No Carding Agreements NZ
#1
Posted 2011-May-01, 19:13
That is no count, no discard, no suit preference, no agreements about leads etc.
Is this legal?
Is it practical? It occurred to me if they really had no agreements then they would have a bigger responsibility than usual disclosing their partnership experience.
I mean "fourths but occasionally ..." which might be the explanation for pair with normal sorts of agreements. Whereas this pair may need to give much more detailed information about their experience when asked.
I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys - dburn
dunno how to play 4 card majors - JLOGIC
True but I know Standard American and what better reason could I have for playing Precision? - Hideous Hog
Bidding is an estimation of probabilities SJ Simon
#2
Posted 2011-May-01, 20:03
Practical? I don't think so. Agree about the responsibility thing.
If they have partnership experience, then "we have no agreement" is untrue.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#3
Posted 2011-May-01, 23:20
blackshoe, on 2011-May-01, 20:03, said:
ACBL GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTEST FOR ALL EVENTS, GEN_CoC_All Events Revised December 2009 said:
Carding Agreements: - A pair may not elect to have no agreement when it comes to carding. 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 needs to be given to fill-in pairs or very last minute partnerships.
http://www.acbl.org/...l-AllEvents.pdf
#4
Posted 2011-May-02, 04:50
Is not their Claim to Have NO Carding Agreemments An Agreement anyway
If they are a regular partnership Then they could never ever persuade anyone that they Do Not have an agreement
![B-)](http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)
#5
Posted 2011-May-02, 06:25
#6
Posted 2011-May-02, 07:03
But unless they are novices it sounds unlikely that they would do so in all situations. Leading a random honour from QJTxx or a random spot card from Q8532 or 82?
#7
Posted 2011-May-03, 02:01
#8
Posted 2011-May-03, 04:33
mjj29, on 2011-May-03, 02:01, said:
true however this is an 'Agreement' is it not
![:rolleyes:](http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)
#9
Posted 2011-May-03, 06:44
shintaro, on 2011-May-03, 04:33, said:
![:rolleyes:](http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)
Sure, but when people say "we have no agreement", I suspect this would be an appropriate restatement of the situation (unless, of course, they are attempting to signal without having an agreement, which after a while will become a different agreement implicitly)
#10
Posted 2011-May-03, 18:06
I think that is reasonable: I don't believe them.
Someone said if they play random ... Sure, but for a start random is a carding agreement and anyway it is very unlikely that anyone does play random.
Recently the EBU L&EC investigated a pair that claimed to lead random from xxx. When asked detailed questions it was discovered that in some situations they always led high, in some situations low, and =in some situations middle. It was explained to them that this was not random.
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#11
Posted 2011-May-04, 22:51
And "We discard cards we don't want to keep" is hardly an agreement -- who would ever discard a card they wanted to keep (unless they're squeezed)? A discard agreement is a meaning assigned to the card chosen among available candidates.
#12
Posted 2011-May-11, 18:31
"Our convention card says that we play ...[whatever]... but long experience has shown that partner ignores all but the most blatant signals, so much of my carding is as likely as not to deviate from our agreement. As for partner, the best I can hope for is 90% conformity to 'follow suit when possible'"
#13
Posted 2011-May-12, 06:46
I guess the idea is that declarer can try to figure out when you might be giving an accurate signal. In that case, he needs to know what form your signals take.