[pran]

barmar, on Aug 3 2010, 09:14 AM, said:

The opp gave an incorrect answer to your question. You asked what the ♠2 showed. He answered what it would have shown if it had been the first discard, which is not what you asked, and not at all helpful.

ACBL regulations further state that when responding to questions, players should provide all relevant information, not just pedantically answer the precise question that was asked. They're expected to discern the intent of your question, you don't have to phrase the question correctly.

This is not only ACBL - it is the law. See Law 40B6:

{a} 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.

{b} The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation is crucial for opponent’s choice of action and opponent is thereby damaged.

[pran]

cherdanno, on Aug 3 2010, 12:25 PM, said:

pran, on Aug 3 2010, 02:52 AM, said:

The correct explanation here would have been something like: "The ♠2 discard does not signal anything due to the previous discard of the ♠5. My partner has only signalled a club honor". Notice how this explanation corresponds to the original explanation eventually given at the table after the play!

It wouldn't occur to me to say anything like that. I would say "Our first discard shows blah, later discards are bleh."

Fair enough.

I wrote "something like" and this seems to be "something like"?

[jdonn]

Mickyb and mycroft, sorry I believe you have both absolutely lost your minds here. Aw the poor defender didn't want to clue declarer in so decided lying would be the best solution in this horribly difficult situation!

[MickyB]

Most players who play this discard system in the UK probably aren't even aware that a second discard can be played to mean something.

[cherdanno]

MickyB, on Aug 3 2010, 12:50 PM, said:

I think suggesting they be "severely punished" is way off. Yes, the defender didn't handle the situation optimally, but it's not easy to know what to say in this situation - several posters in this thread have suggested explanations which disclose what the first discard was - for all the defender knows, declarer may have failed to notice that this wasn't the first discard!

But defender explicitly and intentionally lied, in a situation where it was obviously beneficial for him to do so! You can't lie about your signaling just to avoid reminding declarer about what happened on the previous trick.
If you don't give a PP for this explanation, do you ever give one for intentional misexplanations?

[peachy]

mrdct, on Aug 3 2010, 06:03 AM, said:

Adjustment to 3NT+2 and throw the book at RHO for clearly being a cheat in every sense of the word.

Having said that, "what does that mean?" is a pretty inappropriate question to be asking and I have a modicum of sympathy for the director coming down hard on you for querying the carding methods in that manner.

Under the given circumstances, and after the mutual agreement that *declarer will ask when a discard comes up (instead of digesting the entire structure before declaring)*, there is nothing wrong with phrasing the question the way it was phrased. Even if you think it is a wrong form of question, in ACBL the answer still has to be complete even if the declarer did not ask the right question. This pair of defenders both
1) gave misinformation - doesn't matter if it was deliberate/intentional or not - which they corrected too late and which caused damage
2) concealed their discarding agreements - it looks pretty intentional to me too

The TD (or more than one) have apparently erred. I wonder if it was a TD in charge who made the table ruling and the consultee's were his subordinates

I would fill out a recorder form and appeal the ruling. There are two issues here, not just the ruling.

[awm]

My inclination here would be to let declarer keep his result, but to adjust against the defending pair.

I think declarer's question was poorly worded; he should've asked about the first discard or the sequence of discards or the discarding method in general. Also, while declarer's line is not truly "nullo" it is playing for an extremely improbable position (basically, overcaller has a totally normal 3♣ preempt). It seems like his partner could've falsecarded the discard in any case, or not be signaling this late in the hand, or not have the appropriate cards to signal for what he actually has (is there even a signal that says "I have nothing useful any more"?) So I wouldn't want to give declarer a good result on this board, considering the errors which have been made.

Nonetheless, the defending side did mislead declarer by explaining what the ♠2 would've meant if it was the first discard, rather than explaining more generally how their discards in the spade suit work or answering truthfully that it means nothing at this point in the hand, or even saying "if it's his first discard, it shows...." This misleading explanation did contribute to declarer taking the wrong line (even though declarer should've found the right line or at least asked a better question in any case). So I'd adjust the E/W score as appropriate; if they are an experienced pair (probably not, given their style) I would also issue a procedural penalty.

