[Zelandakh]

mycroft, on 2013-February-20, 13:37, said:

West has violated his agreements, and managed to pick off N/S' suit. He did this in a situation where normal system agreements mean that this hand has choice of lies, and you can't tell me that it wasn't chosen to minimize the chance of the most dangerous lead

There is a well known German player who is reputed to do this all the time, often enough that someone warned me about him when I attended an event he would be playing at. In my opinion, when this is done so commonly it is an implicit partnership understanding and should be alerted. The player in question has played with the same partner for several years and therefore I think what they do is a clear case of MI. Of course, that is unlikely to be the case here since it was their third time playing together. This kind of agreeemnt is of course encapsulated/immortalised by Mollo in the "weaker minor" opening concept.

[bluejak]

inquiry, on 2013-February-18, 20:58, said:

Results stand, this is a very clear S/P situation. East's argument is nonsense.

It is? I play count, myself.

There is a danger in ruling, which is sometimes seen here, that players have a fixed idea that something is right. I think this happens often in carding situations. They then follow that view when ruling, or giving opinions on a ruling.

Interestingly it also affects declarers. What happens is that they have a view as to what is obvious, and the defence have a different view. But if the defence have told declarer something, and treat a situation as an "obvious" exception, my sympathy for ruling purposes is with declarer.

[Trinidad]

I agree with David here.

If the first priority would have been to signal attitude, it makes perfect sense that the second priority may apply when AKQ appears in dummy. This wouldn't be certain in a NT contract, but declarer should ask in this case.

In this case the first priority is listed as count. I don't see any reason why a pair that focusses on count signals would stop doing that when there is AKQ in dummy. After all, showing count in clubs helps in counting the other suits. As declarer, I wouldn't ask at this point, particularly not since asking too much may hurt my chances when I play on diamonds. I understand from the discussion that NS first priority actually is to signal attitude. That is MI.

If clubs are 4-2, playing on diamonds is the only chance to make the contract. Yes, it requires NS to make a mistake, but bridge players do make mistakes and playing on clubs would concede down 1 or 2 (if clubs are 4-2). Hence, playing on diamonds is not only not a SEWoG, it is the correct play with the available (mis-)information. The fact that East chose a line of play that required an error by NS over the legitimate chance of cashing clubs and hearts from the top indicates that he was influenced by the misinformation.

Rik

[StevenG]

Rik, you seem to be saying that if the card had said "attitude, suit preference" you would have been happy(ish), but with a card saying "count, suit preference" you are not. Isn't that argument one of the "I play this way, so everybody else should" type?

What do you think the card should say? I ask because I've never seen this situation in real life, but I do use a lot of suit preference, and if it did come up I suspect I would give suit preference rather than count, and that my partner would understand. It wouldn't have crossed my mind that "count, suit preference" on the card could draw an adverse ruling.

[jallerton]

If I had been declarer, and if the defensive carding might have made a difference to my line of play, I would have asked the opening leader what the trick 1 signal means in this situation. The convention card cannot be expected to apply to explain every situation, and declarer has a duty to protect himself where, as here, he can do so without putting his side's interests at risk.

[campboy]

Why was the word "revolving" on the card at all? It seems to me that the card gives MI not only about the primary meaning but the secondary -- if it was revolving, wouldn't a low club suggest a spade switch?



Anyway, I think this is an "obvious MI situation" since "1st high card revolving; suit preference" was presumably intended to mean something but in fact doesn't. That may mean we deny redress, but it does not mean we do not adjust for the OS.

[inquiry]

bluejak, on 2013-February-26, 08:33, said:

It is? I play count, myself.

There is a danger in ruling, which is sometimes seen here, that players have a fixed idea that something is right. I think this happens often in carding situations. They then follow that view when ruling, or giving opinions on a ruling.

Interestingly it also affects declarers. What happens is that they have a view as to what is obvious, and the defence have a different view. But if the defence have told declarer something, and treat a situation as an "obvious" exception, my sympathy for ruling purposes is with declarer.

Well, I am will to defer to you on the general issue of the law. You quoted my personal view and said you would still give count yourself. However, you failed to address the part of my reply that dealt with views like you state here (that you yourself would give count signal)..... I quote my earlier statement below.. What is wrong, legally, with the view I expressed?

Quote

Now, you may not agree with my assessment, and different people could disagree on rather or not count should be given in this situation if that is your agreement. However, it doesn't matter what my understanding of the signal should mean with that dummy nor what yours would be. It only matters what this N-S pair thinks the signal should mean. A simple question to them would have solved that for EW. You should also be aware that (alert?) regulations require a player to protect himself if he suspects he does full information. Here where there is a pecking order to the meaning of the signals to trick one. EAST failure to protect himself is his own fault.

[Trinidad]

jallerton, on 2013-February-26, 12:11, said:

If I had been declarer, and if the defensive carding might have made a difference to my line of play, I would have asked the opening leader what the trick 1 signal means in this situation. The convention card cannot be expected to apply to explain every situation, and declarer has a duty to protect himself where, as here, he can do so without putting his side's interests at risk.

