[zenko]

this story simply does not add up - they tell you about ther funky leads and 30 second later you manage to already forget all about it, then when you wake up you decide for some mysterious reason not to ask about ther discards in general (the proper way), or about the 5 (inproper but understandible) but you ask about the 2? why? there is no way that you would like to know what the 2 means and do not care about the 5, so what gives?

regarding defenders, are they even obliged to say anything, cant they just give you their convention card and point you their written discarding agreements? the fact that they are"complex" is immaterial, what matter only is are they allowed and are they correctly disclossed on their convention card.

[pran]

mrdct, on Aug 4 2010, 12:19 AM, said:

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).

This is not at all an "innocent explanation".

If you have a "complicated" signalling system where the meaning of a discard depends heavily on previous discard(s) then it is your responsibility to notice and remember all previous (relevant) discards so that you will be able to give correct explanations if asked.

[pran]

MickyB, on Aug 4 2010, 12:46 AM, 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?

Say that the second discard in a suit is the three. In nearly every signalling system the meaning of this three depends on whether the first discard in the suit was the two or the four. Is there anyone who would argue that an explanation should not bring this into the answer by for instance saying (when the first discard was the four) "it completes a high-low signal indicating an even number of cards"?

Here the "meaning" of the ♠2 was varied due to the previous discard of the ♠5. Concealing such fact in an answer is as close to cheating as it is possible to come.

[bluejak]

zenko, on Aug 4 2010, 06:14 AM, said:

this story simply does not add up - they tell you about ther funky leads and 30 second later you manage to already forget all about it, then when you wake up you decide for some mysterious reason not to ask about ther discards in general (the proper way), or about the 5 (inproper but understandible) but you ask about the 2? why? there is no way that you would like to know what the 2 means and do not care about the 5, so what gives?

regarding defenders, are they even obliged to say anything, cant they just give you their convention card and point you their written discarding agreements? the fact that they are"complex" is immaterial, what matter only is are they allowed and are they correctly disclossed on their convention card.

They are required to answer questions. No, refusing to answer questions is rude and illegal, so I will give them a DP for being rude and a PP for failing to disclose adequately.

A lot of the answers do not seem related to this particular situation: the opposition encouraged declarer to leave it to the time and ask questions: do they really expect then to hide what they were playing and get away with it?

As for asking questions badly, yet again several responses to this thread seem to be along the lines of let's screw the non-offending side. In bridge you disclose your agreements as fully as you are able to: if you do not, you are breaking the Laws: if you do not deliberately you are a cheat. This pair made made no effort to adequately disclose their methods - and worse.

Who cares whether declarer acted like a tosspot or not? Well, obviously some of you do, but why? Declarer acting like a tosspot does not give the other side the right to bend the rules, break them, cheat or otherwise act in any such manner. To make it worse this is the ACBL which has a specific regulation that requires Full Disclosure in the face of a poorly worded question.

[cherdanno]

bluejak, on Aug 3 2010, 05:58 PM, said:

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.

This seems an overreaction. If a declarer plays to a trick, and then when he is finished, asks me to show the card I played to a previous trick, I would refuse to do that. (And I would be insulted if an opponent would volunteer to show me his previously played card when he thinks I may have forgotten it.)

If in this situation I had the impression that declarer has not noticed the previous discard, why should I help him? I will make any attempt to make sure he does not misunderstand my explanations. But if you miss that a defender already made a pitch on the previous trick, well it's part of bridge to notice and remember discards, and if a declarer is about to miscount the distribution because he missed a discard, then I won't help him just to make sure he does not misunderstand the signal partner is giving me.

(To make things simpler - say declarer pulls two rounds of trumps, partner following with 76, and me following with the 5 then pitching. If declarer asked you what the 6 means, would you also tell him "high-low means he is signaling for hearts", rather than saying "we play suit preference in the trump suit, in this case telling me his preference between diamonds and hearts"?)

[mjj29]

zenko, on Aug 4 2010, 12:14 AM, said:

regarding defenders, are they even obliged to say anything, cant they just give you their convention card and point you their written discarding agreements? the fact that they are"complex" is immaterial, what matter only is are they allowed and are they correctly disclossed on their convention card.

As bluejak says, you are still required to answer, but more to the point, there is limited space on the convention card, so explanations there are necessarily terse and often it's either helpful or required for you to give a more long-winded explanation in order for oppo to understand - or they just don't like reading detail system cards in small writing, which is fine. They are entitled to a full explanation when they ask.

[mrdct]

pran, on Aug 4 2010, 04:54 PM, said:

mrdct, on Aug 4 2010, 12:19 AM, said:

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).

