No spades partner?
#1
Posted 2024-April-09, 12:55
#2
Posted 2024-April-09, 13:25
It's also perfectly fine if you never ask; what you definitely should not do is ask sometimes and not others, as that conveys unauthorized information about how surprising you found the discard.
#3
Posted 2024-April-09, 20:34
The inflection in a question is often more of a problem than timing or frequency.
I remember being told some basic table ethics
Keep a poker face
Don't look at partner
Ask questions at the end of the auction unless you need to know before you make a bid.
#4
Posted 2024-April-10, 06:41
#5
Posted 2024-April-10, 07:27
#6
Posted 2024-April-10, 08:41
Douglas43, on 2024-April-10, 07:27, said:
The very few times one of us revokes, I would rather let it become established than transmit UI to my partner (inevitable if you only ask in genuine doubt, see smerriman's comment).
And if this becomes 'always ask' to avoid that problem, then there is still the inevitable risk of inflection giving the game away, as jillybean said.
All in all, I think this is a solution looking for a problem and that installing any superfluous verbal dialogue between partners is just asking for trouble.
And if it really was a valid solution to a major problem then surely it should be LHO that is entrusted to ask rather than partner.
But unfortunately the law allows it.
#7
Posted 2024-April-10, 09:21
pescetom, on 2024-April-10, 08:41, said:
And if this becomes 'always ask' to avoid that problem, then there is still the inevitable risk of inflection giving the game away, as jillybean said.
All in all, I think this is a solution looking for a problem and that installing any superfluous verbal dialogue between partners is just asking for trouble.
And if it really was a valid solution to a major problem then surely it should be LHO that is entrusted to ask rather than partner.
But unfortunately the law allows it.
I hope to have a game of bridge in Italy one day
IMO, but remember, I'm a secretary bird, there is so much rampant UI given, be it unsolicited explanations, comments, or slightly more discrete eye contact with partner when they need to notice this artificial bid, dummy playing cards ("it's obvious") I am unconcerned with the legal question 'no spades partner'?
(Although I have always thought it was odd the question was allowed)
#8
Posted 2024-April-10, 09:52
But channelling everyone else:
- Yes, it's legal.
- Yes, if you do it, you should do it consistently - my recommendation would be "on the first discard, each hand, as dummy or defender".
- Yes, you should carefully avoid the "why yes, declarer does have a lot of cards in that suit" queries (or cadence, if your query is "normal").
- Please don't ask, playing with me. The number of tricks I lose to established revokes in a year pales to the number of tricks I'll pitch if you distract me every hand.
- But I'll try to remember to ask you, if you want it.
Spoiler reflects the same issues as the opening line:
#9
Posted 2024-April-10, 09:59
#10
Posted 2024-April-10, 10:15
When I do, I don't recall ever having asked my partner (or vice versa).
I have faced opponents who ask their partner. I don't think it has ever bothered me when they do so.
#11
Posted 2024-April-10, 10:34
#12
Posted 2024-April-10, 10:34
Douglas43, on 2024-April-10, 09:59, said:
Which isn't in my suggestion list. But it is consistent.
#13
Posted 2024-April-10, 11:02
smerriman, on 2024-April-09, 13:25, said:
It's also perfectly fine if you never ask; what you definitely should not do is ask sometimes and not others, as that conveys unauthorized information about how surprising you found the discard.
Surely it would be annoying to ask always. Surely the surprising case is the likely revoke, and would be surprising to other players too
#14
Posted 2024-April-10, 12:53
jillybean, on 2024-April-10, 09:21, said:
IMO, but remember, I'm a secretary bird, there is so much rampant UI given, be it unsolicited explanations, comments, or slightly more discrete eye contact with partner when they need to notice this artificial bid, dummy playing cards ("it's obvious") I am unconcerned with the legal question 'no spades partner'?
(Although I have always thought it was odd the question was allowed)
You might be deluded all the same.., if Italians don't need to pull stunts like "having none partner?" or "play" or Drury, it's at least partly because they don't need to: they are masters of body language (even the males ).
Hey, you forgot to mention reaching for the Alert card before partner calls too
Although now I think about it, I can be guilty of that and I'm not great at remaining impassive either: I do my best as a Director, but as a player it's not my fault if they don't use screens
I agree that it is odd the question was ever allowed. Maybe someone with knowledge of the history of the Laws could enlighten us. I can only go back to a hundred years ago when it was not mentioned or to 2007 when an RA was allowed to forbid defenders asking each other (which implies that there was dissense when this was introduced).
#15
Posted 2024-April-10, 12:58
If you ask every hand on the "first discard" (unless or not unless they're playing to the 13th card), especially if it's "no diamonds, partner?" bland and bored ("Really?", stated or implied by tone of voice, is bad), then the times that it is unusual doesn't pass the same information (and doesn't feel to declarer that it does).
Yes, it would be annoying if it was every showout of a suit. Once a hand, expected and obvious - floats into the background quite quickly.
#16
Posted 2024-April-10, 14:39
mycroft, on 2024-April-10, 12:58, said:
I have no experience of this business to help, but if partner showed 4 spades in the auction surely his LHO would have noticed?
Then yes, there is that other quirk of the Laws that LHO is allowed to notice and keep quiet all the same, hoping the revoke becomes established... a murky do ut des that at least exposes the real SBs, but also distances honest newcomers from the game.
As for "nobody mentioned diamonds", asking could even be some kind of Smith for spades.
The solution is electronic play or at least screens, but in the meantime let's avoid giving the creeps unnecessary rope
#17
Posted 2024-April-10, 21:45
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
#18
Posted 2024-April-11, 08:44
blackshoe, on 2024-April-10, 21:45, said:
That's more like it.
#19
Posted 2024-April-11, 09:01
#20
Posted 2024-April-11, 09:41
We keep on saying the same thing over and over, are we still expecting a different result?