[wyman]

kenberg, on 2013-October-24, 07:37, said:

A long time back a learning bridge player was asking about deciphering signals. I "explained" that a card played quickly shows attitude, if it is played slowly it is suit preference. I was of course reprimanded by another player for saying such a thing even if I was, I hope, clearly joking.

Haha. This happens to cherdano all the time on the forums. And it's hilarious every time.

[ArtK78]

I always thought that singletons were led with the left hand.

[barmar]

Shugart23, on 2013-October-23, 10:37, said:

I agree the question is trying to (perhaps) obtain information that declarer may not be entitled to....But is the declarer prohibited from asking ? (Declarer is entitled to take advantage of opponent's hesitations and pauses which takes advantage of information he is not entitled to, so why not a question designed to find out if they actively are signaling to one another ?)

I guess there's no Law against it, but regulations often specify the proper form to ask for information. For instance, the ACBL Alert Procedures says:

Quote

The proper way to ask for information is "please explain."

Of course, that specific prescription is obviously oriented towards asking for an explanation of an alerted bid -- you couldn't use those exact words to ask about defensive carding. But the spirit is clear: you should ask for a general explanation, not leading questions. And under UNUSUAL CARDING AGREEMENTS it says:

Quote

DECLARER IS EXPECTED TO EXAMINE AN OPPONENT'S CONVENTION CARD WITHOUT PROMPTING IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THEIR DEFENSIVE METHODS.

Again, this indicates that you're entitles to their agreements, not an explanation of a specific card.

I'm not sure if there's anything prohibiting you from trying to induce an opponent to over-explain. But it doesn't seem like a satisfying way to try to get an advantage. Bid and play your cards better.

[Shugart23]

kenberg, on 2013-October-24, 07:37, said:

Anyway, as to the original question. I would definitely not encourage getting cute with the questions. "What did the club play tell you?" is not a proper form for the question and, whatever other players at the club might or might not be doing, we should set standards for ourselves and stick to them.

I absolutely agree with comments about ethics and setting standards, but in the interest of full disclosure, if the opposing partnership card indicates a certain signaling system and the pair habitually does not employ that system, then I would argue that I am very much entitled to know that information, by ACBL Rule

However,having said that, I am going to suggest to my wife that she not go about asking the question ""What did the club play tell you?" and just deal with it.

As an aside and as a technical matter, I just did a cursory review of the ACBL rules, and I'm not seeing anywhere where it says it is in fact a violation of rules to ask that question. (Maybe it is there and I just didnt see it)

Similarly, although it would be really extreme, asking my RHO " Do you have the King of Spades "? doesnt necessarily seem to be a technical violation of the ACBL rules...or atleast I didnt see any explicit prohibition against it. (Of course the answer you might get is worth exactly what you paid for it)

The rules seem to deal with communication between partnerships and avoiding UI between partners. Not seeing hardly anything on communication between declarer and opponents

[barmar]

Shugart23, on 2013-October-24, 12:23, said:

I absolutely agree with comments about ethics and setting standards, but in the interest of full disclosure, if the opposing partnership card indicates a certain signaling system and the pair habitually does not employ that system, then I would argue that I am very much entitled to know that information, by ACBL Rule

I suppose you could ask something like "Do you generally use defensive signals?"

I'm nore sure where it's written, but I'm pretty sure ACBL has ruled that you're not allowed to claim that you don't have any defensive signalling system, e.g. that you discard randomly. Yet it's patently obvious that novices often don't signal, because they simply don't know how.

Quote

Similarly, although it would be really extreme, asking my RHO " Do you have the King of Spades "? doesnt necessarily seem to be a technical violation of the ACBL rules...or atleast I didnt see any explicit prohibition against it. (Of course the answer you might get is worth exactly what you paid for it)

The rules seem to deal with communication between partnerships and avoiding UI between partners. Not seeing hardly anything on communication between declarer and opponents

I suspect they considered it not necessary to prohibit these questions. An opponent is not expected to answer questions like this if it's to his detriment.

OTOH, I've seen experts ask about the location of a card they're about to finesse for in order to speed up claims. Declarer: "Who has the king?" West: "I do." Declarer: "Then I make an overtrick." This usually happens online, because the software doesn't allow conditional claims -- at a f2f table it would probably go "If West has the king I make an overtrick, otherwise I just make."

