[movingon]

At the local club, the third to last round, I am playing a 3 heart contract.

In the middle of the hand, I inquire of my right hand opponent if their partnership is playing standard or upside down count. She responds, "standard." I find out shortly after that my left-hand opp had three in the suit and not the expected 2.

As a result I go down three in a contract that most of the field is in down 2.

I say to my right hand opponent, "Then you weren't play standard count?" She says, "Well, I play standard count." (note the emphasis on the "I".) Her partner speaks up and says, "I thought we agreed when we started to play both upside down count and attitude." She says, "I have upside down attitude and standard count on my card." I look at her card, and I see that she does. I ask to look at LHO's card and he also has upside down attitude and standard count marked.

This pair has already played 20 hands, and they are both flight A players.
How would you rule as the director?

[blackshoe]

Damage due to MI, score adjustment. PP(Warning) to defenders.

[movingon]

good.
The director said to score it up as was and that he would look at the hand after the game. He did adjust to 3 hts down 2.
I don't think there was a conversation with either of the opponents.
In any case, I was satisfied that we received the score we deserved (and considerably much better than the 0 that was initially recorded)!

[Rossoneri]

 blackshoe, on 2010-December-11, 13:13, said:

Damage due to MI, score adjustment. PP(Warning) to defenders.

Quite right! Surprised that the director did not issue a warning at all to the offenders.

[TimG]

 movingon, on 2010-December-11, 13:02, said:

I say to my right hand opponent, "Then you weren't play standard count?" She says, "Well, I play standard count." (note the emphasis on the "I".) Her partner speaks up and says, "I thought we agreed when we started to play both upside down count and attitude." She says, "I have upside down attitude and standard count on my card." I look at her card, and I see that she does. I ask to look at LHO's card and he also has upside down attitude and standard count marked.

It appears that you were given the correct explanation of their partnership agreement. Where is the MI?

[blackshoe]

If they were playing standard count, and declarer knew they were playing standard count, why did he expect 2 cards rather than 3 in the suit?

Defenders are allowed to falsecard, after all.

[TimG]

 blackshoe, on 2010-December-11, 23:42, said:

If they were playing standard count, and declarer knew they were playing standard count, why did he expect 2 cards rather than 3 in the suit?

Because a defender did not give honest count. Whether this was an intentional deception, a case of forgetting (or misunderstanding) the agreement, or of just not giving count, doesn't matter.

BTW, isn't it pretty rare that an expert gives useful count information to declarer by giving count in a suit? If an expert realizes that there is a two-way finesse (or some such), the expert defender is not going to volunteer count information. In other words, in all but situations where the defenders obviously need to know count (as for cashing out or holding up), Flight A defenders aren't giving count.

[blackshoe]

It seems my earlier post was in error. The explanation of the partnership's agreement ("standard count") was correct. The problem lay in declarer's assumption regarding the actual play. Result stands.

Are "Flight A" and "expert" synonymous?

[barmar]

I once played about 80% of a session (I think it might have been the Lenhar IMP Pairs at an NABC) with a relatively infrequent partner before we realized that we were using different count and attitude signals.

[bluejak]

There was a case in a club some time ago where a player said he played Precision. His partner opened 1♣ with 10 points and six clubs so the opposition asked. "Well," he replied, "I play Precision but my partner does not like it so she plays Acol."

[bluejak]

I have been worrying about this thread so decided it is time I thought about it.

Quote

I don't think there was a conversation with either of the opponents.

Of course this is wrong: the TD should find out what is going on.

Let us have another look at the OP and see what happened.

First, the SCs. They both said 'upside down attitude and standard count'. That suggests they have an agreement to play standard count and later posts have assumed this, so suggesting no MI.

But what did LHO say?

Quote

Her partner speaks up and says, "I thought we agreed when we started to play both upside down count and attitude."

Now, the problem with just assuming they are playing standard count because of the SCs is that LHO certainly is not. So, what is the agreement?

Ok, we ask who filled in LHO's SC? If RHO then I think they do not have an agreement to play standard count. But if LHO filled in his own SC I would ask him why he did and then plays something else.

I am not sure of the answer to this one, but one thing I am sure of: it needed investigation by the TD.

[campboy]

 bluejak, on 2010-December-13, 15:28, said:

Ok, we ask who filled in LHO's SC? If RHO then I think they do not have an agreement to play standard count. But if LHO filled in his own SC I would ask him why he did and then plays something else.

Presumably because since filling in the card he has misremembered what he wrote on it. Doesn't that sort of thing happen all the time?

Anyway, I disagree with the first bit. I think that LHO having read the card would be enough to say they have an agreement to play it. Or do I have to leave a space at the bottom of my (word-processed) convention cards for my partners to sign "I have read this document and agree to play the methods described therein"?

[bluejak]

How do you know LHO has read the card if you do not ask him?

[campboy]

 bluejak, on 2010-December-13, 20:29, said:

How do you know LHO has read the card if you do not ask him?

I don't yet, and I was suggesting asking him. Hence "would be enough" rather than "is enough".