[gwnn]

"Does your partner underlead honours often?"
"How often does he underlead aces?"
"Does he falsecard in slams often?"
"How often do you give count?"
"When partner leads trumps does he usually lead the same spot as he'd do in another suit?"

Is there a good guideline to decide what I may ask/what I should answer when asked? Thank you.

These are carding related questions because I think it's completely legal to ask about overcalling style etc, even things that are not really on the CC ("what was the worst hand you raised in this position?")

[peachy]

If I were asked any of these questions that pertain to my partnership style and methods, I am obligated by law to answer.

If I were playing with a pickup partner with whom I have no history then I will answer questions about methods we agreed, and explain that this is a pickup partnership with no history so style is unknown.

It is perfectly legal to ask these questions if you need to know.

[kenrexford]

gwnn, on Apr 21 2010, 04:34 PM, said:

"Does your partner underlead honours often?"
"How often does he underlead aces?"
"Does he falsecard in slams often?"
"How often do you give count?"
"When partner leads trumps does he usually lead the same spot as he'd do in another suit?"

Is there a good guideline to decide what I may ask/what I should answer when asked? Thank you.

These are carding related questions because I think it's completely legal to ask about overcalling style etc, even things that are not really on the CC ("what was the worst hand you raised in this position?")

"Does your partner underlead honours often?"

Yes.

"How often does he underlead aces?"

When it's right.

"Does he falsecard in slams often?"

Yes.

"How often do you give count?"

When it's right.

"When partner leads trumps does he usually lead the same spot as he'd do in another suit?"

I have no idea.

[blackshoe]

peachy, on Apr 21 2010, 06:57 PM, said:

It is perfectly legal to ask these questions if you need to know.

Where in the law does it say it's not legal to ask them if you don't need to know? And what does "need to know" mean, anyway?

[bluejak]

peachy, on Apr 21 2010, 11:57 PM, said:

It is perfectly legal to ask these questions if you need to know.

... and if you do not.

[peachy]

blackshoe, on Apr 21 2010, 08:17 PM, said:

peachy, on Apr 21 2010, 06:57 PM, said:

It is perfectly legal to ask these questions if you need to know.

Where in the law does it say it's not legal to ask them if you don't need to know? And what does "need to know" mean, anyway?

Other reasons than *need to know* seem like harassment or slowing down the game. But then again *need to know* could be driven by idle curiosity, so there we are. If there is no law saying we should have a reason then we don't have to have a reason. What I meant by *need to know* is to count the hand, place honors, plan the play or some rational *need* in those lines.

[blackshoe]

Well, never mind about "need to know" then. Not surprisingly , I agree with David — it's legal, period.

[Elianna]

What about when declarer has stiff A, and there is KJT-?- on the board. Asking a lot of questions about underleading the A, and then playing the J in the hopes that opp will then play the Q thinking leader has the A seems to trying to mislead. It seems that it should not be legal. Are you two saying that it is?

[Ant590]

I think the problem is that there are many pairs who do not know that "no agreement" is an adequate response to these questions (provided you have no explicit or implicit agreement).

For such a pair, the questions will seem like an attempt at fishing a ruling if their response is "wrong". Luckily, in games where players are ignorant of the rules usually don't matter, so I would only ask (and expect to hear a reasonable answer) in higher-standard games, compared to your average club night or low tables of a national event.

[bluejak]

Elianna, on Apr 22 2010, 05:48 AM, said:

What about when declarer has stiff A, and there is KJT-?- on the board.  Asking a lot of questions about underleading the A, and then playing the J in the hopes that opp will then play the Q thinking leader has the A seems to trying to mislead.  It seems that it should not be legal.  Are you two saying that it is?

No, I am not. You cannot extrapolate answers like that - well, you can, but you should not.

If you ask a question out of idle curiosity it is not illegal. That does not mean that actions that mislead are legal.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Apr 21 2010, 09:17 PM, said:

peachy, on Apr 21 2010, 06:57 PM, said:

It is perfectly legal to ask these questions if you need to know.

Where in the law does it say it's not legal to ask them if you don't need to know? And what does "need to know" mean, anyway?

Well, you're not allowed to ask questions solely for partner's benefit. But I guess there's nothing specifically prohibiting asking questions for no one's benefit. And I suppose there's no UI problem; if the you might not need to know the answers, partner can't infer anything about your hand from the questions.

Does this suggest that it's reasonable to ask irrelevant questions from time to time, so there's no UI when you ask relevant questions?

[bd71]

As a prelude to asking questions about pre-empting style, I once asked "how long have you and your partner played together", hoping to establish the credibility of the subsequent answers. Opponent told me that was an inappropriate question, so I simply moved on to ask the style-related question (I believe it was frequency/likelihood with which 3C might be opened with 6).

Was opponent right, or are you allowed to ask how long/frequently they play together to assess the likely quality of other answers?

[blackshoe]

It might be appropriate as a supplemental question, but certainly not up front, when you are supposed to be asking questions about the auction.

[jjbrr]

The title of this thread had a lot of potential.

"How many partners have you had?" is my contribution.

[gwnn]

nice

[aguahombre]

jjbrr, on Apr 23 2010, 03:00 PM, said:

The title of this thread had a lot of potential.

"How many partners have you had?" is my contribution.

Bridge partners?....or inappropriate.

[MarkDean]

jjbr for the win

[rogerclee]

There are some questions which you can get in trouble for asking. An obvious one would be if they led the K against your suit contract and you had the AQ in your hand, and you ask about their honor leads.

Here is another case that is interesting to read:
http://web2.acbl.org...09/11-NABC+.pdf

[Mbodell]

rogerclee, on Apr 23 2010, 10:49 PM, said:

There are some questions which you can get in trouble for asking. An obvious one would be if they led the K against your suit contract and you had the AQ in your hand, and you ask about their honor leads.

Couldn't you want to know (presumably you ask about their leads and carding in general and only if they only talk about spot leads do you ask about the card led) to tell which cards the defender might think are in partner's hand. For instance, if they lead Q from KQ and K from AK then if you win this first trick RHO will know you have the Q. If they lead top of both then RHO will not know you have the Q. How you choose to defend could be influenced by this because it would effect how RHO is likely to play the hand.

[rogerclee]

Mbodell, on Apr 24 2010, 02:37 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Apr 23 2010, 10:49 PM, said:

There are some questions which you can get in trouble for asking. An obvious one would be if they led the K against your suit contract and you had the AQ in your hand, and you ask about their honor leads.

Couldn't you want to know (presumably you ask about their leads and carding in general and only if they only talk about spot leads do you ask about the card led) to tell which cards the defender might think are in partner's hand. For instance, if they lead Q from KQ and K from AK then if you win this first trick RHO will know you have the Q. If they lead top of both then RHO will not know you have the Q. How you choose to defend could be influenced by this because it would effect how RHO is likely to play the hand.

You could want to know a lot of things. However Law 73F says that if you had no demonstrable bridge reason to ask a question, do not be surprised if your board gets adjusted (usually at the NABC+ level I think) because:

i) Your RHO decided to play his partner for the Q, and it turns out shifting to your weak suit would have been better.
ii) Your RHO decided to shift to your weak suit, and it turns out playing his partner for club shortness would have been better.