[EricK]

Are a partnership allowed to not have any agreements as to defensive cardings?

On the one hand, a partnership might claim that a good declarer gets as least as much use out of defensive signals as the defenders do themselves, but on the other hand (and the real reason I ask) allowing this would seem to allow a practically undetectable way to cheat (i.e. claim that your defensive cards are at random but actually have some meaning attached to them).

[P_Marlowe]

To answer your question: Sure.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

Of course it's allowed not to have any agreements:
- Pick-up partners may not have had time to discuss anything (or not have been able to because of language barriere)
- Novices may not know about conventional carding
- Some wackos may have the philosophy that random carding is superior.

Even established, advanced partnerships don't have agreements about everything. When opps say they don't have agreements about a particular signal or a particular bid, just trust them.

[hotShot]

Of cause it's possible not to agree to signals, but in fact that will not be true more than a few boards. If you don't agree about signals you can:

1) play your favorite signals your partner just don't know
2) always play the lowest card if you can't win the trick

3) randomly play higher and lower cards independent of what you are holding.

In cases 1 and 2 partner will have noticed after very few boards. So you have an implicit partnership agreement.

Case 3 is very hard to do, if you analyze your logfiles, you will find out that your randomness is not so good.

[EricK]

So is nobody worried that people might cheat this way?

[helene_t]

Not really. Players take pride in demonstrating the advanced level of their partnership by explaining all the clever agreements they have.

[kenberg]

At the risk of looking silly, may I ask: What does it mean to have no agreements? You lead a diamond against 4S, declarer wins and draws trump in three rounds. On the third round you take the trick and partner pitches the 8 of clubs. Does having no agreement mean that you have no idea in the world what the 8 might mean or does it mean that you have not discussed what the 8 means but given that you haven't discussed it, and perhaps based on the last few hands, you figure partner is encouraging you shift to a club?

Not having detailed agreements about carding seems to be a routine fact of life and hardly actionable. Having no clue what sort of card might be sending what sort of message is less common and I confess I would be skeptical of such an explanation.

[hotShot]

kenberg, on Dec 23 2007, 07:16 PM, said:

At the risk of looking silly, may I ask: What does it mean to have no agreements? You lead a diamond against 4S, declarer wins and draws trump in three rounds. On the third round you take the trick and partner pitches the 8 of clubs. Does having no agreement mean that you have no idea in the world what the 8 might mean or does it mean that you have not discussed what the 8 means but given that you haven't discussed it, and perhaps based on the last few hands, you figure partner is encouraging you shift to a club?

No agreements means you did not discuss it and the situation did not (or only very very seldom) occurred. Carding is something that happens frequently, so you should be a pick up partnership to not have an agreement.

The first time you don't know if

- partner wanted clubs
- the higher of the red suits
- did not think at all

but after the trick you do have a partnership experience that has to be disclosed.

[awm]

I'm pretty sure that ACBL requires all partnerships to have an agreement about carding.

The point is that it's too easy to cheat this way, and that you'll develop an implicit agreement pretty quickly. I think it's reasonable to require partnerships to have some very basic agreements.

[han]

I personally never worry about cheating, it doesn't interest me much.

If I was interested in cheating or was on some committee that thought about how to prevent cheating then I would be very worried about good pairs who claim not to have carding agreements.

[EricK]

Just to be clear, I am not talking about a pick up pair who haven't got around to agreeing any carding (but, as others have pointed out will come to some sort of agreement as they play some hands together, if only implicitly). Instead I am talking about a pair who have actively agreed (or claim to!) that their cards don't send any message.

[Tola18]

Not only novices. Also some decent club players (intermed) are very bad at signalling. It is only a strain on them, etc. Having no signals is the most wise with such partners...
I know. I have had such partners.

My experience is, as a rough rule of thumb, players below advanced are as a bunch unreliable about marking.

Cheating? Yes, I suppose that happens. But very many pairs have for custom to drumming with fingers in the board, humming, making faces during bidding and also during play. This would bother me more.
And still, most of them apparently arent chating. They are simply nervous.

[pclayton]

awm, on Dec 23 2007, 11:43 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure that ACBL requires all partnerships to have an agreement about carding.

The point is that it's too easy to cheat this way, and that you'll develop an implicit agreement pretty quickly. I think it's reasonable to require partnerships to have some very basic agreements.

Why? Why do you need an agreement about anything?

I specifically remember the Granovetters discussing in "A Switch in Time" that at one time they had no agreements about carding.

[jdonn]

awm, on Dec 23 2007, 02:43 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure that ACBL requires all partnerships to have an agreement about carding.

Isn't agreeing your cards mean nothing an agreement?

You could also agree to always play your lowest, but falsecard when you feel like it (just like anyone playing any signals can falsecard when they fell like it.)

[david_c]

It seems perfectly possible to me to agree that defensive plays do not have any meaning. (As EricK says, this is very different from having no agreements.) There is surely nothing in the Laws to make it illegal, provided that it is disclosed truthfully.

Indeed it's not so unusual to agree this in some situations. Particularly on declarer's lead.

[mike777]

I would assume that implicit carding agreements would have to be disclosed or explained if the opp ask.

I would call the director and let her rule if the opp say no carding agreements but seem to have some as indicated by the play of the cards.
Simple example...RHO plays a card and I ask, LHO says I have no idea, no agreements.

If this is a first time or novice partnership no big deal, if not hmmm.

[blackshoe]

awm, on Dec 23 2007, 02:43 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure that ACBL requires all partnerships to have an agreement about carding.

I'm pretty sure they don't.

[jdeegan]

I usually tell my partners that I will signal attitude and count if and when I think they need it. Sometimes I don't see the need when it exists, but I don't believe in helping declarer by signaling too much. An occasional psyche by flagging a non-existent offside king can't mislead partner who is looking at his onside king. Be hard to endplay.

[ArtK78]

In ACBL competition, it is required that participants have a knowledge of what system they are playing - at least enough to explain their agreements to their opponents.

If there is truly no agreement on a bid or play, they can announce that they have no agreement. But there is a difference between having no agreement and not having discussed what they were playing. A pick up partnership might not have discussed carding methods. In that case, it is likely that both of them are assuming "standard" carding agreements - right-side up count and attitude, fourth best leads, K from AK, etc. They are supposed to at least fill out a convention card prior to play, and the failure to do so subjects them to a procedural penalty and possibly other penalties if their failure to do so damages an opponent.

[elwood913]

Hi,

A little over a year ago I taught my partner how to play, right from scratch. Having to prioritize what we studied, and feeling that a little knowledge of carding might be worse than none at all, I decided to put off any mention of it until we had covered some other basics like transfers, how to take a finesse, etc. We had no carding agreements in the purest form: my partner simply had no inkling that the cards you played when you weren't trying to win a trick could have any meaning at all. I can't believe that the ACBL would have a rule that we would have to go home and not return to the club until we had learned a little something about carding.

So off we trotted to a few club games, and even our first regional, and I had some difficulty explaining to others that the cards we played carried absolutely no meaning. I eventually settled on the following response when asked about our carding: "Unsophisticated."

Bill