[Lali]

2 cases came up recently for me and I wondered which is the worse offense and how to handle each.

Case 1: 2 novices playing for 2nd or 3rd time together .... declarer asks what discard of a lowish S means to partner. Answer: My partner wants me to lead that suit. Declarer takes a finesse through the person who "supposedly" wants the S led. The finesse loses and declarer goes -5. Director! MI!

Case 2: 2 top A players with 8000+ points each .... One discards and the declarer asks what a low H discard means. He is told "standard". When asked specifically .... does that discard mean your partner likes or does like H he is told after some hemming and hawing ... "could be anything at this point."

How do you handle these cases? 1 case appears to be "no real understanding" by novices but there is MI ... and the 2nd case appears to be "I'm not going to divulge what that means to me because then you could know how to play this hand better" so better to act clueless which for an A player is highly doubtful. He knows better than to pick a side when it could be used as MI against him.

[nige1]

 Lali, on 2013-May-31, 14:03, said:

Case 1: 2 novices playing for 2nd or 3rd time together .... declarer asks what discard of a lowish S means to partner. Answer: My partner wants me to lead that suit. Declarer takes a finesse through the person who "supposedly" wants the S led. The finesse loses and declarer goes -5. Director! MI!

The novice may have told the truth. A low card might be encouraging, in principle. But carding depends on context. Here, it is hardly ever right to help declarer to find the lady.

 Lali, on 2013-May-31, 14:03, said:

Case 2: 2 top A players with 8000+ points each .... One discards and the declarer asks what a low H discard means. He is told "standard". When asked specifically .... does that discard mean your partner likes or does like H he is told after some hemming and hawing ... "could be anything at this point."

IMO the defender could be more explicit. "Standard attitude" or "standard count" might suffice. But many experts signal on a "need-to-know" basis. Hence, some of their cards convey no conventional information.

[mycroft]

"if it's a high heart, it's encouraging in hearts; if it's a low heart, it's discouraging in hearts. Whether it's high or low depends on what other hearts he has and what other hearts he thinks he can afford to discard."

I don't mind if you don't tell what the 4 means (whether you don't know, or you don't have to say, or you can only work out by looking at your hand, and you don't feel you need to tell me *that*). I *do* mind if you won't tell me what "standard" means, if I don't know it (or if it turns out you have a different definition of "standard" than standard (say you're from Poland, where "standard" == "low encourages", or you're playing "always discouraging in that suit" and think it's "standard", or... I'd like to think I've seen it all, but I'm sure I'm going to see something new in two weeks, in Penticton)).

[blackshoe]

First, the meanings of plays are not nearly as clear-cut as the meanings of bids. Second, false carding is an accepted and acceptable tactic. Third, without seeing the hands, and knowing what the carding agreements actually are, we aren't going to be able to suggest specific rulings in these cases. That said…

In general, in case 1, I would caution declarer against the assumption he was misinformed. I would investigate and find out (a) what the defenders' actual agreement is, and (b) why the defender discarded that particular card. There may have been MI, but then again, there may not have been. You say there was. Fair enough, you were there, I wasn't. But what is the basis of that statement? If there was clearly MI, and if the declarer's decision to finesse was based on that MI, then per Law 40B4, the score should be adjusted. But I think we need to know more.

In case 2, "standard," in answer to questions about carding, is not just common, it's ubiquitous. Also, whatever their reasons, most people simply accept that answer and move on. It is not, however, adequate disclosure. Still, a flight A pair is usually well aware of their agreements, so a ruling of MI when they explain the agreed meaning of the play is IMO highly unlikely. In this case, again, I wasn't at the table, but it sounds to me like this was not a player tried to "act clueless", it was a player who was trying to figure out how much of what he 'knows' about his partner's play comes from partnership agreement, and how much from other, non-disclosable sources (such as "knowledge generally available to bridge players"). There's also the question of whether the card played, which appears to be low, is in fact low in the context of the player's hand. If his partner has a count on the hand, he may know that this card which looks low is actually high, or middling. In either case, that knowledge does not come from agreements and he is not required to disclose it.

In general, I would say the correct answer, playing standard attitude, in attitude situations, to "what does your partner's card mean?" is "a low card is discouraging, a high card is encouraging, a middle card is ambiguous". Further questions along the line of "is that card high, low, or middle?" do not rate an answer.

One other thing: I think it highly unlikely, based on the information available to me from your post, that anybody was deliberately lying here.

[c_corgi]

In both cases declarer's questions appear designed to provoke a tell rather than proper disclosure. In case 2 it sounds as though the defender was trying to say "whatever our basic signalling methods, there is a clear implicit understanding that partner's discard here does not transmit systemic information", which is the relevant thing to disclose, even though it would have been proper to add "but for what it's worth our basic method is high encouraging (or whatever)".

[the_clown]

People are not obliged to signal right. In some situation is perfectly clear that any information they give will be used by declarer and will not help partner at all (e.g. because partner is broke and never comes to trick or because partner knows the whole hand from the bidding and play). Of course when asked about the carding agreements one should just respond udca/ standard etc and maybe explain what a low/high/middle card would normally mean, even if one knows that partners card is meaningless because partner is obviosly broke. Thah knowledge is because the defender has some extra information from the bidding/play and not because of some partnership agreement.

