Misinformation as to signals?

[mr1303]

[hv=pc=n&s=s873h64dq9ckt9842&w=s95ht8djt852cqj73&n=sakj4haqj2dak6ca6&e=sqt62hk9753d743c5&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=ppp2cp2dp3np4cp4hp5cp6cppp&p=d3dqd2d6c8cjcac5c6h9ckc3ctcqs4h3djdad4]399|300[/hv]

 

At this point in proceedings, declarer (North) asks about the 9 of hearts discard and is told that it doesn't say anything about hearts.

 

Declarer then discards a heart from the dummy on the 3rd diamond, then plays the A and Q of hearts, not covered. After having a think about it, he decides to ruff, draw trumps and take the spade finesse, to go two off.

 

After the hand, East says that he intended to tell his partner that he had the King of hearts with the heart discard. North calls you to the table and tells you that had he known that, he would've taken the ruffing finesse and made the hand.

 

How do you rule here?

[blackshoe]

What was the actual EW agreement? Did they even have one?

[HighLow21]

Please explain to me how North plans to avoid promoting a trump for West by his line of play.

 

I can't see any way the contract can be awarded, though there ought to be SOME sort of punishment for East's blatant dishonesty.

 

Another point -- how exactly did North go 2 down?

[PeterAlan]

You can't make the hand on the line N claims, because of the trump promotion. However, N could (and should) have made the hand on the line he actually followed, if he'd just discarded ♠J when drawing the last trump with ♣9. He knows (or should know) that the only ♥ out is the King (given the ♥9 & 3 discards you've shown), and he'd have ♥J2, ♠AK in hand, and ♣4, ♠873 in dummy. ♠ to hand, ruff a ♥, back with a ♠ and cash the last ♥.

 

PS: (1) It's presumably West that gave the answer, so I don't see that East can be accused of "blatant dishonesty", and (2) N should be more wary: even if ♥9 followed by ♥3 isn't saying anything about ♥s, it's likely to be saying something about something, such as a suit preference signal for ♠s. Was anything said about what it did show, or was it claimed that it had no meaning at all?

[HighLow21]

You can't make the hand on the line N claims, because of the trump promotion. However, N could (and should) have made the hand on the line he actually followed, if he'd just discarded ♠J when drawing the last trump with ♣9. He knows (or should know) that the only ♥ out is the King (given the ♥9 & 3 discards you've shown), and he'd have ♥J2, ♠AK in hand, and ♣4, ♠873 in dummy. ♠ to hand, ruff a ♥, back with a ♠ and cash the last ♥.

 

PS: (1) It's presumably West that gave the answer, so I don't see that East can be accused of "blatant dishonesty", and (2) N should be more wary: even if ♥9 followed by ♥3 isn't saying anything about ♥s, it's likely to be saying something about something, such as a suit preference signal for ♠s. Was anything said about what it did show, or was it claimed that it had no meaning at all?

If West gave the answer then yes, East wasn't dishonest. Read it wrong; my apologies.

[aguahombre]

Declarer is, we are told, entitled to know about the opponents' leads, carding (UDCA?), and discard conventions if any.

 

The question about what the heart nine meant was improper. Declarer should also know it is highly unlikely a competent defender will be helping him play the hand by playing true count or attitude against this slam....although he apparently was telling the truth (game-theory or stupidity?) unless they play UDCA.

[ggwhiz]

I REALLY detest declarer asking a question about a particular card instead of carding agreements and wish it were illegal.

 

Defending a slam where competent defenders find little reason to tell the truth (carding not agreements) especially at this point in the hand I believe the response to an inappropriate question is accurate.

 

If the question was properly about carding agreements, they are revealed and the defender lied I would also rule score stands.

[blackshoe]

You might let the score stand if the question were about agreements and the defender lied (depends on whether the MI caused damage) but he rates a DP for lying.

 

Any question, whatever the form, should elicit an answer about agreements. If someone asked me "what does that card mean?" I would explain our agreements and say nothing particular about the card in question. If my opp persisted in questioning the meaning of the specific card, I would call the director.

[chrism]

This is particularly annoying when an inattentive declarer says "You play odd-even first discard, so the ♣9 says he likes clubs, right?" having failed to notice that this, in fact, partner's second discard :(

 

I always respond to questions about the meaning of a specific card with a general description of carding methods and a couple of qualifications, on the lines of "We play odd-even first discard, otherwise UDCA and standard suit preference. On first discard, an odd card would, if honest and freely chosen from among cards with alternative meanings, tend to show something of interest in the suit discarded (lower cards implying stronger interest); an even card would tend to show suit preference between the other two suits". With familiar opponents who are known to understand what they are asking, this will probably be truncated to "Odd-Even first discard, UDCA".

[blackshoe]

Good! But...

