[bluejak]

PrinceNep, on Jun 4 2010, 02:48 PM, said:

Nowhere in your original description did you mention Declarer asking what their carding methods are.  Was an opponent supposed to blurt out "This is a count situation, not Smith"?  You are entitled to change your carding methods based on situations.  Even if I played Smith, this situation could easily call for count ... thus overriding the original agreement.

This situation does not appear to be a pre-alert ... therefore it is Declarer's responsibility to ask.  If, in asking, he is not given a full description, which could include "She forgets it a lot", then I could see potential cause for redress.

~~~~~~~

Edited as I missed a follow up post:

Bluejak, you say that Declarer asked.  Where is that information?  That has so much relevance to this.  What was the conversation?  What did declarer ask?  What was the response?

Leaving out a "conversation" about the carding methods would change this situation entirely.

Opening post said:

Declarer investigated their carding methods.

I thought this was clear: he investigated, ie he asked about their carding methods in general.

Opening post said:

Fourth highest leads at no-trumps, third and fifth at a suit contract. Signals standard count except first suit played by declarer when standard Smith. South had played ♣7 followed by ♣3: in Smith this means she likes the suit led ♥, or it is better than partner might expect. Discards: high to encourage, low to discourage.

These were the answers to the questions.

PrinceNep, on Jun 4 2010, 03:06 PM, said:

Sorry, it was the word "investigated" that threw me.

How else do you investigate?

PrinceNep, on Jun 4 2010, 03:06 PM, said:

Then I could see a problem.  When was this asked?  Was it truly asked after trick 4 or was it asked after the opening lead?

It was asked at trick one, the normal way I believe to investigate opponents' carding.

PrinceNep, on Jun 4 2010, 03:06 PM, said:

The response that was posted seems very robotic for someone who seems iffy on what they do and don't remember.

Doesn't it just?

MFA, on May 16 2010, 09:16 PM, said:

Did declarer ask or just look at the system card?
It's much easier to add useful information when asked, and if declarer didn't do that I have a strong opinion that he has no right to adjustment now.
If north was asked specifically about smith peters it would be inadequate not to add that they don't use them consequently.

Asked. No SCs in South Africa.

The question about Smith Peters was something along the lines of "Do you play Smith Peters?" to which the answer was something like "Yes, we play Smith Peters".

shyams, on Jun 4 2010, 01:06 PM, said:

How was this ruled?

Declarer should have got it right despite the MI so no adjustment.

[TimG]

Doesn't it seem strange that Smith Peters were specifically asked about at trick one and south had forgotten by trick two? I do not mean to dispute the facts, but this is one of those times when I would expect south to be quite aware of what she was doing at trick two.

[bluejak]

When you put it that way, it does seem strange. I wonder if declarer asked at trick one, Smith was not mentioned, and when it became relevant asked again whether they played Smith? It seems more logical somehow, and I have certainly known declarers do this.

[jdonn]

I believe

1 - There was misinformation since if south forgets as often as they say then that is part of the agreement.

2 - There was no damage as it should be general bridge logic (among a player who understands smith) that when there is ATxx in dummy and the lead is won by the 9, it would be quite foolish to have a signal from either player intended to show the queen of that suit. This is for exactly the same reason that when you are missing 4 cards to the queen in notrump you will get no recourse from the director if your opponents choose to give false count and you misguess the suit. It should be widely understood that signals in general are never to be automatically expected, but just given when it seems desirable to do so. The fact that south in this case admitted she "falsecarded" for a different reason is moot since declarer should have no expectation of an honest signal ever being given in this situation.

So I would certainly not change the score for declarer, and I doubt I would for the defenders although I might have a word with them about disclosing their "agreements" more thoughtfully.

[InTime]

My impression here is that the opponents are not highly experienced in giving explanations and that declarer wants to take advantage of the situation.
It was obvious that the 7H was not 4th highest looking at the cards in his hand and that it is probably top of nothing. To lead the 7 from a suit Q87 which the opposition bid must be really awful. So, I am afraid that the declarer was not highly experienced too.

Leads and discards are to my mind not absolute whatever you play. If declarer wants to base his play on that, it is his problem. I feel I cannot be forced to discard or lead this or that whatever the agreement as long as my partner interpret my carding according to agreement . . . even if it is false carding . . . I am actually fooling my partner also in doing so.

For instance, when South discarded the 7, 2 of Clubs, North could see it is count, because when declarer plays the 9H, it must be obvious to him that South lead from top of nothing. If North is then asked what the 7&2 of club means, he must tell declarer that you normally plays Smith Peter when needed although he knows that is count . . . he simply cannot talk out of his hand.

If I play top of nothing in NT and I can detect according to the cards in dummy and the cards being played that partner knows I lead from top of nothing, why must I then still use Smith Peters? . . . it sounds ridiculous to me.

Regards