[CSGibson]

I am from the United States, and this question is primarily pertaining to ACBL regulations.

My partner and I play a complicated carding system. We both know the system backwards and forwards, but my partner frequently (and not maliciously) gives incomplete or hard-to-understand explanations when asked about our carding agreements. Is it against the rules for me to tell opponents that they are better off asking me about our general carding agreements if they direct a question about our general methods to my partner? Does it matter if it is before they sit down, before the opening lead has been faced, or in the middle of a trick?

[barmar]

Law 20F2 says that answers to a question about card play are given by the partner of the player whose action is being explained. So if you're asking a question about the opening lead, you ask third hand. If a defender discards, and then declarer wants to know your discard agreements, the other defender answers.

On the face of it, it seems like explanations of general agreements could be made by either defender. But it gets tricky, I think. If you're the opening leader, any answer that includes your opening lead agreements would be an explanation of your own play. And in the middle of the hand, if you've made or are about to make a discard, an explanation of your discarding agreements would likewise be a description of your own play.

[blackshoe]

 CSGibson, on 2011-December-22, 15:06, said:

I am from the United States, and this question is primarily pertaining to ACBL regulations.

My partner and I play a complicated carding system. We both know the system backwards and forwards, but my partner frequently (and not maliciously) gives incomplete or hard-to-understand explanations when asked about our carding agreements. Is it against the rules for me to tell opponents that they are better off asking me about our general carding agreements if they direct a question about our general methods to my partner? Does it matter if it is before they sit down, before the opening lead has been faced, or in the middle of a trick?

You should not give answers to questions about your own plays without the director present. You should perhaps draw attention to your "complicated carding system" at the beginning of the round (and make sure that your system card adequately describes your agreements). You might want to check the "special carding, please ask" box on the card as well. As for your partner's frequent inadequate answers, unless you can teach him not to do that, perhaps the best way to deal with it is to devise a set of short but adequate answers, and ask him to memorize them.

[CSGibson]

 blackshoe, on 2011-December-22, 15:39, said:

You should not give answers to questions about your own plays without the director present. You should perhaps draw attention to your "complicated carding system" at the beginning of the round (and make sure that your system card adequately describes your agreements). You might want to check the "special carding, please ask" box on the card as well. As for your partner's frequent inadequate answers, unless you can teach him not to do that, perhaps the best way to deal with it is to devise a set of short but adequate answers, and ask him to memorize them.

I would love to have him memorize short but adequate answers. Unfortunately, our carding is not such that a short explanation is adequate. There is no way that he will be able to memorize an adequate explanation, and I don't think I'd want him spending the time and effort on it even if he would agree to do so, as he has demonstrated that it takes extreme effort to memorize system stuff.

Special carding, please ask is definitely checked.

I am going to write out my typical explanation of our carding agreements here, just to give a broader sense of the scope of the issue.

"Leads are 3/low against suit, 4th against NT. Honor card leads are high from an even number, Rusinow from an odd number (even and odd are referring to the count in the suit led)

We play upside down count, attitude, and suit preference. Our attitude to trick one incorporates obvious shift principles, where we would play a high card with a good holding in the obvious shift suit, and a low card to encourage the opening lead, generally.

We play reverse smith echo for the opening lead to trick two or three (if the trick 2 card is forced). When declarer plays a suit after our Smith signal has been given, we don't tend to give count unless it's obvious that count is needed; instead we tend to play upside down suit preference. That includes in the trump suit.

Our first discard is upside-down present count in the suit discarded. Subsequent discards are suit preference."

That is just the broad-scope explanation. It can get even more granular if opponents ask how to determine obvious shift or other follow-ups. Our convention card indicates as many of those agreements as possible, but some of those just require explanation, sometimes multiple explanations. A typical response from my partner will be "Upside down count, attitude, and suit preference", which, while accurate, does not follow the principles of full disclosure in my opinion.

So far no opponent has asked for redress because of my partner's inadequate explanations of our carding after I disclose the full nature of our agreements after the hand, but I feel like its only a matter of time.

This post has been edited by CSGibson: 2011-December-22, 16:40

[mycroft]

It's complicated. That's fine. Partner knows what your plays mean, that's good. Partner can't, currently, and won't (or can't) learn how to for future, explain completely to declarer what he knows. That makes your system illegal (at least in the ACBL) - if you can't explain it adequately, the ACBL won't let you play it, even if it is "allowed", because everything allowed is only allowed "subject to suitable disclosure as defined by the ACBL" (quoting from the Law and the ACBL Alert Procedure).

I know you know that, and I know you are trying to figure out the best way to deal with the problem as stands.

A general ask should at least be "UD C, A, and SP. We play obvious shift at Trick 1 and Reverse smith at 2 or 3 if possible. Our leads are somewhat non-standard - you should ask." A specific ask (as to, say, the signal of the 9 third-hand to the opening lead) should be something like "if that's high, it's showing a tolerance for <obvious shift suit>. If it's low, it's neutral or preferring this suit to <obvious shift suit>." Similarly for other questions. Note: it is entirely inappropriate to expect declarer to figure out what the obvious shift suit is.

Note the bottom of the Alert procedure makes it clear that it is expected that declarer will pay attention to the carding section of the card without prompting (save the "low from doubleton" pre-Alert). But when they do, and when they ask, they should get enough information either to know what you're doing, or know that they need to ask at the time, at which point they will be told what you're doing *here* (comparison to bidding - you don't have to explain what your entire bidding system means, just enough for them to know when it's time to ask, and enough about the *current situation* to know what's going on. Frankly, when faced with your agreements at the beginning of the round, I'd say 'whatever' (to myself), and ask 'so, what does that say?', or 'from what holdings do you lead that?' at the appropriate time.)

I realise I've just told you the answer is "give him a couple of short explanations to memorise, and an idea as to what he has to say when asked about specifics", which you've just said is an inappropriate answer. Unfortunately, the regulations do state that the alternative is "play a system he *can* explain". Whether it's still "not worth it" or not is up to your partner...

[blackshoe]

Good answer, Michael!

[bluejak]

If you are going to pre-alert your carding a statement that you are better at describing it than your partner can do no harm.