If on the next couple of hands the pair consistently signals udca and they inform their opponents they played standard carding, this really is a case for the TD to look at.

[Lali]

I agree the card might mean different things depending on what the partner holds etc but to say that they know "nothing" I guess does bother me some since they must have some idea if they have played that long at that high level.

In another situation, when I asked another A pair what the lead of 9 implied on the opening lead, I was told .... "Could mean anything!" Turns out that defender on lead was playing from KT9 where the 9 showed 2 higher. Isn't there some penalty we can impose against the A players who take advantage of weaker players in this kind of proven particular case where these players out-rightly lie to prevent opponents from knowing information they don't want to divulge

[blackshoe]

In what jurisdiction are you?

[Lali]

 blackshoe, on 2013-May-31, 22:42, said:

In what jurisdiction are you?

What do you mean?

[blackshoe]

Where are you? North America? England? Australia? You'll want to follow your Regulating Authority's procedures for handling cheating, since that's what you're accusing these players of doing. This usually involves formal charges and a hearing.

[ggwhiz]

I'm more concerned about the timing, content and intent of the questioning.

"What is your carding" is appropriate when a defender can tell you smoothly what's on their card (and all you are entitled to know) rather than "look at your hand and tell me if she likes the suit". Especially from a declarer that doesn't recognize that everyone knew you had to guess this suit 3 tricks ago in #2 and then complains about not getting a free Bridge lesson mid-hand.

Also, I false-card like crazy when I know pard will never get the lead and am not obliged to tell declarer when tactics like this are in play. In the case of novices such questioning may sandbag them into a "well, usually" type revealing response and that is not fair play. You can always look at their card and this smells like fishing for a reaction.

So both situations are equally bad.... by declarer.

[barmar]

It seems to me like the second player was honestly trying to give helpful disclosure. "Could be anything at this point" seems to mean that when you're well into the hand, there's not much point in giving signals. The defenders have already transmitted information through their earlier plays, and at this point you're often forced to hold on to certain cards to avoid giving away tricks.

Regarding the novices, I would always take anything a novice says with a grain of salt. Even if they have an agreement, inexperienced players either forget or they don't know what they're doing well enough to signal honestly. Trying to interpret their signals is like being in the Monty Python "Hungarian Phrase Book" sketch.

[Lali]

Blackshoe,

I am in ACBL land.

I posed this question to an US expert. His reply was that although you do not need to say .... my partner likes or does not like the suit which as we all know really is too much info to have to disclose .... they should tell you their partnership agreement. ie "high cards usually encourage and low cards are discouraging" or "all are discards are usually non-essential cards" or " 1st discard usually show interest in that suit". It is up to the declarer to know such things as in such and such situations, discards are varied for count or suit preference. But to say they know "nothing" is like implying that they just learned the game which is a definite falsehood in light of their points.

[blackshoe]

 Lali, on 2013-June-02, 02:50, said:

Blackshoe,

I am in ACBL land.

Thank you. We do ask that people include their jurisdiction in their posts here, as regulations may differ from country to country.

 Lali, on 2013-June-02, 02:50, said:

I posed this question to an US expert. His reply was that although you do not need to say .... my partner likes or does not like the suit which as we all know really is too much info to have to disclose .... they should tell you their partnership agreement. ie "high cards usually encourage and low cards are discouraging" or "all are discards are usually non-essential cards" or " 1st discard usually show interest in that suit". It is up to the declarer to know such things as in such and such situations, discards are varied for count or suit preference. But to say they know "nothing" is like implying that they just learned the game which is a definite falsehood in light of their points.

I believe I said much the same thing upthread, except the "falsehood" part. And number of masterpoints may be an indicator of probable knowledge of the rules of disclosure; it is not a reliable indicator of expertise. Be that as it may, if you wish to pursue the question of cheating, you should read the Code of Disciplinary Regulations. You should also remember what Davy Crockett said: "Be sure you're right, then go ahead." Personally, I would just have advised the player of his obligations and made a note in case he does something similar in the future. "One swallow does not make a summer".

[Lali]

Thanks for the thread!

[VixTD]

 Lali, on 2013-May-31, 21:55, said:

In another situation, when I asked another A pair what the lead of 9 implied on the opening lead, I was told .... "Could mean anything!" Turns out that defender on lead was playing from KT9 where the 9 showed 2 higher. Isn't there some penalty we can impose against the A players who take advantage of weaker players in this kind of proven particular case where these players out-rightly lie to prevent opponents from knowing information they don't want to divulge

Yes, if you think they are not divulging their agreements you (or rather, the TD) can award an adjusted score if damage has resulted from the inadequate disclosure. You can also apply a procedural penalty, which I would recommend you do if you think they ought to know better or are engaging in sharp practice.

This does look quite blatant if the lead of the nine really promises two higher cards. I could understand it better if there were other possibilities (e.g. if it promised no higher card or two higher) and it was a clumsy way of saying (or avoiding saying) this. Perhaps they think they are obliged only to give the minimum amount of information in answer to a question, and rely on the opponent to ask further. This is not correct, and they need to be told this, but I would steer clear of any talk of cheating unless they continue doing this after being told it's wrong.