The point is that he will put his side's interests at risk if he asks. If the answer is what it is supposed to be ("standard count" as is written on the CC), he will have to make a play that depends on a defender's error. It is much less likely that this error is going to happen if he first tips off the defenders that his line of play depends on the count in clubs.

I agree that the CC cannot explain every situation, but that is not what we are dealing with here. This CC said that the pair was playing count and then revolving suit preference, while in reality they play attitude signals and then suit preference (and most likely Lavinthal rather than revolving). The failure was not that the CC did not describe every situation correctly. That would indeed be too much to ask. The failure was, at least as I understand this case, that the CC did not describe any situation correctly.

Rik

[gnasher]

Trinidad, on 2013-February-26, 23:45, said:

This CC said that the pair was playing count and then revolving suit preference

The puncutation in the OP implies that there are two distinct secondary methods "1st high card revolving" and "suit preference". If I had to guess, I'd think that the first applied to discards only, and the second applied more generally to cards that didn't have some other meaning.

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on 2013-February-27, 01:52, said:

The puncutation in the OP implies that there are two distinct secondary methods "1st high card revolving" and "suit preference". If I had to guess, I'd think that the first applied to discards only, and the second applied more generally to cards that didn't have some other meaning.

I interpreted the ';' as a line break or something similar. After all revolving is a method for suit preference, just like Lavinthal is a method for suit preference.

IMO your interpretation just isn't logical. (You may be correct, but in that case the players have been very illogical and sloppy in filling out the CC.) It would mean that the CC says:

1) We play standard count (nicely specified purpose of signal and the method)
2) We play revolving (?!?, only specifying a method, but not a purpose)
3) We play suit preference (only specifying a purpose, but not a method)

At the same time it would be a pure coincidence that 2) and 3) combined just happen to be a perfectly logical and popular signalling method and purpose.

It is like writing that a car has "separate driver and passenger climate control and automatic; transmission". I could certainly interpret this to mean that the car has something automatic as well as a transmission: That is what it says, and it could even be true, but that doesn't mean that it makes any sense.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

Trinidad, on 2013-February-27, 03:02, said:

It is like writing that a car has "separate driver and passenger climate control and automatic; transmission". I could certainly interpret this to mean that the car has something automatic as well as a transmission:

Perhaps the "automatic" refers to the "separate driver". It seems like an excellent idea to give climate control only to passengers - less distraction for the driver that way. Of course a separate driver would not need climate control if it was also automatic...

[c_corgi]

gnasher, on 2013-February-27, 01:52, said:

The puncutation in the OP implies that there are two distinct secondary methods "1st high card revolving" and "suit preference". If I had to guess, I'd think that the first applied to discards only, and the second applied more generally to cards that didn't have some other meaning.

I can't see that the "1st high card revolving" bit is anything other than gibberish: any attempt to interpret it without clarification would be unduly optimistic. This leads to an argument that declarer should protect himself.



If the card had correctly stated attitude is the primary signalling method, declarer could have reasoned "North cannot want to encourage clubs. Looking at my own hand, it is implausible that he wants to discourage a switch. Very likely he wants to encourage a spade switch. It is probably suit preference which means that Clubs are likely 3-3 and anyway, if I play on Diamonds the defence will not go wrong.

Given that the card stated count as the primary signalling method, it is plausible that North would employ it, simply to help partner build up a picture of the hand. It is also possible that he would switch to some sort of suit preference/revolving (in which case he would probably play a card that asks for a spade), but as Trinidad has pointed out, declarer clarifying this is not practical if he expects to play on Diamonds anyway.

In the first case above, declarer has a fairly clear reason to get it right. In the second case he has to guess what to do. The difference between these is surely damage.

[jallerton]

Trinidad, on 2013-February-26, 23:45, said:

The point is that he will put his side's interests at risk if he asks. If the answer is what it is supposed to be ("standard count" as is written on the CC), he will have to make a play that depends on a defender's error. It is much less likely that this error is going to happen if he first tips off the defenders that his line of play depends on the count in clubs.

Why? Declarer is entitled to know the agreements about defensive signalling, and it is seems entirely proper to ask as soon as the card is played, so he can take this information into account when he plans the play and makes subsequent decisions how to play the rest of the hand (it may or may not turn out to end up affecting his line of play). Furthermore, with dummy's AKQ tripleton winning the first trick, it will be clear in this case that declarer's play from hand at trick 1 is not going to be affected to the answer to the question.

Are you suggesting that on every hand declarer should first spend time working out whether the meaning of a defensive signal could affect his line of play, and only if he decides it could does he proceed to ask a question about the defensive signalling?

I haven't got much idea what is meant by "1st high card revolving; suit preference" so i would want to clarify at the earliest opportunity what this means and when this might apply .