Responsibilities
#1
Posted 2013-March-10, 11:10
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.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#2
Posted 2013-March-10, 11:39
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.
#3
Posted 2013-March-10, 12:07
Quote
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#4
Posted 2013-March-10, 12:52
#5
Posted 2013-March-10, 15:39
#6
Posted 2013-March-11, 06:20
#7
Posted 2013-March-11, 07:48
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.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#8
Posted 2013-March-11, 07:59
Phil, on 2013-March-11, 07:48, said:
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.
-gwnn
#9
Posted 2013-March-11, 09:08
billw55, on 2013-March-11, 07:59, said:
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).
#10
Posted 2013-March-11, 09:37
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.
"...we live off being battle-scarred veterans who manage to hate our opponents slightly more than we hate each other. -- Hamman, re: Wolff
#11
Posted 2013-March-11, 09:46
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).
#12
Posted 2013-March-11, 09:46
Phil, on 2013-March-11, 07:48, said:
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?
#13
Posted 2013-March-11, 10:15
#14
Posted 2013-March-11, 15:54
Zelandakh, on 2013-March-11, 10:15, 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.
+1 Art78, who captures my reaction to the matter perfectly.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#15
Posted 2013-March-12, 02:33
Phil, on 2013-March-11, 15:54, 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.
#16
Posted 2013-March-12, 04:06
Phil, on 2013-March-11, 15:54, said:
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.
#17
Posted 2013-March-12, 06:20
paulg, on 2013-March-12, 04:06, said:
... 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.
-gwnn
#18
Posted 2013-March-12, 07:12
paulg, on 2013-March-12, 04:06, said:
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.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#19
Posted 2013-March-12, 07:17
Zelandakh, on 2013-March-12, 02:33, said:
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".
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#20
Posted 2013-March-12, 07:38
This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-March-12, 07:40