[Phil]

You hold approximately:

Ax
Xx
Axxx
Q9742

The auction is (you dealt) p p p 1♥ p 2♥ AP.

For reasons unbeknownst to anyone but yourself you lead the ♣7. Your cc isn't marked but your agreements are 4th best.

Dummy hits with:

JTxx
Kxxx
Qx
Jxx

Partner wins the Ace and returns the 5. At this point declarer asks about your leads and carding. So far declarer has played the 8.

What are your legal and ethical responsibilities here? You can see what is about to happen: declarer misguesses you will give him a club ruff so is it preferable to let partner explain your agreements?

Thanks.

[aguahombre]

IMO, Pard should be explaining Lead and carding agreements. This is consistent with pard of a bidder explaining a bid. Dunno if I can cite this, but it seems right and we always do that. However, if a (later) question is about carding methods after one of us has played or discarded something which might be a signal --then partner of the one who just played would explain our carding agreements.

If the Club seven is not part of your lead agreements, no matter, no correction, and no requirement that you do what your agreements say you do.

T and I have discussed this, but I don't remember ever seeing a public discussion about it.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 20F2: After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing auction. At his turn to play from his hand or from dummy declarer may request an explanation of a defender’s call or card-play understandings. Explanations should be given on a like basis to F1 above and by the partner of the player whose action is explained.

[aguahombre]

20F2 is jolly good, but it isn't always just one player's action which is being explained; so Phil's thread has interest to me.

[heyrocky]

I haven't played offline bridge in years, so my apologies if this is a question with an obvious answer: Who should declarer be asking what? My gut tells me if he wants to know lead agreements, he should be asking RHO, and carding, LHO, but does this idea have any basis in the rules? If so, then opening leader does not have to explain the agreements, which is awkward if the agreements are for some reason not followed (which seems like it happens a fair bit).

[Zelandakh]

I would say that your partner should start by giving the leading agreements and you continue with the agreements for returning partner's suit during the play. Either of you can give the other signalling information if it is also required.

[Phil]

This hand was held by my LHO.

When I asked about Leads and carding she insta said 4th best. I hooked the club and she gave her partner a club. Three tricks later I was -200 when they found their spade ruff.

I called the director who was adamant that either opponent can explain their lead agreements after the opening lead and that nothing was improper.

The whole affair doesn't past the smell test for me.

[billw55]

Phil, on 2013-March-11, 07:48, said:

This hand was held by my LHO.

When I asked about Leads and carding she insta said 4th best. I hooked the club and she gave her partner a club. Three tricks later I was -200 when they found their spade ruff.

I called the director who was adamant that either opponent can explain their lead agreements after the opening lead and that nothing was improper.

The whole affair doesn't past the smell test for me.

If the explanation matched the agreement, then what smelled funny? If you have reason to think you would have gotten a different explanation from the other op (who should probably be the one doing the explaining), that might matter. Anything like that?

Anyway, good advert for asking about carding before the round starts, if this is a tournament. Hardly anybody seems to do this though.

[barmar]

billw55, on 2013-March-11, 07:59, said:

Anyway, good advert for asking about carding before the round starts, if this is a tournament. Hardly anybody seems to do this though.

Or look at their convention card when you become declarer. Same "hardly anybody" comment (probably exacerbated by the number of pairs that don't have completed CCs).

[wyman]

At the same time, it's annoying when you ask LHO what their carding agreements are (maybe you're getting at something that righty's done), and they say "you have to ask my partner. I was on lead."

I understand where you're coming from, and snap-replying "4th best" while concealing a snicker is pretty infuriating. But really, this is a case of LHO making a non-standard lead and it working. But you didn't get MI. Even if the director was inclined to issue a PP to LHO for answering (I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a director that would), there's still no rectification for your side, right?

If you're concerned about a CPU, that's what recorder forms are for. That they don't seem to mean anything is another issue entirely.

But I'd make a mental note about this player and SB the ever-loving **** out of her in the future.