 

 

[After your explanation of your methods] "So the ♣9 says he likes clubs, right?" Now what? (My answer's upthread.)

[aguahombre]

An oddity. Five posts in sucession all in agreement, with enhancements. Not only that, two of the five are from Ed who agrees with himself.

[nige1]

... The question about what the heart nine meant was improper. Declarer should also know it is highly unlikely a competent defender will be helping him play the hand by playing true count or attitude against this slam....although he apparently was telling the truth...

I REALLY detest declarer asking a question about a particular card instead of carding agreements and wish it were illegal. Defending a slam where competent defenders find little reason to tell the truth (carding not agreements) especially at this point in the hand I believe the response to an inappropriate question is accurate...

Any question, whatever the form, should elicit an answer about agreements. If someone asked me "what does that card mean?" I would explain our agreements and say nothing particular about the card in question. If my opp persisted in questioning the meaning of the specific card, I would call the director.

During the auction, asking about a particular call may provide partner with unauthorised information. During the play, however, UI can't be a concern, when declarer asks about a card. If you want to know the likely systemic significance of a particular card, in a particular context, why shouldn't you ask? The answer can be along the lines of "if that's a low card" it's encouraging" or "if that's partner's first discard it's Lavinthal; ortherwise reverse count".

Discovering defenders' style seems particularly important when playing a slam. Some defenders try to help each other with fairly honest carding, even when declarer may also benefit. But other defenders false-card like mad. Some defenders have an undeclared implicit understanding as to when they "false-card" (in specific contexts, they reverse their normal carding methods but, typically, only declarer is fooled).

[mycroft]

Having been asked about the meaning of the ♣9, I would repeat the agreement. At the end of the hand, when declarer gripes about it, I'd point out "it was partner's *second* discard". I feel no compunction toward telling declarer that during the hand, even by describing what by agreement the second discard club 9 meant.

[aguahombre]

If you want to know the likely systemic significance of a particular card, in a particular context, why shouldn't you ask?

If you are a TD, your question is scary. The impropriety of asking about a specific defensive card played has been covered many times.

 

For one of many reasons, players who are unprepared to give a proper and careful answer (ChrisM, Ed, and the whiz are prepared) might unsuspectingly give information (inference) about their own holdings in the process...whether Declarer meant it as a fish for tells or not.

[campboy]

During the auction, asking about a particular call may provide partner with unauthorised information. During the play, however, UI can't be a concern, when declarer asks about a card. If you want to know the likely systemic significance of a particular card, in a particular context, why shouldn't you ask?

Because you're not permitted to. Laws 20F1 and 20F2 say you may ask about your opponents' (prior) auction, and that during the play declarer may ask about defenders' card play understandings. Law 20F3 allows players to ask about a single call instead, but no law entitles declarer to ask about a single card.

[ArtK78]

The answer can be along the lines of "if that's a low card" it's encouraging" or "if that's partner's first discard it's Lavinthal; ortherwise reverse count".

This reminds me of a story about a former partner of mine, who moved to the West Coast many years ago.

 

This partner has a number of unusual quirks, and he demonstrated this at the table on occasion.

 

He and his partner were playing odd/even first discards. This was some years ago, when odd/even first discards were still relatively new, and not everyone understood what they were. His partner made a discard, and declarer asked what it meant. His reply was "if you consider that card to be odd, then it is encouraging. If you consider that card to be even, then it is discouraging and tends to give suit preference." In other words, he was not willing to commit to whether the card played was odd or even - he left that to the declarer to figure out!

[Cyberyeti]

Please explain to me how North plans to avoid promoting a trump for West by his line of play.

 

I can't see any way the contract can be awarded, though there ought to be SOME sort of punishment for East's blatant dishonesty.

 

Another point -- how exactly did North go 2 down?

 

He plans on the Q♥ being covered, he didn't consider that if it's ducked he's stuffed.

 

Having seen the cover of 8♣, I think he might get away with it too.

[blackshoe]

An oddity. Five posts in sucession all in agreement, with enhancements. Not only that, two of the five are from Ed who agrees with himself.

yeah, that is unusual! ;)

[nige1]

This reminds me of a story about a former partner of mine, who moved to the West Coast many years ago. This partner has a number of unusual quirks, and he demonstrated this at the table on occasion. He and his partner were playing odd/even first discards. This was some years ago, when odd/even first discards were still relatively new, and not everyone understood what they were. His partner made a discard, and declarer asked what it meant. His reply was "if you consider that card to be odd, then it is encouraging. If you consider that card to be even, then it is discouraging and tends to give suit preference." In other words, he was not willing to commit to whether the card played was odd or even - he left that to the declarer to figure out!

That seems to be unnecessary obfuscation. But when odd-even signallers have no cards of the appropriate parity, they may agree to peter in the opposite parity -- and that understanding may be worth explaining.

