[ralph23]

NS are in a slam auction, using RKC with ♠ as trump and South the (eventual) declarer.

South responds 5♥ to North's RKC of 4nt. They eventually arrive to a contract of 6♠.

Before making the opening lead and while the bid cards are still on the table, West asks North "What was 5♥?"

North: "Shows two keycards."
West: "Without the Queen?"
North" "Yes, shows two without."

NS have 9♠ collectively and South, reasoning that West would not have asked the question if he had the Queen of trumps, finesses East for her majesty.

Of course, West had her all along and wins the abortive finesse; the trumps of course divided 2-2. Everyone else made 6♠ because they simply plunked down the Ace and King of trumps.

South calls you, the director, after the play is over and asks for relief. How do you rule?

[Cascade]

Result stands.

Or maybe a split ruling - the worst for both sides. Depends how devious you think West was being but North certainly contributed to the problem with his incomplete explanation.

North should have given a complete explanation the first time.

[skjaeran]

Falling for this would be pretty naive, but....
Anyway, this is covered by Law 75F2:

Quote

if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C), 

I adjust to 6♠ making. And explain to west about the "could have known" clause in the law, and that this ruling doesn't take a stance to whether this was done intetionally by him. And that he should be careful to avoid similar incidents henceforward.

However if I had strong reasons to believe that this WAS intentional (the same player having done similar things on other occasion(s)) I'd go to Law 73D2:

Quote

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made.

I'd still adjust to 6♠ making (of course). And give east a heavy diciplinary penalty (at least equal to the top of a board). I'd of course report the incident to the SO.

In both cases a warning to North for giving uncomplete explanation is proper.

[awm]

Table result stands.

When asked to explain a bid, you can't give an incomplete explanation and then try to use opponents' further query for the information you should have given the first time to determine a later play. This is essentially cheating as best I can tell. The correct explanation was "5♥ shows two keycards without the queen" the first time.

It would be different if the original question had been "Does the 5♥ bid deny the trump queen?" instead of "what was 5♥?"

[jillybean]

How experienced are these players? If W is new to the game I could let the result stand, if EW have a few games chalked up I can't imagine any possible reason for the query of the RKC response or the further question except to mislead the ops.

I'm probably overlooking something here , call me naive!

[ralph23]

awm, on Sep 14 2007, 05:33 PM, said:

This is essentially cheating as best I can tell. The correct explanation was "5♥ shows two keycards without the queen" the first time.

Assume that North was just sloppy in his explanation of the meaning of 5♥ and was not intending to under-state (or under-disclose, perhaps) the NS agreement.

Any difference??

[ralph23]

jillybean2, on Sep 14 2007, 05:43 PM, said:

How experienced are these players? If W is new to the game I could let the result stand, if EW have a few games chalked up I can't imagine any possible reason for the query of the RKC response or the further question except to mislead the ops.

I'm probably overlooking something here

NS each have e.g. about 500 MPs, and EW each have perhaps two or three times that much.

[mikeh]

My initial reaction was identical to Harald's and my delay in posting was because I had to look up the Laws online.

However, on rereading what took place, I can see a real issue arising from the way in which N responded to the question about 5♥.

My suspicion would be that West probably knew or ought to have known that 5♥ showed 2 without.. and that the mere asking of 'what's 5♥?', in those circumstances, is morally questionable.. but it isn't illegal in any sense.

Had N answered correctly... 2 without.... S may still have taken the hook based on an inference similar to the one he took. But maybe not, and, even if he did, I don't think this would be a case for an adjustment.

Now, I would strongly suspect (and would question West in this regard) that West knew that a 5♥ keycard response denied the Queen and, in any event, since he was looking at that card, he had NO legitimate interest in confirming that.

But I have been in the situation, myself, where I asked a question, expecting but not being 100% sure of the answer, and get an answer which surprises me. In that situation, it may simply be human nature to spontaneously say something such as West did here.