This is not at all an "innocent explanation".

If you have a "complicated" signalling system where the meaning of a discard depends heavily on previous discard(s) then it is your responsibility to notice and remember all previous (relevant) discards so that you will be able to give correct explanations if asked.

I meant innocent in that he can avoid the lifetime ban from bridge and 28 page BBO thread flaming his poor ethics. He will not escape a penalty (be that procedural, adjustment or both) for the misexplanation.

I wish I was a good enough bridge player to never miss a pip from partner and be able to read the 2nd card played in a suit 100% of the time with 100% accuracy. The reality is that all bridge players of all standards will miss a pip from time to time, particularly in circumstances where you determine the moment that dummy goes down that partner's hand is irrelevant and the outcome is going to depend solely on declarer guessing everything correctly.

On this hand, it is quite unlikely that any carding from west is going to be of any assistance to him so he could well have just tuned-out and not realised that the ♠5 had already gone.

[zenko]

The defender's response was despicable, thats for sure, but if I am director I would first ask the declarer the obvious question: "why did you inquiry specifically about the 2, why not about 5?", and if I do not hear something convincing (which I doubt would happen) I would let him have his bad score, adjust the score for defenders and send them all to ethics committee.

If you, even after strong clues that the declarer simply missed the card, choose to award him for being verbally resourceful you are creating a moral hazard. Or to say it more bluntly, next time I miss the card I am sure I will remember this neat trick, of course I will not use it, but I know many that would if they know about it.

[jdonn]

The initial post said why he asked about the second card, because that is when he remembered they play a weird discarding system so he just asked about the card on the table.

[gnasher]

pran, on Aug 4 2010, 08:05 AM, said:

Say that the second discard in a suit is the three. In nearly every signalling system the meaning of this three depends on whether the first discard in the suit was the two or the four. Is there anyone who would argue that an explanation should not bring this into the answer by for instance saying (when the first discard was the four) "it completes a high-low signal indicating an even number of cards"?

Yes, I would argue that. I think it's perfectly OK to answer "High-low shows an even number; low-high shows an odd number."

[gnasher]

Similarly, on the originally posted hand, one might answer "If it's his first spade discard, it shows a spade honour; if it isn't it has no special meaning." I can't see anything improper about that.

For this approach to be fully effective, one would have to sometimes give the same answer when it really is the first discard. That might attract some strange looks.

[duschek]

I am slightly worried when some say that you do wrong in not including in your explanation of the ♠2 the fact that it completes the signal given by the ♠5.

This means that you do wrong (legally) when forgetting a card played (because you cannot comply with the "requirement"), which obviously cannot be the case. You can request a review of the auction, but not of the play.

[zenko]

jdonn, on Aug 4 2010, 10:26 AM, said:

The initial post said why he asked about the second card, because that is when he remembered they play a weird discarding system so he just asked about the card on the table.

Are you are really buying that? The fact that he just now recall about their carding does not explain in any way, or make it more logical, to ask about the meaning of the second discard first. The claim that they are "complex" is immaterial and does not make the question less strange or less improper in any way.

[jdonn]

zenko, on Aug 4 2010, 11:18 AM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 4 2010, 10:26 AM, said:

The initial post said why he asked about the second card, because that is when he remembered they play a weird discarding system so he just asked about the card on the table.

Are you are really buying that? The fact that he just now recall about their carding does not explain in any way, or make it more logical, to ask about the meaning of the second discard first. The claim that they are "complex" is immaterial and does not make the question less strange or less improper in any way.

Of course I believe it, just how cynical are you? The fact their methods are complex is completely relevent, it caused him to be unable to understand the entire system when he first asked. Don't forget he tried to find out about their carding just like a normal person at the start of play, but it turned out to be quite difficult to comprehend.

He didn't ask about the second discard first because it was logical, he did it because the card was sitting in front of his face when he remembered about their methods.

And his question may be strange but is in no way improper.

[peachy]

duschek, on Aug 4 2010, 10:56 AM, said:

This means that you do wrong (legally) when forgetting a card played (because you cannot comply with the "requirement"), which obviously cannot be the case. You can request a review of the auction, but not of the play.

Well, it is the case, actually. If you forget your agreement and give either a wrong explanation or a "I don't know", you are not in compliance with the requirement to correctly explain the partnership agreement and you are in violation of the law. The reason why you are *not in compliance* is irrelevant.

PS: "you" here is generic, I hope everyone understands that


Edit: The reason why not in compliance actually is relevant because knowingly lying to the opponents about agreements is a much more serious offense.

