Two players in my club apparently have no agreements about defensive signals. They are elderly men, regular partners and (very) infrequent winners. When they sit North-South they are a frequent source of scoring errors, mostly stemming from forgetting to keep score in the first place. Today an opponent told me that she thinks they should be required to have an agreement: she had declared a difficult contract, and badly needed some clues from their signals. I could point out that if they had an agreement they would not be obligated to follow it for their opponent's benefit, but let's stick to the obligation (if any) to have an agreement.
Experience can establish implicit agreements, but in this case I can believe that this need not have happened. Please assume in answering that they really have no explicit or implied carding agreements.
Put yourself in the director's place: how would you rule? You want to make the right bridge ruling.
Sorry, you need to be logged in to answer polls. Registered users can vote in polls, and can also browse other users' public votes! Please join our community and participate in the discussion.