[jdonn]

Sorry Adam you have lost your mind here too, and I think shown you don't understand the law here as well. Declarer can ask whatever question he thinks will help him, and your huge overbid of the "extremely improbable" holding is far more probable than what turned out to be the actual holding.

[mycroft]

jdonn, on Aug 3 2010, 12:37 PM, said:

Mickyb and mycroft, sorry I believe you have both absolutely lost your minds here. Aw the poor defender didn't want to clue declarer in so decided lying would be the best solution in this horribly difficult situation!

Josh, may I suggest before I go off to my psychiatrist that you read more than the first sentence of my last reply?

The problem is non-trivial. There is a right solution - several right solutions, I think, one of which I posted above - and one of those must be chosen. One is entitled to give one's full disclosure in a way that avoids giving information that is not part of that full disclosure (*); but if there is no way to do that, then full disclosure trumps. Just because the problem isn't trivial doesn't mean that they are allowed to come to the wrong solution.

The player in question decided that something trumped full disclosure, and

mycroft said:

[t]hat's deliberate misinformation - it *can't* have been accidental - and they're lucky to get away with adjustment, a PP, and a stern talking to.

The TD is within his rights to disqualify the pair for this; *I* wouldn't do it, but I would make it clear that it was within our powers, and let them figure out why. My other reply, earlier, is, in fact, a credible threat (and frankly, likely to them a scarier prospect than the adjustment, penalty, and threat of disqualification): if you fail to correctly disclose your agreement again, you will be barred from playing it until you can prove you can.

(*) Two examples, both of which I have seen in practise:
- "what does that lead show?" "The lower the card he leads, the more he wants it returned." "So does it show an honour?" "Neither promises nor denies; the lower the card he leads, the more he wants it returned." (The leader had Txxxx2 and enough entries to run the suit, provided partner had two and didn't switch if he got in!)
- "What are your discards?" "A spade denies interest in spades; low shows interest in hearts over diamonds, high would show interest in diamonds over hearts." "So, what does the 6 show?/So, is that high or low?" "I don't know. (Show me your hand, and I'll be able to tell you.)"
I have also seen exactly the solution I suggested: "Our first discard shows [describe Lavinthal here]. Later discards are whatever he thinks best." Repeated to answer the followup question "So does that show interest in hearts?" When declarer went down and complained, opponent mentioned that the card being asked about was the *second* discard.

[jdonn]

I read the first sentence and it's wrong, the problem is trivial.

Declarer asked a question.

The defenders merely have to answer the exact question declarer asked. There are no side issues, questions about what else he might have asked, worries about divulging too much information, alternative possible answers to dance around exactly what they want to say. They just have to answer what he asked, nothing more nothing less.

They intentionally gave a false answer to what he asked.

It couldn't be any more trivial.

[awm]

jdonn, on Aug 3 2010, 04:18 PM, said:

Sorry Adam you have lost your mind here too, and I think shown you don't understand the law here as well. Declarer can ask whatever question he thinks will help him, and your huge overbid of the "extremely improbable" holding is far more probable than what turned out to be the actual holding.

Well, I think declarer took a really bad line of play on this hand. Yes, there is one very precise lie of the cards (overcaller with 1-2-3-7 shape, 8 hcp, both club honors) where his line of play works. But this layout is unlikely (especially since most people bid 3♣ on such a hand and not 2♣). It's got to be more likely that the spade king is onside and opponents have simply stopped signaling by this point in the play, doesn't it? We have plenty of precedent (including a recent discussion in these fora) for letting declarer keep his bad score when he took a line which seems very poor even given the MI.

It seems to me that declarer asked a very badly phrased question, took the (admittedly stupid) answer he received at face value, and then selected a line of play which can't be right unless opponents absolutely never falsecard their signals.

With that said, I'm not condoning what the defending side did on this hand, and would adjust their score appropriately.

[bluejak]

MickyB, on Aug 3 2010, 06:55 PM, said:

Given the previous discussion, replying "meaningless" would basically give away that it wasn't the first discard. I'm not saying that what he did was right, just that he was put into a non-trivial position.

Cr.... errr rubbish. It was a completely trivial position for a non-cheating pair.

Remember that they had already said it was a good idea to just explain it as it goes along. They then did not, they lied, they made no effort to produce the carding they played.

That the TDs condoned cheating is incredible.