[Trinidad]

A long time ago, when I had been playing for about a year, I had an even more beginner partner who had just learned how to signal. He -unconsciously- signaled high-low in the way he played the cards:
When he played a high card, his hand moved with a nice arc, about 15 inch above the table and then he put his hand and the card down to play it. When he played a low card, his hand would slide over the table (almost digging under it) to move the card forward to play it.

Once you notice something like that (and I noticed it very quickly) it is practically impossible to play normal bridge.

And this was not one of the "did you see my signal, pard?" players. This is one of the most honest and ethical guys that I have ever met in my life. When I pointed out to him what he was doing, he was absolutely shocked, but it was hard to get rid of the habit: His arm was automatically doing what his brain was thinking.

Rik

[barmar]

That sounds like one of those unconscious tells that good poker players are supposedly able to pick up on, like "you always clear your throat when you're bluffing". Not having played any high-stakes poker, I always wonder how realistic these are when I see someone make a statement like that on TV. It's always seemed like dramatic license.

[mycroft]

I usually claim "I'm taking the heart finesse. How many tricks do I make?" or the like. Again, depends on the calibre of the opponents.

I don't like asking "who has the X?" because the opponents sometimes wonder why I'm asking such an "unethical" question. Good opponents who know me don't.

[ArtK78]

The mechanics of a claim are set forth in the law. If you make a claim based upon the location of a single card, such as "I am taking the heart finesse, I will make either 10 or 11 tricks depending on whether the finesse wins," this is a valid claim assuming that it is correct. If there are any other variations in the play depending on whether the finesse wins or loses, those variations had better be included in the statement, such as "I will repeat the finesse as many times as necessary."

Often, it is a matter of pulling trump. Statements such as "I am pulling trump" may be sufficient if there are no further issues to the play and declarer has sufficient trump to pull all of the opponents' trump. But if there remain any issues in the play, such as whether declarer has to ruff any losers or which hand declarer winds up in after pulling all of the trump, declarer had better include those variations in his statement.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-October-24, 12:49, said:

I'm nore sure where it's written, but I'm pretty sure ACBL has ruled that you're not allowed to claim that you don't have any defensive signalling system, e.g. that you discard randomly. Yet it's patently obvious that novices often don't signal, because they simply don't know how.

Quote

Item 7 under "Play" in the General Conditions of Contest: Carding Agreements: - A pair may not elect to have no agreement when it comes to carding. There have been pairs that say they just play random leads or that they lead the card closest to their thumb. They must decide on a carding agreement and mark their convention cards accordingly. Of course, some leeway needs to be given to fill-in pairs or very last minute partnerships.

[gnasher]

Shugart23, on 2013-October-24, 12:23, said:

I absolutely agree with comments about ethics and setting standards, but in the interest of full disclosure, if the opposing partnership card indicates a certain signaling system and the pair habitually does not employ that system, then I would argue that I am very much entitled to know that information, by ACBL Rule

Yes. It would be an implicit understanding, which is disclosable. But what's disclosable is the method, not the information conveyed by a particular card on a particular deal in the context of the recipient's particular hand.

You're entitled to know what a low club would mean, or what they'd throw from a given holding, or what holdings they would throw a particular card from. You're not entitled to know what inferences the recipient drew from the play, if those inferences derive partly from looking at his own hand.

Quote

As an aside and as a technical matter, I just did a cursory review of the ACBL rules, and I'm not seeing anywhere where it says it is in fact a violation of rules to ask that question. (Maybe it is there and I just didnt see it)

Similarly, although it would be really extreme, asking my RHO " Do you have the King of Spades "? doesnt necessarily seem to be a technical violation of the ACBL rules...or atleast I didnt see any explicit prohibition against it. (Of course the answer you might get is worth exactly what you paid for it)

Law 40 explains what questions you're entitled to ask and what information you're entitled to receive. The relevant part is "... declarer may request an explanation of a defender's call or card play understandings." Whilst the Laws don't explicitly say that this is all that you're allowed to ask about, it's fairly obvious that this is what was intended.

[Shugart23]

Pip Pip.

Really, I was not proposing to be sneaky, or cagey, or unethical, or try to induce opponents to give me information that I am not entitled to. I just want to know information that I am indeed entitled to : "do you habitually ignore your partner's discards or can I take what is written on your convention card at face value? ", and whether there is a method of finding that out.

Answer one is become familiar with your opponents and by experience you will know which partnerships do and which ones don't. This works in a setting where we play the same people over and over (club games ).