If you are a TD, your question is scary. The impropriety of asking about a specific defensive card played has been covered many times. For one of many reasons, players who are unprepared to give a proper and careful answer (ChrisM, Ed, and the whiz are prepared) might unsuspectingly give information (inference) about their own holdings in the process...whether Declarer meant it as a fish for tells or not.

I trust that Aquahombre's contention isn't specified in any law or regulation because I hope that no rule-maker would require defenders to spend half-an-hour or longer explaining their entire carding agreements, when all declarer wants to know is the likely meaning of a particular card in a particular context. Some defenders may be unprepared to give a proper and careful answer but rules shouldn't encourage them to prevaricate :(

[aguahombre]

See Campboy, above, who found the references in the Laws. There are previous discussions here about it as well.

 

This improper question comes up on occasion, frequently enough that we have carefully prepared a proper answer within the spirit of full disclosure of our defensive agreements.

 

It isn't natural to prepare and properly answer an improper question; but it is necessary that we do so, rather than risk misleading Declarer or giving him information to which he is not entitled.

 

It certainly does not take 1/2 hour or longer to say, "Our signals are right-side up, we do (or not) use Smith Echoes vs NT, our first discard is (or is not) a convention, and we tend not to signal at all unless we believe partner will need it.

 

To "Is this a situation where your partnership is likely to signal? "Yes (or no)."

[johnu]

What was the actual EW agreement? Did they even have one?

 

I'm assuming EW are beginners/novices and don't have any agreements about this situation based on West's cover of the ♣8 and East's attempt at a signal when it can only help declarer. And North is either a beginner too or a POS bridge lawyer.

[nige1]

Because you're not permitted to. Laws 20F1 and 20F2 say you may ask about your opponents' (prior) auction, and that during the play declarer may ask about defenders' card play understandings. Law 20F3 allows players to ask about a single call instead, but no law entitles declarer to ask about a single card.

Thank you campboy. Wishful thinking meant that I interpreted these laws, in what I deemed to be a more common sense way. But campboy's elucidation explains a lot. In the past, when I've asked a defender, he often launched into an interminable litany of irrelevancies. I assumed this was a filibustering attempt but now, at last, I understand that he was assiduously complying with the law -- describing his carding agreements in general, rather than the probable meaning of a particular play in context. The more you learn about how directors interpret the rules of Bridge, the more urgent seem drastic simplification and clarification.

[VixTD]

In the past, when I've asked a defender, he often launched into an interminable litany of irrelevancies. I assumed this was a filibustering attempt but now, at last, I understand that he was assiduously complying with the law -- describing his carding agreements in general, rather than the probable meaning of a particular play in context.

This all seems rather unnecessary. Both the question and answer can be tailored to the situation without relating to a specific card that was played.

 

North could say: "What signals do you use when discarding?"

West could answer something like: "High spot cards to encourage (picture cards may have a different meaning), or suit-preference if an attitude signal doesn't make sense. We're less likely to signal honestly when defending a slam."

 

A similar answer could be given even if the question were not quite legitimate. If I'm asked about carding in the middle of a hand and it's not obvious that the question relates to a particular play by my partner, I might ask "In what situation - do you mean when following suit or discarding?" That usually cuts a lot of unnecessary discussion. Law 20F2 refers to "by the partner of the player whose action is explained" so it's clear that the question and answer do not have to cover all possible carding agreements.

 

Why didn't North just consult their convention card?

[PeterAlan]

Both the question and answer can be tailored to the situation without relating to a specific card that was played.

 

...

 

Law 20F2 refers to "by the partner of the player whose action is explained"

Let's face it, the Laws do not deal in a particularly satisfactory way with the issue of enquiries about carding agreements. All we have is the 4 words "or card play understandings" tacked on at the end of the second sentence of Law 20F2 to tie such enquiries into (part of) the much more extensive Law 20 concerning enquiries about the auction.

 

This is unsatisfactory in a number of respects. First, there is arguably insufficient attention paid to the issue by the Laws: we could reasonably expect provisions that specifically address card play agreements. Second, it is not helpful that the only place in the Laws where the matter is covered is here, which (1) is in the middle of the group of Laws (17-39) that are essentially concerned with the Auction Period, and (2) is within a Law headed "Review and Explanation of Calls". Third, as the quote above shows, the Law ties the procedure of enquiry to the "action" being explained, which in the context of carding agreements is the play of one or more particular cards.

 

I'm not familiar with the earlier debate that posters above have referred to, concerning the relating of enquiries to specific play(s), and if anyone can supply a link I'd be grateful. I'd be interested to see how these concerns were resolved.

[ArtK78]

I think this whole discussion is academic (in every sense of the word) and relatively pointless.

 

Just ask your opponents "What are your carding agreements?" and allow them to answer. Then proceed from there.