[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 12 2008, 01:37 PM, said:

No I meant the general advice to everyone is to look at the convention card rather than ask.

Ah, that makes more sense. Sorry.

[blackshoe]

Cherdano said:

Except that in the US, the main purpose of the convention card is apparently being the cover of the private score sheet, and is thus by definition kept private, typically put out of the way under the bidding box...

Heh. After three years of English duplicate, I came back to the States. When I tried to hand my convention card to my RHO at the beginning of the round, I got reactions ranging from "wtf are you doing?" to "get that thing away from me!" to complete indifference. So I stopped trying.

ArtK78 said:

Really, one should consult the convention card and not ask, as any answer may convey UI.

While I agree that one should first consult the system card, I don't think it's a matter of conveyance of UI between opponents. That's their problem.

[mike777]

I note late last night after consulting Art's CC I still asked him "what does your jack of spades lead mean"

I may not have asked the question in its proper form but I knew I better not ask "what are your carding agreements"

[ArtK78]

mike777, on Jun 13 2008, 09:50 AM, said:

I note late last night after consulting Art's CC I still asked him "what does your jack of spades lead mean"

I may not have asked the question in its proper form but I knew I better not ask "what are your carding agreements"

Note that the title of this Forum is "Offline Bridge."

You can ask any questions you like in Online Bridge without any fear of conveying UI, as neither your partner nor the partner of the person being asked can see the question or the response.

Silly me, I led the singleton ♠J against your 3NT contract on the assumption that your partner, who had bid Stayman, had spades, and that you, who did not bid spades, did not have them. I guess I will know better next time.

As your partner said after you racked up as many tricks in NT as you would have in spades - "Good forget, partner."

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Jun 12 2008, 08:37 AM, said:

One should not ask LHO about agreements regarding the lead, as LHO's answer might convey UI.

How? What answer could LHO give that conveys UI to rho?

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Jun 15 2008, 03:18 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jun 12 2008, 08:37 AM, said:

One should not ask LHO about agreements regarding the lead, as LHO's answer might convey UI.

How? What answer could LHO give that conveys UI to rho?

He could reply "3rd & 5th", when his partner thought they were playing fourth best.

Of course, UI would be conveyed in that situation regardless of whom you asked. The advantage of asking the partner of the leader is that the existence of UI becomes apparent once you know what the lead was from. If you ask the opening leader, his partner might unethically use the UI and you might never know.

[CSGibson]

gnasher, on Jun 15 2008, 01:44 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 15 2008, 03:18 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jun 12 2008, 08:37 AM, said:

One should not ask LHO about agreements regarding the lead, as LHO's answer might convey UI.

How? What answer could LHO give that conveys UI to rho?

He could reply "3rd & 5th", when his partner thought they were playing fourth best.

Of course, UI would be conveyed in that situation regardless of whom you asked. The advantage of asking the partner of the leader is that the existence of UI becomes apparent once you know what the lead was from. If you ask the opening leader, his partner might unethically use the UI and you might never know.

It seems that UI would only occur if the opening leader gave an explanation contrary to the partnership agreements about his opening lead (ie, they play jack denies, but he explains that it is standard leads from sequences and interior honor sequences).

If his correct answer reminds partner of thier agreements, well, too bad, you should have asked for a convention card. Their agreements and the rememberence of them is authorized information.

[gnasher]

CSGibson, on Jun 15 2008, 07:58 PM, said:

If his correct answer reminds partner of thier agreements, well, too bad, you should have asked for a convention card. Their agreements and the rememberence of them is authorized information.

The response to a question is unauthorised information. If the answer to a question causes a change in your opinion of what partner's card shows, that knowledge is unauthorised. This applies regardless of what the partnership's actual agreement is.

I was a little harsh in suggesting that the purpose of asking a question of the non-leader was to protect you from unethical opponents - it also protects you from people who don't understand their obligations under the Laws.

[barmar]

Just as a player is not allowed to consult their own convention card, they're also not allowed to be "woken up" by their partner's answer to a question. A player should never be reluctant to ask a question because the answerer's partner will hear the answer. It's the partner's responsibility not to take advantage of hearing the answer.

[ArtK78]

barmar, on Jun 17 2008, 12:59 AM, said:

Just as a player is not allowed to consult their own convention card, they're also not allowed to be "woken up" by their partner's answer to a question. A player should never be reluctant to ask a question because the answerer's partner will hear the answer. It's the partner's responsibility not to take advantage of hearing the answer.

I cannot disagree with what you have said. I just think it is unrealistic.

The fact is that the partner of the player responding to the question will be woken up by the answer if the answer differs from the partner's interpretation. So, as a practical matter, one should be careful about what questions one asks and when the questions are asked.

[barmar]

ArtK78, on Jun 17 2008, 07:37 AM, said:

barmar, on Jun 17 2008, 12:59 AM, said:

Just as a player is not allowed to consult their own convention card, they're also not allowed to be "woken up" by their partner's answer to a question.  A player should never be reluctant to ask a question because the answerer's partner will hear the answer.  It's the partner's responsibility not to take advantage of hearing the answer.

I cannot disagree with what you have said. I just think it is unrealistic.

The fact is that the partner of the player responding to the question will be woken up by the answer if the answer differs from the partner's interpretation. So, as a practical matter, one should be careful about what questions one asks and when the questions are asked.

Very true. If you have two ways to get an answer to your question, and one of them is less likely to result in UI, it would make things easier on everyone if you chose that way. While players are supposed to avoid taking advantage of UI, in reality this is very tricky. Debates have raged numerous times in various bridge discussion forums about what someone should do in various situations -- if a bunch of players can't figure it out when they have all the time in the world, how realistic is it to expect someone to get it right in the heat of the moment at the bridge table?

[PrecisionL]

In club games (ACBLand) most of the convention cards are not filled out on the signals section and frequently not the leads either. So I am in the habit of asking instead of looking. At tournaments the cards are filled out better. Since the opponents are defenders on 50% of the hands, I don't think asking will provide UI.

I tend not to ask about the bidding until the auction is over to eliminate UI.

Larry

[nige1]

pclayton, on Jun 11 2008, 01:27 PM, said:

Yesterday I play against a GLM and her novice partner. I'm in 3N and I have the option of knocking out an ace for 9 tricks or taking a finesse for more. Its a good contract and I don't expect the field to be there. The spades are:
♠T96
♠K7

LHO (GLM) leads the 2 to her partner's Ace who returns the 5. I play a side suit and ask, "tell me about your carding". The GLM makes a hand gesture and says "standard".

I knock out the Ace and take my 9 tricks. It turned out the club was onside and I could have made 11. I'm not upset about that however. The spade lead was from QJxxx2 and RHO held A5 (!). Fortunately, LHO doesn't have an entry. Apparently she's teaching the novice 'attitude leads'. I politely mention these aren't standard. I asked why this wasn't disclosed and she says, "You asked about carding, you didn't ask about our leads".

Later she goes on and on about the importance of concealing your length in a suit from declarer. I also made some comment about how ineffective a spade return would have been if the suit was 4=3=2=4 around the table. Is this rules lawyering on her part or am I being a baby about this?

IMO

• When pclayton asked about carding, his opponents should have divulged that they play attitude leads. (Potentially) he was damaged. Had he called a director, the direcotor should consider adjusting.
  
• In this case, pclayton did ask the correct question (although it could have been more precise). Had he muffed the question, however, opponents should not use that as an excuse to conceal important information relevant in context.
  
• Crowing about the successful deception was the last straw,

[syl]

Carding= Leads + Signals
Leads= Opening lead+Subsequent leads

Isn't it true?