Answer two. Against opponents that you are unfamiliar with, there is apparenty no proposed method. I suppose you could point blank ask them " DO you pay attention to partner's discards " but I suspect some will say even that question I am not entitled to ask (and who would answer that question in the negative anyway)

So the final answer may be, just live with it, and move on

[gnasher]

Shugart23, on 2013-October-25, 06:57, said:

Answer two. Against opponents that you are unfamiliar with, there is apparenty no proposed method. I suppose you could point blank ask them " DO you pay attention to partner's discards " but I suspect some will say even that question I am not entitled to ask (and who would answer that question in the negative anyway)

No, you're not entitled to know that. An opponent's competence or otherwise isn't a partnership understanding.

Anyway, I don't see why you would expect or want an answer to that question. Aren't you interested in what signal is being given, rather than whether it's being received?

The obvious, and legitimate, question is "How often does your partner signal attitude [or count, or whatever it says on the card]?" That's a perfectly normal question that you could ask any partnership.

Or if you're worried that the opponents frequently forget their methods, you could ask "How often does he forget that you play upside down?" Again, that's a matter of implicit agreement, so it's disclosable.

[ggwhiz]

I once watched as dummy my partner play a hand against a husband and wife where he had been beaking off at her and she had had it.

He led and before the lead she put a card face down and looked around the room, anywhere but at him. Partner won it in hand and she detached 2 cards. Pard took a finesse and she won with the top card, fired back the other one and detached 2 more cards!

She defended the entire hand like this double dummy for 2 in the glue. I never laughed so hard in all my life but if pard had asked about their signals I would have fallen off my chair.

[kenberg]

Shugart23, on 2013-October-24, 12:23, said:

I absolutely agree with comments about ethics and setting standards, but in the interest of full disclosure, if the opposing partnership card indicates a certain signaling system and the pair habitually does not employ that system, then I would argue that I am very much entitled to know that information, by ACBL Rule

However,having said that, I am going to suggest to my wife that she not go about asking the question ""What did the club play tell you?" and just deal with it.

As an aside and as a technical matter, I just did a cursory review of the ACBL rules, and I'm not seeing anywhere where it says it is in fact a violation of rules to ask that question. (Maybe it is there and I just didnt see it)

Similarly, although it would be really extreme, asking my RHO " Do you have the King of Spades "? doesnt necessarily seem to be a technical violation of the ACBL rules...or atleast I didnt see any explicit prohibition against it. (Of course the answer you might get is worth exactly what you paid for it)

The rules seem to deal with communication between partnerships and avoiding UI between partners. Not seeing hardly anything on communication between declarer and opponents

It would be of interest to post a couple of examples. Sometime when the club has a game with hand records.

It is true that players differ in how often they signal. I rarely if ever play a deliberately false signal but I often try for a fairly non-descriptive signal. I prefer not to play "odd/even first discard" or other systems that proclaim exactly at what time I will be signalling something. Fairly often, at my first chance to discard, I look for a car that says not much. Often we review the bidding and we watch how declarer attacks the hand, and that's enough. We need suit preference when giving a ruff, I have found Smith echoes useful, and there are times we have to show entries or show what suit we will control as declarer runs a suit. But there are times, quite a few of them, when I have no interest at all in telling anyone what is in my hand. A small diamond is, often a small diamond and nothing else.

I think opponents are entitled to know my views on this, but I can't recall ever being asked.

[CSGibson]

When asked about our carding we disclose that we play UDCA with standard and frequent suit preference, and then will say that we rarely give count unless we think there is an obvious need, prefering suit preference instead.

I think a general inquiry about carding should include a description of agreements and how they are typically applied if they are different than the norm. The problem is that people with less experience may not be aware of the norm.

[blackshoe]

And that, aware of the norm or not, the usual answer to "what is your carding" is "standard", even though they often cannot articulate what that means, or have no idea whether what you understand by that word matches what they understand.

[jogs]

ArtK78, on 2013-October-24, 14:18, said:

The mechanics of a claim are set forth in the law. If you make a claim based upon the location of a single card, such as "I am taking the heart finesse, I will make either 10 or 11 tricks depending on whether the finesse wins," this is a valid claim assuming that it is correct. If there are any other variations in the play depending on whether the finesse wins or loses, those variations had better be included in the statement, such as "I will repeat the finesse as many times as necessary."

If your opponents don't know you, it is faster to play on and not claim. Against strangers I only claim when one hand has all the remaining tricks.