In an analogous story, many years ago, a player I have since grown to know well, and to have partnered on occasion, led the 10 towards a holding of KJ9xxx. I held the Queen, but despite being inexperienced at the time, I knew that, on this hand, it made no sense to cover. I pulled out a small card, but (because I don't put my cards in sequence), it was the wrong 'count' spot. I replaced it and pulled out another spot card, all very quickly. I instinctively said 'no problem', which was true insofar as I really hadn't been thinking about covering. Declarer looked at me and called for the K. He was very annoyed when, later, he found out I had the Queen. Sometimes we say the wrong thing for innocent reasons, and trying to correct such a misstatement does no good.

So, because of N's incorrect explanation, I would give the benefit of the doubt to West, but I would also, away from the table, let West know that if I had concluded that he had intentionally misled declarer, the score would have been adjusted and he might not be playing in my club for a while.

I'd also, away from the table, explain to NS that while I sympathized with their problem, the fact that N gave an incomplete explanation may have been the trigger for the unfortunate question, and so I'd ask N to be careful in the future.

[ralph23]

skaeran, on Sep 14 2007, 05:31 PM, said:

Falling for this would be pretty naive, but....
Anyway, this is covered by Law 75F2:

Quote

if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C), 

I adjust to 6♠ making.

Was South an "innocent player" within the meaning of Law 75F2, or had South somehow forfeited his "innocence" as a result of North's (admittedly poor/incomplete, but not intended-to-be-deceptive) explanation of the 5 heart response to RKC?

[karlson]

I can't imagine penalizing EW here. If East had not inquired further, and tried to make a subtle inference during the play based on north not having had information about the trump queen, I doubt anyone would have had much sympathy for him. So he's being cooperative by making sure he gets all the information before the hand, and he should be able to ask both with and without the trump queen.

[ralph23]

karlson, on Sep 14 2007, 05:51 PM, said:

I can't imagine penalizing EW here. If East had not inquired further, and tried to make a subtle inference during the play based on north not having had information about the trump queen, I doubt anyone would have had much sympathy for him.  So he's being cooperative by making sure he gets all the information before the hand, and he should be able to ask both with and without the trump queen.

Would it make any difference to you if you knew, absolutely and for a fact --- put aside for the moment the question of how you know this, just assume that you do know it, to a moral certitude ---, that West knew exactly what 5♥ meant before he even asked North the question?

This post has been edited by ralph23: 2007-September-14, 15:58

[jtfanclub]

awm, on Sep 14 2007, 04:33 PM, said:

Table result stands.

When asked to explain a bid, you can't give an incomplete explanation and then try to use opponents' further query for the information you should have given the first time to determine a later play. This is essentially cheating as best I can tell. The correct explanation was "5♥ shows two keycards without the queen" the first time.

It would be different if the original question had been "Does the 5♥ bid deny the trump queen?" instead of "what was 5♥?"

I agree completely with the above.

Furthermore, asking about the Queen does not imply that they don't have it- they may have been looking for reasons for what appears to be an overbid, for example.

[jtfanclub]

ralph23, on Sep 14 2007, 04:58 PM, said:

Would it make any difference to you if you knew, absolutely and for a fact --- put aside for the moment the question of how you know this, just assume that you do know it, to a moral certitude ---, that West knew exactly what 5♥ meant before he even asked North the question?

Too complex, result stands.

If South knew that West knew, then South would know this was gamesmanship.

If West knew, but wasn't sure North knew, he might ask to see if they overbid.

[karlson]

ralph23, on Sep 14 2007, 01:58 PM, said:

karlson, on Sep 14 2007, 05:51 PM, said:

I can't imagine penalizing EW here. If East had not inquired further, and tried to make a subtle inference during the play based on north not having had information about the trump queen, I doubt anyone would have had much sympathy for him.  So he's being cooperative by making sure he gets all the information before the hand, and he should be able to ask both with and without the trump queen.

Would it make any difference to you if you knew, absolutely and for a fact --- put aside for the moment the question of how you know this, just assume that you do know it, to a moral certitude ---, that West knew exactly what 5♥ meant before he even asked North the question?

Only if west knew what north thought it showed. The point of asking is not to find out what's coming down in dummy, but what north is bidding based on.

