally or specifically. Admittedly I don't play at high levels, where things may be different, but I've never seen a straight answer to this question. Hint: "standard" is not a straight answer in the context of laws and regulations, not the mention the "principle of active ethics", that require full disclosure.

[Mbodell]

That behavior, as reported, is appalling. I think you do have to call the director when the round starts (flips over on the clock) to protect yourself from slow play penalties, and then take your normal time (being as quick as possible, but not faster than you can think, since you are entitled to a full round). But I agree that is hard to do.

 

I often (usually) ask the opponents leads and carding before the dummy hits the table as the lead is being faced to both be consistent and to make it clear that I'm not asking just because of the led card or the honors in dummy. But I agree that you have bridge reasons for wanting to ask. Does RHO know that LHO doesn't have a higher honor? Might this have been the lead from KT9x from RHO perspective? That seems like 100% valid as a bridge reason.

[blackshoe]

It occurs to me that it's probably best to ask about "leads" in general, even though you're really only interested in the one on the table. In answering, though, one should recognize that it is the lead on the table which is of interest, and one's first instinct should be to respond to the question with an explanation of the agreements regarding that lead. In the case of the lead of a ten, the answer might be "shows the nine, top of a sequence, possibly top of an interior sequence, or shows a doubleton or singleton, denies the Jack". I think that's pretty complete disclosure, where "standard" is clearly not. Note: information available from the auction is clearly germane, so if the opening leader has bid or supported his partner's bid of the suit, "shows a singleton" is right out, and so probably is "shows a doubleton". As for "carding" I generally answer "right side up, primary attitude, secondary count (I should probably include "primary count in a suit you're clearly going to run" or some such), an odd discard is encouraging for that suit, and even discard is discouraging and shows, if a high card, preference for the higher remaining suit, or if a low card, preference for the lower remaining suit". Someday I'll get all my partners trained to answer that way, too. So far, all I've been successful in getting them to do (mostly) is to call for a card from dummy by specifying the suit and the rank of the card. B-)

[Vampyr]

Someday I'll get all my partners trained to answer that way, too. So far, all I've been successful in getting them to do (mostly) is to call for a card from dummy by specifying the suit and the rank of the card. B-)

 

Do you make them specify the suit when the suit has been led by someone else? Are they not allowed to follow or discard "small"? Or even "small heart"?

[blackshoe]

I don't "make" them do anything. I lead by example. They've begun to follow my example. That is all.

[barmar]

If it's your partner, you could certainly request them to follow the proper procedure.

 

Back to the original questions, you did everything right.

 

1. "leads and carding?" is probably the most common way to ask about defensive methods. It's totally non-specific, so can't be accused of being a leading question (puns aside) and potentially giving misleading information about your hand. And when they only answered the part about leads, you're perfectly right to ask the followup question about carding. I don't see how they could interpret that as meaning you're specifically curious about the 10.

 

2. When a J or 10 is led, it's not uncommon to ask if it has any special meaning. But if you've already asked about leads and carding, it could be considered a leading question. If they were playing Rusinow or Journalist leads, they would be expected to mention this in response to the general question; I've rarely run into opponents who forget to do this.

 

3. At the beginning of every session, the directors announce over the PA that everyone should turn off their cellphones. So there's no excuse for forgetting. OTOH, getting upset during stressful situations is just human nature. And whether someone has violated ZT is somewhat subjective.

[Mbodell]

2. When a J or 10 is led, it's not uncommon to ask if it has any special meaning. But if you've already asked about leads and carding, it could be considered a leading question. If they were playing Rusinow or Journalist leads, they would be expected to mention this in response to the general question; I've rarely run into opponents who forget to do this.

 

This hasn't been my experience, universally. I've had some people say "standard" when they play J denies, T and 9 implies leading. I've also had some people play that style and just say 4th best or whatever.

[Phil]

CS Gibson had your back Wyman. Forumers stick together!

 

BTW I called a jerk today for telling my NS opener to record the score since there was a minute remaining. The directors were actually enforcing the clock today. I saw some sick slow play penalties handed out.

[barmar]

Was that in the Fast Pairs? I think I was a table or two away and overheard it (well, I think I could have been halfway across the room and also heard it). Because time limits are thoe whole point of the Fast Pairs, they're pretty good at penalizing slow play -- you get one warning, then have to get caught up.

 

One of our opponents called the TD on my partner, because he started lecturing her that she shouldn't have asked what my opening 2♣ was (we play a perfectly normal strong 2♣, and there was no alert). After the session he ran into the pair and apologized to them. For some reason, she thought that my use of the Stop card suggested an unusual meaning that she should ask about.

[blackshoe]

Doggone red Alert cards! :P

[Trinidad]

For some reason, she thought that my use of the Stop card suggested an unusual meaning that she should ask about.

I wouldn't put it exactly like that. But when an opponent uses the Stop card, you are supposed to think or act as if you are thinking. That means that you need to know what the opponent's bid means or act as if you need to know what the opponent's bid means. Therefore, you ask (or look at the CC or remember). This is particularly true for alerted bids or bids where the alert regulations are unclear or not universally understood.

 

Furthermore, what better way could there be to spend the mandatory x seconds than by making sure you understand the auction (which you will have to do before you start defending anyway)?

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

So, when the opening bidder puts out the stop card, and then bids 2♣, we should ask "please explain your auction"? :unsure:

[aguahombre]

Furthermore, what better way could there be to spend the mandatory x seconds than by making sure you understand the auction (which you will have to do before you start defending anyway)?

I don't think so. The allegedly mandatory x seconds begin after any Q&A. Otherwise, the player is not really pausing at all.

[RMB1]

I don't think so. The allegedly mandatory x seconds begin after any Q&A. ...

 

Is this an ACBL regulation?

 

The EBU regulations just say the Stop card is left on the table for 10 seconds (and LHO should not call until the Stop card has been removed). There is no allowance for the 10 seconds to start after questions.

[Lanor Fow]

In the spirit of the 'Stop' procedure though you woudl imagine it should start after the explination. If the purpose is to allow time to think, one can hardly begin to do this before the bid is explained (if you need it explaining). Some explinations, moreover, may take a substantial part of the ten seconds. I would be loath to rule a hesitation if a play bid after 15 second after a stop bid, nine of which were taken up by the explination of the bid.