[pclayton]

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?

[Hanoi5]

You have to be more specific when you ask. Because of this type of people, although it's not 'normal'.

[FrancesHinden]

pclayton, on Jun 11 2008, 07:27 PM, said:

Is this rules lawyering on her part or am I being a baby about this?

A bit of both.
If I were asked to rule I would, just, rule in her favour. Not least because you asked the leader herself, so it's not unreasonable for her to think you are asking about her partner's card.

I can't tell if she was deliberately being awkward/over-pedantic, or you asked her about carding, she answered carding, it didn't occur to her you were asking about lead style.

In England we would always just say "look at the convention card" because then you get the answer to both questions without the risk of misinterpretation.

Quote

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.

This is a bit unnecessary from both of you. I don't think you asked for a lecture on the advantages of attittude lead, and I'm not convinced she wanted an argument about when they may not work very well.

[Echognome]

Hanoi5, on Jun 11 2008, 10:33 AM, said:

You have to be more specific when you ask. Because of this type of people, although it's not 'normal'.

I'm not sure that's true. Here's one bit I found from the laws.

from the 2007 Laws said:

6. (a) When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in
reply to opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all
special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or
partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from
his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge
players.

But I'm sure there are other passages as well. I think Frances is right in that I wouldn't rule against this person if they genuinely felt that only their carding was being asked. However, if I felt that they were purposefully being concealing when they knew what you were after, then I would rule against them.

[han]

Also in my experience people ask for "leads and carding" and when I ask for carding I wouldn't expect to hear about leads.

Matt is right that you should be forthcoming when explaining your agreements. On the other hand, you can never be expected to tell about all of your agreements since that might take a long long time. Certainly if you ask me about our leads, I wouldn't tell you about our carding. If you ask me about our carding and I say "upside down count and attitude" I don't expect you to take inferences about our leads.

[pclayton]

I know, I was just a little p.o.'d at her attitude.

From her comments, it was like she was teaching her novice partner about the black arts of non-disclosure.

[Winstonm]

I had the same thing come up about 10 years ago and answered the same way - it never dawned on me that the question "carding" included lead conventions. There was absolutely no attempt to mislead. In my mind, if you want to know carding, you ask carding; if you want to know about leads, ask about leads.

The director ruled no damage.

[mike777]

the question was what are your carding agreements?

It appears from this that "LEADS" fall under "carding agreements"

I found this on acbl.org.

http://www.acbl.org/...procedures.html

"UNUSUAL CARDING AGREEMENTS

Except for leading low from a doubleton which requires a pre-Alert, carding agreements do not require an Alert of any kind. However, the box on the card in the middle of SPECIAL CARDING [ ] PLEASE ASK must be checked when playing a completely unexpected method or one that is not easily or clearly described by simply checking a box.

EXAMPLES:
Leading low from a doubleton (also requires pre-Alert)
Carding which changes during the hand
Obvious switch agreements

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


"The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question."

Based on the above I would have expected leads to fall under my question "what are your carding agreements". However I see many disagree.

[the hog]

I don't know. I suppose within the STRICT sense of the word she was correct. However I have always assumed that a question like this wants a lead AND carding response, and there is certainly no harm in replying that way.

By the way I certainly don't like the answer "standard". What does this mean? Standard to you is not necessarily standard to me. In Australia for example, standard from 3 small would be MUD; I get the impression this in not the case in the US.

[mike777]

The_Hog, on Jun 11 2008, 08:48 PM, said:

I don't know. I suppose within the STRICT sense of the word she was correct. However I have always assumed that a question like this wants a lead AND carding response, and there is certainly no harm in replying that way.

By the way I certainly don't like the answer "standard". What does this mean? Standard to you is not necessarily standard to me. In Australia for example, standard from 3 small would be MUD; I get the impression this in not the case in the US.

Actually the ACBL speaks to this issue, let me see if I can find what they mean with a quote. Basically they say......standard means per History not per where you live. Of course this is the rule for ACBL not Aust.


"This procedure uses the admittedly "fuzzy" terminology of "highly unusual and unexpected" as the best practical solution to simplifying the Alert Procedure. "Highly unusual and unexpected" should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage. To ensure full disclosure, however, at the end of the auction and before the opening lead declarers are encouraged to volunteer to explain the auction (including available inferences). "

http://www.acbl.org/...Procedures.html

[barmar]

Jlall, on Jun 11 2008, 10:19 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jun 11 2008, 08:48 PM, said:

I don't know. I suppose within the STRICT sense of the word she was correct. However I have always assumed that a question like this wants a lead AND carding response, and there is certainly no harm in replying that way.

By the way I certainly don't like the answer "standard". What does this mean? Standard to you is not necessarily standard to me. In Australia for example, standard from 3 small would be MUD; I get the impression this in not the case in the US.

The ACBL has standardized "standard" for both leads and carding.

On the convention cards it has a bunch of leads listed, and if you lead the card that is bold then that is considered standard. If you do not you play non standard leads. What is standard in Australia is not relevant to the ACBL.

An interesting exception to this is that the CC doesn't indicate a preference between 4th-best and 3rd/5th leads, even though I'd guess at least 95% of the membership lead 4th-best against NT, and probably at least 75% lead it against suits as well. Yet we all know that 4th best is "standard."

[Trinidad]

I am surprised by some of the answers here. I learnt to play bridge in the Mid West and there are three terms describing defensive methods:

Leads: The conventional meaning of the first card played to a trick.
Signals: The conventional meaning of the (spot) card played when following suit or discarding.

Carding: The combination of defensive methods: Leads & signals.

I do agree though, that if you ask the leader for carding agreements that it implies interest in signalling methods whereas if you ask the third hand you would be interested in lead methods. Therefore, it would have been clearer to ask for an explanation of the "leads and signals" rather than for "carding".

Rik

[TimG]

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

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".

I can easily imagine that on another day when the GLM answers "standard carding, attitude leads" that someone could be annoyed with the "extra" information that was clearly meant to remind the novice partner of their new lead agreements or to emphasize that this particular lead of a low card wasn't 4th best.

As Frances has pointed out, the way to avoid any of this is to look at the convention card rather than ask the question.

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 11 2008, 07:39 PM, said:

In England we would always just say "look at the convention card" because then you get the answer to both questions without the risk of misinterpretation.

You mean you'd refuse to answer and refer them to the convention card? Is that allowed by the Laws?

Personally I'd answer the question, if necessary first obtaining clarification of what they wanted to know.

[FrancesHinden]

gnasher, on Jun 12 2008, 01:24 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jun 11 2008, 07:39 PM, said:

In England we would always just say "look at the convention card" because then you get the answer to both questions without the risk of misinterpretation.

You mean you'd refuse to answer and refer them to the convention card? Is that allowed by the Laws?

Personally I'd answer the question, if necessary first obtaining clarification of what they wanted to know.

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

I see it's also the same in the US from Mike's post

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

The much more common one I find is when someone asks me "what signals do you play" when they mean "what discards" and vice versa - I usually ask them to clarify before answering as not everyone is aware of the difference.

[cherdano]

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...

[ArtK78]

One should not ask LHO about agreements regarding the lead, as LHO's answer might convey UI. After all, it was LHO who made the lead. Of course, if one is unconcerned with UI and does want accurate information, then LHO is the player to ask.

Otherwise, one should ask RHO about leads. And one might as well ask RHO about other carding agreements at the same time if one must ask.

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

If a player asked me about our partnership carding agreements, I would assume that the player was asking about signals, not leads. That may not be technically correct, but that is reality.