[bluejak]

Scoring: MP

---

East opened 1♦ playing four-card majors and West responded 1♥. East bid 2N [17-18] and West raised to 3N. South led the ♥7, 3, 4, 9. Declarer played ♣K, which held, ♣ to the Q and A, T returned, West discarding the ♠3.

Declarer investigated their carding methods. 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.

Declarer now needed to know where the ♥Q was. The Smith peter suggested South had the Q, but the 7 looked a high card suggesting no queen. If it was a doubleton why did North play the 4? Q842 perhaps? Could South have Q87? Or even Q872 and had led 3rd highest by accident or design?

How good were the opponents? They had reached the final of this pairs tournament, but this was declarer's first board against them, and he had never seen them before.

Eventually declarer played South for the queen: wrong! It was a doubleton. At the end of the hand declarer asked South why she petered in clubs. Now if she had said "I false carded" or some such he would have no recourse. But what she actually said was "I gave count: I usually forget Smith" to which her partner responded "That's right: she rarely remembers!".

Declarer could have made ten tricks later in the hand, but after some incompetence by both sides finished with nine. He asked for a ruling, based on MI, and suggesting that since he would merely be more likely to get it right if told she rarely remembers Smith all he felt he deserved was some weighting of making ten tricks, maybe 30% or 35%. Actually there is some possibility of eleven tricks if he gets hearts right.

How do you rule?

[jeremy69]

My reaction is for no adjustment here. Opponents are entlted to know about implicit agreements but I don't think forgetting constitutes an agreement.

[blackshoe]

jeremy69, on May 16 2010, 05:32 AM, said:

My reaction is for no adjustment here. Opponents are entlted to know about implicit agreements but I don't think forgetting constitutes an agreement.

No, but frequent forgets will generate a partnership understanding, and opponents are entitled to know those.

[nige1]

bluejak, on May 14 2010, 04:10 PM, said:

But what she actually said was "I gave count: I usually forget Smith" to which her partner responded "That's right: she rarely remembers!".

This resembles the Uncertain agreements case. Obviously, there was no alert here but I guess the differences in legal interpretation will be similar. For example, I expect GordonTD, DBurn and Co to give redress for damage. Others may argue that an agreement with partner is not an undertaking to opponents.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on May 16 2010, 10:29 AM, said:

Others may argue that an agreement with partner is not an undertaking to opponents.

I am one such. However, we must also take into account whether the frequency of the forgets has generated a partnership understanding. If it has, and that understanding has not been disclosed, then the opponents are probably entitled to redress if damaged.

Let me guess — someone will now argue that in a case where "frequent forgets" are properly disclosed, the opps assume the player has forgotten, and it turns out she hasn't this time, the opps are entitled to redress. To quote Tim Allen's sidekick, Al, "I don't think so".

[gordontd]

L40A1a:

Quote

Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a
partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly
through mutual experience or awareness of the players.

It sounds to me as though the pair in question have an implicit understanding that one of them doesn't really play Smith, and they've failed to disclose that to their opponents.

[aguahombre]

The alleged offending side must not be very bright. South shot himself in the foot with his mouth.

Does anyone who plays Smith echoes/peters, really think that --looking at dummy's holding --- they should apply? Sheeh.

Of course, since South chose to say what he said, my observation is irrelevent. But a competent South should have said, "Look at dummy. What do you think my attitude about my opening lead is? Smith would have been plain silly."

We don't signal for the opponents' benefit. And, when asked, we qualify the answer: "Standard signals, when given." "Smith, when appropriate." etc. East might have guessed from looking at his own holding that Smith might have been the last thing on South's mind in this case.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on May 16 2010, 04:12 PM, said:

The alleged offending side must not be very bright. South shot himself in the foot with his mouth.
...
But a competent South should have said, "Look at dummy. What do you think my attitude about my opening lead is? Smith would have been plain silly."

You mean that you think South should lie about her reason for petering? I think the only thing we can infer about South is that she's forgetful but honest.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2010-May-16, 11:17

[aguahombre]

No. I think, she should have been bright enough to knowingly not use Smith and then to say that afterwards. To repeat, this does not affect the ruling on what actually happened. But, "After looking at dummy, Smith never occurred to me." might be a more accurate statement of what really happened, and would not be a lie.

And, again I have no opinion about the ruling. It is what it is. I do have an opinion about declarer. Everyone at the table knows a heart continuation is not a good idea. Yet declarer hangs his hat on a signal which would request, or not desire, a heart continuation; then goes for the ruling if he guesses wrong. All within his rights and very scuzzy.

[MFA]

bluejak, on May 14 2010, 11:10 PM, said:

Declarer investigated their carding methods.  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.

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.

[CSGibson]

blackshoe, on May 16 2010, 07:12 AM, said:

jeremy69, on May 16 2010, 05:32 AM, said:

My reaction is for no adjustment here. Opponents are entlted to know about implicit agreements but I don't think forgetting constitutes an agreement.

