[johnu]

blackshoe, on 2013-November-13, 18:39, said:

What was the actual EW agreement? Did they even have one?

I'm assuming EW are beginners/novices and don't have any agreements about this situation based on West's cover of the ♣8 and East's attempt at a signal when it can only help declarer. And North is either a beginner too or a POS bridge lawyer.

[nige1]

campboy, on 2013-November-14, 12:33, said:

Because you're not permitted to. Laws 20F1 and 20F2 say you may ask about your opponents' (prior) auction, and that during the play declarer may ask about defenders' card play understandings. Law 20F3 allows players to ask about a single call instead, but no law entitles declarer to ask about a single card.

Thank you campboy. Wishful thinking meant that I interpreted these laws, in what I deemed to be a more common sense way. But campboy's elucidation explains a lot. In the past, when I've asked a defender, he often launched into an interminable litany of irrelevancies. I assumed this was a filibustering attempt but now, at last, I understand that he was assiduously complying with the law -- describing his carding agreements in general, rather than the probable meaning of a particular play in context. The more you learn about how directors interpret the rules of Bridge, the more urgent seem drastic simplification and clarification.

[VixTD]

nige1, on 2013-November-15, 06:20, said:

In the past, when I've asked a defender, he often launched into an interminable litany of irrelevancies. I assumed this was a filibustering attempt but now, at last, I understand that he was assiduously complying with the law -- describing his carding agreements in general, rather than the probable meaning of a particular play in context.

This all seems rather unnecessary. Both the question and answer can be tailored to the situation without relating to a specific card that was played.

North could say: "What signals do you use when discarding?"
West could answer something like: "High spot cards to encourage (picture cards may have a different meaning), or suit-preference if an attitude signal doesn't make sense. We're less likely to signal honestly when defending a slam."

A similar answer could be given even if the question were not quite legitimate. If I'm asked about carding in the middle of a hand and it's not obvious that the question relates to a particular play by my partner, I might ask "In what situation - do you mean when following suit or discarding?" That usually cuts a lot of unnecessary discussion. Law 20F2 refers to "by the partner of the player whose action is explained" so it's clear that the question and answer do not have to cover all possible carding agreements.

Why didn't North just consult their convention card?

[PeterAlan]

VixTD, on 2013-November-15, 07:52, said:

Both the question and answer can be tailored to the situation without relating to a specific card that was played.

...

Law 20F2 refers to "by the partner of the player whose action is explained"

Let's face it, the Laws do not deal in a particularly satisfactory way with the issue of enquiries about carding agreements. All we have is the 4 words "or card play understandings" tacked on at the end of the second sentence of Law 20F2 to tie such enquiries into (part of) the much more extensive Law 20 concerning enquiries about the auction.

This is unsatisfactory in a number of respects. First, there is arguably insufficient attention paid to the issue by the Laws: we could reasonably expect provisions that specifically address card play agreements. Second, it is not helpful that the only place in the Laws where the matter is covered is here, which (1) is in the middle of the group of Laws (17-39) that are essentially concerned with the Auction Period, and (2) is within a Law headed "Review and Explanation of Calls". Third, as the quote above shows, the Law ties the procedure of enquiry to the "action" being explained, which in the context of carding agreements is the play of one or more particular cards.

I'm not familiar with the earlier debate that posters above have referred to, concerning the relating of enquiries to specific play(s), and if anyone can supply a link I'd be grateful. I'd be interested to see how these concerns were resolved.

[ArtK78]

I think this whole discussion is academic (in every sense of the word) and relatively pointless.

Just ask your opponents "What are your carding agreements?" and allow them to answer. Then proceed from there.

[mycroft]

aguahombre, on 2013-November-14, 18:32, said:

It certainly does not take 1/2 hour or longer to say, "Our signals are right-side up, we do (or not) use Smith Echoes vs NT, our first discard is (or is not) a convention, and we tend not to signal at all unless we believe partner will need it.

To "Is this a situation where your partnership is likely to signal? "Yes (or no)."

Aha. Thanks for clarifying something in my mind that's niggled for years. The next question is:

"and what card do you tend to play from, say, 4 small, when you are 'not signalling'?"

Note, I'm not criticizing (although those who write "we tend not to signal, but when we do, we signal what partner needs to know" I do find inadequate (even if it is correct and complete, or would be complete if they gave the signalling order they would use when they do)). This has just been the question I've always had, but could never crystallize enough to state.

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on 2013-November-15, 11:00, said:

Aha. Thanks for clarifying something in my mind that's niggled for years. The next question is:

"and what card do you tend to play from, say, 4 small, when you are 'not signalling'?"

The stock answer would be that we tend to get rid of cards we don't wish to keep when not signalling. Rosenberg once, told Zia "Now, you are just fishing." when asked a third or fourth follow-up question such as that. Ed has indicated he would just call the TD instead of answering at all, but I would probably wait for a reaction to my stock answers before doing so.

[blackshoe]

That's a good answer, and hopefully will avoid any acrimony caused by calling the director. Not that there should ever be any, but some people… Anyway, I'll try to remember to use that first. It won't get to the third or fourth follow-on for me though, because after the stock answer, I'll be calling the TD.

[mycroft]

That's a good answer. What I'm trying to figure out is "I know I'm going to be dumping all my diamonds here, and (apart from making clear that partner has to keep the diamond) I have nothing to say to partner. Do I play them bottom up, top down, leftmost card, what?"

Because it really wouldn't surprise me if there ends up being some meaning to "non-meaning" discard order - never discussed, just from experience - and I don't get to have it as declarer.

I'm *not* accusing anyone here of anything, especially trying to hide information. This is just the kind of "non-agreement" that gets coloured by inferences after 5 years of playing together. I know I have a bunch (including how often partner (or me) will tend to lie when the other partner doesn't care and I know it - effectively trying to reduce it to "if it won't matter to partner, I play randomly").

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on 2013-November-18, 14:27, said:

That's a good answer. What I'm trying to figure out is "I know I'm going to be dumping all my diamonds here, and (apart from making clear that partner has to keep the diamond) I have nothing to say to partner. Do I play them bottom up, top down, leftmost card, what?"

You just need to get a mindset that cards which are not signals are not signals. Then the order in which they play their non signals do not signal anything. The inference that, when I stop pitching Diamonds, I have run out of diamonds to pitch or now must follow suit to something else is available to all --- but maybe it just means I got bored pitching diamonds.