[ArtK78]

Can't argue that it was improper for the opening leader providing the information about her own lead. But as long as that information matched the partnership agreement, there is no MI and no grounds for any adjustment.

As for the TD getting this one wrong, it should be a learning experience for all involved.

I agree that the whole thing smells wrong. And it is wrong. But not in a way that is actionable.

I doubt that LHO would be given a PP even at the highest levels of the game (OK, maybe at the highest levels of the game, but that would be about it).

[aguahombre]

Phil, on 2013-March-11, 07:48, said:

This hand was held by my LHO.

When I asked about Leads and carding she insta said 4th best. I hooked the club and she gave her partner a club. Three tricks later I was -200 when they found their spade ruff.

I called the director who was adamant that either opponent can explain their lead agreements after the opening lead and that nothing was improper.

The whole affair doesn't past the smell test for me.

Agree, it doesn't pass the smell test. The person who led a wrong card went out of her way to be the one to explain their actual lead agreements.

Sometimes, say pertaining to an auction, you might be called upon to explain partner's continuation after a convention you started --but you have misbid and must remain mute about that fact and stick with answering questions about agreements.

But here we have a deliberate attempt to deceive which you will not get an adjustment for. She will just say, "I am always the one who answers such questions."

Do you, as a Director, keep notes on such things?

[Zelandakh]

Did you ask LHO why they chose not to lead 4th highest? And also how often they do this. If they led the 7 to try to get partner to switch, and they are regular partners, then they may have a CPU to play a form of attitude lead, and that should have been disclosed.

[Phil]

Zelandakh, on 2013-March-11, 10:15, said:

Did you ask LHO why they chose not to lead 4th highest? And also how often they do this. If they led the 7 to try to get partner to switch, and they are regular partners, then they may have a CPU to play a form of attitude lead, and that should have been disclosed.

Yes, I got: "I didn't want to alert MY partner that I had deviated from our agreements". Maybe she was completely truthful, but the paranoid side of me thinks I was getting jobbed.

+1 Art78, who captures my reaction to the matter perfectly.

[Zelandakh]

Phil, on 2013-March-11, 15:54, said:

Yes, I got: "I didn't want to alert MY partner that I had deviated from our agreements". Maybe she was completely truthful, but the paranoid side of me thinks I was getting jobbed.

Why would their partner even suspect that they had deviated unless they do it regularly? And if they do do it regularly then it is a CPU. They still did not say why they deviated, which was the actual question.

[paulg]

Phil, on 2013-March-11, 15:54, said:

Maybe she was completely truthful, but the paranoid side of me thinks I was getting jobbed.

tbh I think you are just being paranoid. Good players don't tend to behave like this and weak players are unreliable. I understand the sense of frustration but, in reality, the same might have happened if LHO had led fourth best.

[billw55]

paulg, on 2013-March-12, 04:06, said:

[/size]
... Good players don't tend to behave like this ...

Well, most of them. But consider that if only one in a hundred do so, that is enough to meet one every third session or so. I have seen my share, as has everyone here I think.

[Phil]

paulg, on 2013-March-12, 04:06, said:

[/size]
tbh I think you are just being paranoid. Good players don't tend to behave like this and weak players are unreliable. I understand the sense of frustration but, in reality, the same might have happened if LHO had led fourth best.

No way I duck if LHO starts with the 5. The 7, at worst, is Q97.

"Good players don't tend to behave like this and weak players are unreliable"

And there is a class of player seeking to shoot any angle to win that are probably neither good nor weak.

[Phil]

Zelandakh, on 2013-March-12, 02:33, said:

Why would their partner even suspect that they had deviated unless they do it regularly? And if they do do it regularly then it is a CPU. They still did not say why they deviated, which was the actual question.

Does an opponent have to explain this? There is a husband and wife that routinely psyches game tries. I auto lead the suit now but one time I asked her why she made the call and I got a dismissive, "because I chose to".

[gnasher]

Phil, suppose that she had led the 7 from some holding where the 7 is systemic. What should she have done? Should she have answered your question, or referred you to her partner?

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-March-12, 07:40