[PrinceNep]

To all those who believe that the Offending Side doesn't deserve a penalty should reread what we were told in the initial post:

Quote

I ask about the non-spade honor, and they inform me that the 2♠ was actually meaningless, and that the first spade discard (the 5♠) was the only one that had meaning (it showed a club honor, making the spade finesse about 150%), but of course I hadn't asked about that card.

The way this is presented is that they were completely aware of the ♠5, but gave an intentionally wrong explanation because declarer asked about the ♠2. This is entirely unethical.

Had this been a novice player who was capable of not paying attention to the first discard and unintentionally gave an explanation due to their believing it was the first discard ... then there is no reason for this thread in the first place.

E/W do deserve a penalty and N/S does deserve an adjustment.

Nowhere in the original post or otherwise has it even been a possibility that E/W accidentally or unintentionally gave the wrong explanation. So that argument must be thrown out the window as far as assessing damage is concerned.

[barmar]

mycroft, on Aug 3 2010, 01:42 PM, said:

In the ACBL, as people have said, "any question" is the trigger for full disclosure; they didn't do that, but this might not be the ACBL.

Go back and read the first line of the thread: Open Pairs in New Orleans. Presumably he's referring to the NABC that took place last week in that city.

[mrdct]

I think the safest approach for defenders when quized about the meaning of a discard is to outline their general carding agreements as they pertain to the situation but not make any direct reference to a particular card in play. I don't think there is any duty for a defender to draw declarers attention to earlier tricks but I also think it's unethical to be purposefully oblique in one's response to conceal important carding information from earlier tricks. That is to say if the meaning of a particular discard is informed by earlier tricks, the explanation of the carding agreements needs to encompass that possibility but not necessarily confirm or deny the existence of earlier relevant carding.

If you are playing a complex carding method and haven't pre-alerted properly I think your obligations for comprehensible disclosure increase, but I don't think that ought to extend, in this case, to having to expressly advise declarer that the ♠5 has already been pitched.

As has been said several times already, to intentionally misinform declarer about the meaning of the ♠2 is clear-cut cheating and should be harshly punished.

[Free]

I have mixed feelings about this situation. However I think everyone agrees that the defenders' score should be adjusted for sure.

Imo you should never give an explanation about a specific card being played, but explain your agreements. You're not obligated to tell your holding to your opps (example partner plays the 4 and you hold 32, you don't have to say the 4 was a small card).

Asking what the ♠2 means is clearly a very poor question since the first discard is way more important, but the defenders made it worse by giving a wrong explanation. Declarer could've asked a more general question like "what has he shown". This encompasses both discards, but doesn't give the show away.

Humper, on Aug 3 2010, 06:07 AM, said:

My LHO led the 6♥, ducked to RHO's K♥.  RHO returns the 2♥, and LHO follows with the 5♥.  I still haven't seen the 3♥.

If I read this correctly, I win trick 2 cheaply (still having the A) since there's only 1 card smaller than the 5. So what's the problem to just play ♠ before running ♦? You can make 3-4♠, 5♦, 2♥ and ♣A = 11-12 tricks. In this case the line of play is very poor and I wouldn't adjust the score for NS.

Btw, I would never tell my opponents that I'll ask about their discards when it comes up. This is a very easy situation to falsecard for defenders, since you'll ask and get a correct explanation at that time. This may be ethically incorrect, but it happens all the time.

[Humper]

Free, on Aug 5 2010, 05:04 AM, said:

If I read this correctly, I win trick 2 cheaply (still having the A) since there's only 1 card smaller than the 5. So what's the problem to just play ♠ before running ♦? You can make 3-4♠, 5♦, 2♥ and ♣A = 11-12 tricks. In this case the line of play is very poor and I wouldn't adjust the score for NS.

Blah, you're right. Lho covered my card at trick 2, obviously.

When I play against people who are unfamiliar with my signalling agreements (which are quuite simple), this often happens:

"what are your discards"

"upside down"

"so the six of clubs"? (the ♣6 is on the table)

"well the first discard of a low spot suggests interest in the suit, and the first discard of a high spot suggests that he doesn't"

Note that this answer has nothing to do with whether or not the 6 itself is low or high, nor whether it is partners first discard.

If the 2345 of clubs is in the dummy, I would say the same no matter what. If the ♣6 was the second discard, and the first was the 8, I would say the same.

The directors DID ask me why I didn't ask about the 5. I explained that the answer about the 2 was so clear that it did not seem necessary. I didn't know that my ability to get truthful information about the opponents' signals expired once the first-discard trick was quitted.