[blackshoe]

Heh. The ACBL card has default meanings for most leads already indicated. I had occasion to run afoul of this today: LHO led the ♣A against my 4♠ contract. I looked at her CC; no changes to the default meanings were indicated. So the lead denies the king. So I later led a low club from dummy, playing her partner for the king, and played my Queen when RHO played low. LHO promptly laid down the king.

After the hand, I asked LHO what their agreement was regarding the Ace lead. "We don't have one," she said. Club game, LHO is a dead ringer for Mrs. Guggenheim, and the TD would ask me why I was wasting his time if I called him, so I didn't.

[Richardrls]

I might point out, Blackshoe, that a player can always choose to ignore any agreements that he/she has with partner or as is shown on the convention card. That is the risk that any Declarer takes in playing the contract. It is also the risk taken by the defender who ignores his/her convention card. That is why I have two more points to make about signals in general:

first, too many defenders try to make signals way more important than they really are -- they just aren't nearly as important as good bridge analysis; second, defenders' signals are of even less importance to good Declarer play.

[ArtK78]

I believe that we have gone way off-track here.

The original poster asked if a partnership could have no agreements as to their defensive carding.

The discussion has moved into the default agreements as to carding on the ACBL convention card, and now to the ability of a partner to depart from the agreed upon meanings of their defensive carding.

Going back to the original poster's question, I believe that the proper way of phrasing the question would be: "Can a partnership agree not to have any set agreements as to the significance of the card chosen for the opening lead and any other carding methods?" That is different from having no agreements (at least it is to a lawyer). One is not forced to play the default agreements on the ACBL convention card - that is why there are choices. If one merely circles ALL POSSIBILITIES or indicates "NONE" on top of the lead area of the ACBL convention card, that would indicate an agreement to have no agreement - i.e, that an opening lead has no significance as to honor holding or length in the suit led (nor any other significance, such as suit preference, etc.).

It is perfectly legal to have an agreement that the card chosen for the opening lead is to have no significance relating to the honor holding in the suit led, the length in the suit led, or its relationship to any other suit. However, this agreement, like all other agreements, must be disclosed.

[mike777]

I think the question was are you allowed to have no carding agreements, not just lead agreements.

If you say you have zero, fair enough....the first time you play high low and get a ruff at trick three I will call and ask for a ruling.

We all know you must fully complete and fill out your cc. If you leave that whole section blank...I hope not see you start carding stuff that is not on your blank cc.

[awm]

ArtK78, on Jan 11 2008, 04:28 PM, said:

If one merely circles ALL POSSIBILITIES or indicates "NONE" on top of the lead area of the ACBL convention card, that would indicate an agreement to have no agreement - i.e, that an opening lead has no significance as to honor holding or length in the suit led (nor any other significance, such as suit preference, etc.).

It is perfectly legal to have an agreement that the card chosen for the opening lead is to have no significance relating to the honor holding in the suit led, the length in the suit led, or its relationship to any other suit. However, this agreement, like all other agreements, must be disclosed.

From the ACBL conditions of contest:

Quote

Carding Agreements: - A pair may not elect to have no agreement when it comes to carding.

This is not a statement about filling out the convention card. In fact, the need to fill out a convention card and have it on the table, etc. is covered elsewhere in the conditions of contest. This statement directly indicates that You cannot "agree to have no agreement" with regard to carding in ACBL events.

Of course, some ACBL-sanctioned club games don't really follow the letter of the ACBL conditions of contest. And any competition held outside of ACBL is unlikely to follow the ACBL conditions of contest. But at least in one (sizable) population of bridge players, you have to make an agreement about leads and signals.

[blackshoe]

Richardrls, on Jan 11 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

I might point out, Blackshoe, that a player can always choose to ignore any agreements that he/she has with partner or as is shown on the convention card. That is the risk that any Declarer takes in playing the contract. It is also the risk taken by the defender who ignores his/her convention card. That is why I have two more points to make about signals in general:

first, too many defenders try to make signals way more important than they really are -- they just aren't nearly as important as good bridge analysis; second, defenders' signals are of even less importance to good Declarer play.

You might point it out. I might thank you. But it's not really necessary - I'm well aware of it.

"I decided to deviate from our agreement" is very different to "we don't have an agreement".

Your second paragraph sounds like a dig at my declarer play. If so, you have scant evidence to make it.

[blackshoe]

awm, on Jan 11 2008, 04:55 PM, said:

...You cannot "agree to have no agreement" with regard to carding in ACBL events.

Of course, some ACBL-sanctioned club games don't really follow the letter of the ACBL conditions of contest. And any competition held outside of ACBL is unlikely to follow the ACBL conditions of contest. But at least in one (sizable) population of bridge players, you have to make an agreement about leads and signals.

This is the nub of it, I think. Are the two statements equivalent?

The lady who was my LHO in the situation I described upthread is one of that huge majority of players (or so it sometimes seems to me) who don't bother to discuss agreements. particularly about stuff that's on the "back of the card". Is that the same as "agreeing to have no agreement"?

FWIW, I think it violates the spirt, if not the letter, of the regulation.

[ArtK78]

[quote name='awm' date='Jan 11 2008, 04:55 PM'] [/QUOTE]
From the ACBL conditions of contest:

[quote]Carding Agreements: - A pair may not elect to have no agreement when it comes to carding.[/quote] [/quote]
Thank you for pointing this out to me. I had never read the ACBL Conditions of Contest. That particular CoC goes on to address the problem directly:

"There have been pairs that say they just play random leads or that they lead the card closest to their thumb. They must decide on a carding agreement and mark their convention cards accordingly. Of course, some leeway must be given to fill-in pairs or very last minute partnerships."

I am not aware of anything in the laws which requires a pair to have a carding agreement. But it is quite clear that the ACBL requires it.

[blackshoe]

The laws give broad authority to SOs to make regulations on various things. There is (at least in theory) always a law under which any regulation has been made. In this case the relevant laws are, I believe, 80F, 40D, and 40E1.

[Richardrls]

Folks, I think some of us here are just mincing words. To have a convention card that is simply blank where it asks for leads and signals is to not have a card at all. The convention card is supposed to be complete, Right? And to mark a card so as to say that your partnership has no agreements on signals, is in fact to have an agreement not to signal. That is in fact an agreement. A partnership that has made such an agreement should certainly advertise that fact to their opponents on their card and probably up front before playing. Why the partnership would do such a silly thing is their own business, but allowable.

My point is that none of this gives anyone the right to simply make signals to partner and when asked as to the meaning of a particular signal simply say "We have no agreements" and "Oh, by the way, we also have no convention card to offer you..."

[blackshoe]

First, the ACBL convention card is not blank in the "leads" area - it specifies default agreements. If a pair have made no marks on that area of the card, then the specified defaults are their agreements. If they haven't discussed this, they're idiots. If they say in answer to questions that they have no agreements, they're... confused.

The "signals" area has checkboxes for "standard", "upside down" and a couple of other conventions, and space for additional information. I'll grant that leaving that blank is a violation of the CC regulation.

Whether "we have no agreements on signals" is or is not the same thing as "we have an agreement not to signal" is not really relevant, AFAICS. The fact is that even a partnership that claims either of these arrangements will develop partnership experience, and thus implicit agreements, regarding carding - unless they play together very rarely.

I agree with your last paragraph, but would add that the regulation on carding agreements in the CoC and the regulation on filling out convention cards are two different things - either or both of which may or may not apply at clubs.