How do you explain it? Well you tell him what you play, not something you do not. To my mind that is trivial.

As for the idea that when playing a complex system a player should try to gain an advantage by hiding the fact that it is a second discard and make sure that he discloses the wrong meaning in an attempt to do so, then I do not want to see such a player in the same team as me, the same bridge club, the same event, or the same continent.

Ok, there is more than one way to answer the question legally, and some people will try to hide the fact that it was a second discard. I hope such people are proud of themselves, and if they ever win anything are proud of how they go about it.

[jdonn]

awm, on Aug 3 2010, 05:51 PM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 3 2010, 04:18 PM, said:

Sorry Adam you have lost your mind here too, and I think shown you don't understand the law here as well. Declarer can ask whatever question he thinks will help him, and your huge overbid of the "extremely improbable" holding is far more probable than what turned out to be the actual holding.

Well, I think declarer took a really bad line of play on this hand. Yes, there is one very precise lie of the cards (overcaller with 1-2-3-7 shape, 8 hcp, both club honors) where his line of play works. But this layout is unlikely (especially since most people bid 3♣ on such a hand and not 2♣). It's got to be more likely that the spade king is onside and opponents have simply stopped signaling by this point in the play, doesn't it? We have plenty of precedent (including a recent discussion in these fora) for letting declarer keep his bad score when he took a line which seems very poor even given the MI.

It seems to me that declarer asked a very badly phrased question, took the (admittedly stupid) answer he received at face value, and then selected a line of play which can't be right unless opponents absolutely never falsecard their signals.

With that said, I'm not condoning what the defending side did on this hand, and would adjust their score appropriately.

Given the very specific answer he got, I would have played it exactly as he did at imps for sure and maybe at matchpoints. True he was playing matchpoints, but taking what looks like the best line of play to make the contract is so very far from the threshold at which you wouldn't adjust their score that you are baffling me.

What is so unlikely about the hand he is playing for anyway? 3 diamonds is proven. 2 hearts is very likely with the 3 still missing. 5+ clubs is known and surely is likely to include both honors. And the opponents made a signal that showed the spade was off. On top of that west didn't lead a club nor did he raise (I assume?) greatly increasing the odds east has long clubs. I would say what declarer played for was extremely likely! Not only that but declarer was breaking even if east had Kxx Kx xxx KQxxx.

I sound like bluejak but I don't recall agreeing with this any more than I do this time - I can't believe how far out of your way you are going to punish the non-offending side.

[mrdct]

I'm not sure of the alerting regulations in ACBL-land, but in Australia you would be required to pre-alert an unusual defensive carding method like this, so we might even be able to give EW a PP for failure to pre-alert.

The answer to the question ought to have been:

"We generally play our first discard as blah blah and subsequent carding is either blah or blah depending on blah".

If there is a follow-up question of "what does the ♠2 show?" the answer should be:

"That depends on what other cards he has in his hand and what his earlier carding may have been. If it's his first discard it indicates blah blah and if it's a subsequent discard it's either blah or blah depending on blah".

There is a potentially innocent explanation for east's apparent cheating by lying about the meaning of the ♠2 discard. East himself may not have been paying full attention and wasn't aware that there had already been a discard of the ♠5. The fact that declarer quized him on the ♠2 and not the ♠5 may have confused east into thinking that the ♠2 was the first discard. This explantion won't get him off the hook for the misexplanation though. Particularly at non-elite levels, this is a very frequent occurence (that is defenders not remembering what partner has pitched).

[MickyB]

bluejak, on Aug 3 2010, 10:58 PM, said:

Ok, there is more than one way to answer the question legally, and some people will try to hide the fact that it was a second discard. I hope such people are proud of themselves, and if they ever win anything are proud of how they go about it.

Sorry, are you implying that the defender should ensure that declarer knows that his partner failed to follow suit on the previous round? I don't understand this at all.

[MickyB]

In fact, the more I think about this, the more I think that declarer was pretty likely to be trying something on with his line of questioning. Why would you ever ask what the two of spades meant if you knew the first discard was the five of spades?

[mycroft]

jdonn, on Aug 3 2010, 04:22 PM, said:

I read the first sentence and it's wrong, the problem is trivial.

Maybe.

Quote

Declarer asked a question.
The defenders merely have to answer the exact question declarer asked.

