Is this disclosable?

[bluejak]

i suppose i am just not really understanding what falls under the "oh this is style, therefore 'just bridge'" vs. "system"

'Style' is not 'just bridge'. Just bridge is what you would expect anyone to do, like removing partner's penalty double if he thinks the contract is likely to make, and is not disclosable. Style is one person's approach, such as does he make aggressive pre-empts, and is disclosable.

 

Are 3rd seat tendencies on the system card?

Possibly not, but they should be.

 

:ph34r:

 

One thing we should not get confused over. There are two separate issues, namely 'What is disclosable?' and 'How do we disclose it?'. People often confuse the two, assuming, for example, that everything that is disclosable should be on the SC, which is impractical and not required by Law.

 

Matters of style are disclosable. How they are disclosed is another matter, and except for extreme cases, most of them need only be disclosed in response to a question asking either specifically for style or asking for a detailed reply.

[nige1]

if you are in the ACBL, the answer to matmat's question question - "what are they supposed to ask" is "anything, at the appropriate point"; specifically, from the Alert Procedures:

• The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question.
• Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically.

In the UK, secretary birds often ask about "style". But less sophisticated players lose out because they don't realise that is the best question. IMO the ACBL is right that you should disclose everything in response to any question. Best to start with the general and end with minor details. because opponents can then stop you if (initially) they just want the gist. Unfortunately, It's hard to explain style but many opponents seem reluctant to admit to their habits. For example "We tell partner what he wants to know" and "Frequent false-cards" may be prevarication for "We sometimes invert our signals. We know when. But we won't tell you."

[barmar]

Matters of style are disclosable. How they are disclosed is another matter, and except for extreme cases, most of them need only be disclosed in response to a question asking either specifically for style or asking for a detailed reply.

It's not clear to me how one would describe something like this in a general way. "If he has X type of hand, he does A. If he has Y he does B. If he has Z he does C. ..."

 

f asked a general question about leading styles, I wouldn't expect someone to say "He tends to lead trumps against part-scores, but leads passively if that would require him to lead away from an honor." It's not something you know consciously, but in the context of a particular deal your experience will help you infer it.

 

What about tendencies that partner may have that you actively try to forget? On a number of occasions, my partner has avoided leading his Qjx(x) honor sequence. So I assumed he didn't have that kind of holding, and (mis)defended accordingly. During the post mortem, he explained that he doesn't like to lead that, because he remembers all the times that declarer and dummy had something like A9x opposite KTx, and it cost a trick (somehow, he can't remember all the times that NOT leading this cost a trick -- memory is funny like that). If it weren't for this discussion, I wouldn't even remember this tendency -- when playing, I continue to assume that he makes standard leads. Can I really be expected to disclose a tendency that I probably know subconsciously, but don't really remember until reminded?

[cherdano]

Shogi has an aversion against underleading kings. I have an obsession with underleading kings. We know this from each other. We don't normally volunteer this information but we probably somehow should. I did volunteer it once, I don't remember the situation but I somehow was able to deduce from dummy's holding plus Shogi's tendencies that his lead of a five is most likely to be MUD or the highest of a doubleton, and I felt that declarer should know also.

 

But this is problematic since if I say "p probably doesn't have the king" I am effectively saying that I have it myself, and my partner hears that also. I should, of course, also say it when I "know" that declarer holds the king but I am afraid I would be less inclined to do so.

 

Probably best just to put it on the CC and then only say it when asked explicitly.

I don't think volunteering this information in this way is right. What you are volunteering is knowledge of your partner's tendencies PLUS your own deductions from looking at dummy and your own hand etc.

OTOH, when it matters, and when you know that your opponents are an established pair, it can be a good idea to ask about their leading tendencies (mostly about aggressive versus passive).

[pooltuna]

if you have, because of partnership experience, some ideas of partner's style it is disclosable. It is not buffalo chips, whatever that means, it is a matter of Law and fairness.

 

Buffalo chips are an aromatic, prairie, energy source. :)

[AlexJonson]

but p doesn't always do it, just sometimes (btw, this is a hypothetical partner).

 

I don't really see why the laws governing "style," if there are in fact any such laws, should distinguish between bidding and play. Why would it be okay to have concealed inferences available in play while not available in the bidding?

I a

 

 

Well Pooltuna -sorry matmat (edited),

 

If we assume that our fellow Laws expert posters are inclined to full disclosure,

I'd guess that (ignoring calls about leads out of turn,revokes, claims etc) almost all

problematic calls to directors are about bidding and not play. They can correct me if I am wrong.

 

IMO, that's because control of bidding is important and possible.

 

Legal control of play may well be even more important, but definitely not equally possible.

Even minnows have huge numbers of bidding agreements, explicit and implicit. They have close to zero,

(but not quite zero) ageeements about play.

 

 

We had a recent thread about play signals in the 'bridge' forums as against 'Laws'.

 

Just re-read those with an extreme Laws hat on - 'just bridge, bridge logic etc'.

 

The whole problem for a player is the total loss of innocence in the auction (officially, though real players

just get on with it, mostly).

 

We could (the Laws obviously support it from an extreme view) lose any innocence in the play. I would rather not.

 

I'm not saying the Laws (UI/MI..) don't apply to play in obvious situations, I'm saying that if the extremes of sophistication applied to any and every auction, applied to any and every play, the game would be entirely unplayable over the table.

[blackshoe]

Buffalo chips are an aromatic, prairie, energy source. :)

 

You left out "rare", since there aren't too many buffalo left.

[barmar]

There may not be many buffalo around, but there's plenty of buffalo chips.