If somehow west knew that north knew that it was 2 w/o, then I guess it would change my mind.

[ralph23]

jtfanclub, on Sep 14 2007, 06:14 PM, said:

Furthermore, asking about the Queen does not imply that they don't have it- they may have been looking for reasons for what appears to be an overbid, for example.

Sorry, I lost you on this one....

....West is looking at the Queen, and is asking North about it .... why now?

I just didn't follow you, sorry....

[ralph23]

karlson, on Sep 14 2007, 06:18 PM, said:

ralph23, on Sep 14 2007, 01:58 PM, said:

karlson, on Sep 14 2007, 05:51 PM, said:

I can't imagine penalizing EW here. If East had not inquired further, and tried to make a subtle inference during the play based on north not having had information about the trump queen, I doubt anyone would have had much sympathy for him.  So he's being cooperative by making sure he gets all the information before the hand, and he should be able to ask both with and without the trump queen.

Would it make any difference to you if you knew, absolutely and for a fact --- put aside for the moment the question of how you know this, just assume that you do know it, to a moral certitude ---, that West knew exactly what 5♥ meant before he even asked North the question?

Only if west knew what north thought it showed. The point of asking is not to find out what's coming down in dummy, but what north is bidding based on.

If somehow west knew that north knew that it was 2 w/o, then I guess it would change my mind.

Hmmm, yes, that's interesting.

So if the initial question/answer exchange had been:

West: " What's 5♥?"
North: "Two keycards without the Queen."
West: "OK, two without the Queen?" (Emphasizing the word...)
North: "Right."
West: "OK, thanks."

Then your decision would be different??

[BillHiggin]

Me thinks there has been way too much focus on the poor explanation and not enough on the clearly evil intent in the question. The idea that West merely wanted to know what North was basing his decision on does not hold water. West asked because he intended to imply that he did not know where the queen was. His request for further detail simply confirms his deceptive (and illegal) intent.

[awm]

It's also not unreasonable to want to know whether a bid showed the queen when you hold the queen. After all:

(1) People routinely show the queen if they have a ten card fit. If this is the case it might be reasonable to lead a spade from the queen (Qx won't score when opponents have ten trumps) to try and cut down the ruffs.

(2) If 5♥ showed the queen, opponents are surely off an ace to sign off in 6♠. It may be worth trying to find partner's ace. If 5♥ denies the queen, it's odds-on that opponents have all the aces (they might've stopped in 5♠ missing the queen and an ace). This may effect the choice of leads or other defensive decisions.

There are always ethical issues with asking questions to which you know the answers. If I'm somehow certain that the person asking about 5♥ knew beforehand what 5♥ means, it's reasonable to assess a penalty or adjust the result. But normally you don't have this information.

If it seems that the incomplete explanation of 5♥ was on purpose in order to help locate the trump queen, that might also be worth a zero tolerance penalty (as an attempt to cheat).

Normally in this situation where I can't read the players' minds, it seems like "table result stands" should be the end of the ruling.

[ralph23]

awm, on Sep 14 2007, 06:36 PM, said:

(2) If 5♥ showed the queen, opponents are surely off an ace to sign off in 6♠.

Does anyone play RKC this way? In other words, to play 5♥ shows two with, and 5♠ shows two without? I've not run across it, but of course the Law of Big Numbers says that Anything is Possible.

[jillybean]

awm, on Sep 14 2007, 03:36 PM, said:

If it seems that the incomplete explanation of 5♥ was on purpose in order to help locate the trump queen, that might also be worth a zero tolerance penalty (as an attempt to cheat).

I don’t see how you come to this conclusion. North would have no reason to expect a query of 4nt so you are saying this is premeditated cheating in an attempt to mislead the opps and find the Queen? I tend to think it is a sloppy explanation rather than evil intent.

On the other hand, W an experienced player queries a standard response to a standard query and furthermore, goes on to ask specifically about a card he has in his hand?
“People routinely show the queen if they have a ten card fit” must be expert treatment, I have never noticed this.