Absolutely and by the letter of the regulation incorrect (at least where you and I play); and for very good reasons. The defenders are required, whatever the question asked, to provide full disclosure.

Apart from everything else that goes along with it (because most of the time we have issues between "answering the question asked" and "providing full disclosure", it's because the answering side is trying to hide *systemic information* by "answer[ing] the exact question asked"), where does it end?

"What does that show?"
"Meaningless."
"No, seriously, what does that show?"
"That he thinks that is a safe card to pitch."
"But what about all of that crazy discarding system that you talked about earlier?"
"doesn't apply to this play."
"Why not?"
...okay, so do I have to answer this question? Is "all of that applied to a previous trick" an "answer to the exact question declarer asked"? If I do have to answer that question, or the obvious next one, or have to say "he's shown a club card with his previous plays, this card doesn't mean anything", does that mean I can ask the same series of questions of the pair tonight that play standard discards when I can't remember whether the first discard was the D9 or D2? Now, if declarer asks "what did the spade 5 show?", I'm happy (and required) to tell him.

I see nothing wrong, bluejak aside, with the answer "standard signals, revolving Lavinthal on the first discard, further discards 'as possible'", provided the opponents understand revolving Lavinthal (and if not, I'll happily explain that). If the players playing the "complex discarding system" can't explain it with that kind of simple response, then they have to come up with some way to do it that is complete, correct, and not misinforming. If they can't do that without providing information that declarer might have forgotten about, well, sucks to be them, doesn't it?

Quote

They intentionally gave a false answer to what he asked.
It couldn't be any more trivial.

Oh, true, true, that couldn't be more trivial. I have no sympathy whatever for what E/W actually did.

[Humper]

MickyB, on Aug 3 2010, 06:46 PM, said:

In fact, the more I think about this, the more I think that declarer was pretty likely to be trying something on with his line of questioning. Why would you ever ask what the two of spades meant if you knew the first discard was the five of spades?

It's true, I definitely could have asked more or better questions. If their answer to my initial question were even a little doubtful or had a hint of "if it were his first" or something I would have probed further.

I'm not sure what you mean by "this late in the hand", Adam -- the 2 of spades was trick 5. For what it's worth, they mentioned during the initial attempt to explain the whole system that not only could you signal for trumps, you could also signal for the suit in which you were discarding, which would suggest that you have nothing.

It's also true that even if the ♠K is in the slot, if my RHO has two hearts this line of play should break even, so even if they're falsecarding like fiends, it pays off only to, well, basically the exact hand my RHO had. I have to play for *something*

I'm totally sympathetic to the fact that the defenders wouldn't want to "wake me up" to the fact that he had discarded already. I think that rather than answering "nothing" (waking me up to the diamonds being 1-3), or saying "if it was his first discard" (again waking me up), they could just say:

"In a black suit, the first discard of an even card would show a spade honor, and of an odd card would show a club honor. Subsequent discards are random". That would be totally sufficient, and if I badgered them about "WELL TELL ME ABOUT THE TWO, DAMMIT", then they could call the director.

[mrdct]

The manner in which dislcosure of carding agreements in made is generally a matter for local regulating authorities. In most places of the world where I've played you can ask what your opponents' carding agreements are, you can ask about style and priorities for 1st and subsequent discards and you can ask about style and priorities for suits led and/or bid by either side; but asking what a specific card means is highly inappropriate imho as it is often dependent on cards that have already gone by and/or what the person answering the question has in his own hand and could place a defender in an awkward situation where a card from partner might indicate a card that he is actually looking at in his own hand.

[blackshoe]

People ask far more questions about bidding than they do play. People also tend to get into habits. When asking about bidding, people often ask about specific calls, particularly when those calls are alerted, in spite of Law 20's admonition to ask first about the entire auction (I'll grant you there are some situations in which asking about the entire auction seems silly). People who are in the habit of asking about specific calls are likely to carry that habit over into asking about specific card plays, and will not think they've done anything wrong — particularly if, as has happened to me, they ask for an explanation of the opponents' auction, the opponents call the TD, and the first thing out of the TD's mouth is "which call were you interested in?". So while I agree that asking "what does that card mean?" or similar should be deprecated, I don't think you can shoot players for doing it.