No, but frequent forgets will generate a partnership understanding, and opponents are entitled to know those.

Where is the check-box for frequently forgets on the convention card? If an opponent asks about it, you disclose that information, but if they are just glancing on the convention card, then there is no MI in my opinion. Result stands.

In other words, completely agree with MFA.

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on May 16 2010, 06:19 PM, said:

No. I think, she should have been bright enough to knowingly not use Smith and then to say that afterwards. To repeat, this does not affect the ruling on what actually happened.  But, "After looking at dummy, Smith never occurred to me." might be a more accurate statement of what really happened, and would not be a lie.

And, again I have no opinion about the ruling.  It is what it is.  I do have an opinion about declarer.  Everyone at the table knows a heart continuation is not a good idea.  Yet declarer hangs his hat on a signal which would request, or not desire, a heart continuation; then goes for the ruling if he guesses wrong.  All within his rights and very scuzzy.

That is extremely unfair. You would allow declarer to misguess, in part because of MI, and then say he must not ask for a ruling because it is scuzzy? You might just as well get rid of the MI Laws and allow players to misinform so as to gain.

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

Did declarer ask or just look at the system card?

Declarer asked. There are no SCs in the South African Nationals - ok, one pair had them, but only one.

[awm]

The thing is, most people who play Smith echo would not play it in this particular situation. Given the play to the first trick, continuing hearts is very unlikely to be right in any case (dummy has at least two more heart stops). It's also a situation where a count signal can be critical (holding up with the ace). So unless the opponents specifically stated that they would play Smith on this hand or in this situation or said something like "we always signal Smith (even if seemingly illogical)" I can't see my way to adjusting.

Certainly a carding method that is "frequently forgotten" or that one player uses and the other doesn't should be disclosed properly, and I could see telling this pair to modify their card to say that they give Smith signals "only occasionally" or "only when obvious" or even instructing them to take it off their card (assuming a rule that both partners must play the same methods).

[greenender]

Whilst I am sure that the failure of N to disclose that S had a history of forgetting Smith Peters constitutes MI, I would not adjust.

I feel that declarer has perhaps been guilty of sloppy thinking in focussing on the Smith Peter issue in defiance (as I see it) of the bridge logic.

Whilst I accept that the logic is to give count in this situation as a ♥ continuation cannot be right, at least a substantial minority of players probably do not think this way: if they have agreed to play Smith Peters, and they don't want the suit continued, they play a discouraging Smith card, even if the sight of dummy tells them that partner knows not to continue the suit, so that a count signal would be better. So I think that declarer is, in principle, allowed to take the explanation at face value. But on this particular layout declarer knows that an encouraging Smith signal is implausible given his combined holding, so he should look a bit closer into the position.

Who on earth leads from Qxx or Qxxx through a bid suit into a strong 2NT rebid? It seems to me to be a recipe for trashing the whole suit (just give partner Jx or similar). A short suit lead, on the other hand, whilst not everyone's cup of tea, may pay dividends. Partner may be sat over the bidder with a developable holding, or if declarer, as well as dummy, has honours in the suit, the lead may still be safe.

[gordontd]

greenender, on May 18 2010, 02:27 PM, said:

he should look a bit closer into the position

Do you think he would have been a bit more likely to look closer into the position had his opponents disclosed properly?

[bluejak]

While it may not affect how you should rule, it seems strange to me that you are expected to assume that opponents are playing a rule that [a] did not seem logical to declarer and [b] they said they were not.

Consider my defence with my favourite Welsh partner. In the given situation I play Smith. The idea that I revert to count when Smith is not likely to be useful is something I never play. If Smith cannot apply, then I revert to Lavinthal. Furthermore, that is part of my disclosure. But in the given situation, Smith is possible, so it is Smith.

If the player had said "Smith did not apply because the situation was obvious" then I would think they had still not disclosed their methods correctly. But anyway she did not.

Furthermore, why should one assume this to be the case when she said it was not?

I am surprised people expect to rule based on the two assumptions:

• people do not lead from Hxx through a bid suit, and
  
• When opponents say they play Smith declarer should assume they do not.

It seems a very strange basis for ruling to me, especially since I have recent experience of people leading from Hxx on a similar sequence.

[shyams]

How was this ruled?

[PrinceNep]

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.

[PeterE]

OP bluejak, on May 14 2010, 04:10 PM, said:

Declarer investigated their carding methods.  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.

together with

bluejak, on May 17 2010, 07:16 PM, said:

Declarer asked. There are no SCs in the South African Nationals - ok, one pair had them, but only one.

might show you that declarer indeed asked.

[PrinceNep]

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

If the response was truly:

"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"

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?

If there was no indication in the explanation that they have forgotten Smith in the past, then it is probably MI.

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