GJS Incorrect explanation?
I played in a local blue-pointed Swiss Pairs yesterday. At the beginning of the round, I studied opponents' convention cards and there was nothing there about discards. On enquiry, I was told very firmly: 'We have no discard system.' I was the declarer on the first board. In the six-card ending my RHO held three small useless clubs and AJ9 of hearts. She discarded the 9 of hearts and her partner duly led a heart. Do I have any recourse?
Comments
You could certainly ask the TD to investigate, which I would expect to involve asking RHO why she chose to discard that card and LHO why they led a heart. Of course there would need to be damage before any adjustment might be considered.
Thank you, Gordon.
In fact, I was not damaged but I was upset by what I saw as dishonesty.
The H9 blatantly looks like a discard with meaning, so I would put the burden of proof (that it was not a discard with meaning) on the defenders.
If the director rules that they were playing a discard system then the tricky bit becomes assessing the damage, if any. Declarer has been misinformed, but if he(/she) had been properly informed what would he have done differently? In that situation, probably nothing, but has he been damaged on other boards because he was taking no notice of their discards?
I would also consider a PP under 2.8.3.4a Incomplete disclosure of methods - jumping to a second offence penalty because of the blatant nature of the failure to disclose.
Thank you, Jeremy.
Probably the best outcome would be for the TD to help them recognise if they do have a de facto discard system, before it causes damage, and consequent acrimony, for anyone else.
You are giving them the benefit of the doubt. Honestly speaking, I don't think they deserve it but I think that is the best that can be done. Thank you, again.
I sometimes come across confusion between Natural discards and HELD (High encouraging, Low discouraging). The difference is that a high discard when playing Natural shows that the player thinks he can afford to discard that high card.
If a pair such as that described in the OP say they don't have a discard system, I would be interested to find out if that means they play Natural discards, essentially that one throws away what one can most afford to throw away, and I'd go from there. As Gordon says, I'd be wanting to be happy that what they are disclosing reflects whatever agreements they may or may not have. Do beware of assigning dishonesty when ignorance is way more probable.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
I think many players don't realise just how complicated it is to not have a system for a given situation. That effectively means that your legal sources of information are limited to bridge logic, whereas it's much more tempting to (consciously or subconsciously) rely on UI (e.g. partner's tempo; of course, using UI is illegal except in the cases where it's unhelpful) and memories of what happened on previous hands (i.e. a partnership agreement, even if not a stated one, thus it's illegal not to disclose it).
When you do have a system, any UI that might exist often doesn't matter (because the AI from the system is typically clear enough to eliminate all your logical alternatives anyway), and it's rare to have much trouble in disclosing it. So the existence of a clear agreement that both partners can disclose easily means that it's much easier to stay within the Laws.
At least in the clubs where I play, it's common for partnerships to not have agreed anything about even very common and important subjects like discards and signals. That puts them on shaky legal ground, because it's not as though the partners won't eventually end up learning each others' style; the lack of an explicit agreement merely makes it harder to explain. Unfortunately, it's often hard to explain to a partnership that having explicit agreements would make things simpler for them, not more complex.
I played for a couple of years with a partner where we had no discard system and we simply had to work out the hand. That said, there's the simple bridge logic that if partner discards a high honour then he's telling you something about that suit.
I think the crux here is :is there a default (natural) meaning to playing an unnecessarily high card?
I feel some sort of official pronouncement on whether HELD counts as a discard system, or is just "bridge logic" would be helpful.
I observe that they discarded their lowest heart. It's not obvious to me that they were necessarily playing 'standard' (high encouraging, low discouraging) without disclosure particularly as it sounds as if they had plenty of low clubs to discard.
I can understand the motivation of a pair who wish to give minimum useful information to declarer, at the cost of giving minimum useful information to each other in defence, but I do worry about implicit information from partnership experience.
In many situations the safest suit to discard from is obvious, and if they always discard up the line from that suit, fair enough. But do they? And what do they do in less obvious positions?
I agree that it is probably ignorance rather than malice aforethought, and that education is preferable to assuming the worst. But I would certainly ask the TD to investigate.
Indeed. That's further reason why it's important to ask them both questions.
Whilst there may need to be some questions about this hand I don't believe people who play even semi regularly and claim this sort of thing. Even if they have never explicitly discussed it there will be, as someone else has said, an implicit agreement. If you have defended many hands with a partner then you will have formed a view about what a low card as first discard means even if it is no more than we throw what we don't want. Anyway defence is hard enough to start with without handicapping yourself by having no agreement about any signal or discard.
To answer another question if your agreement is HELD then that is certainly something that should be disclosed.