this one I just made up

[aguahombre]

The hypothetical declarer asked a Poker player's question at a Bridge game. And, I am obligated to answer as a Bridge player. My answer would (hypothetically) be very carefully worded to disclose our agreements.

 

"We use standard attitude and count signals when we believe a signal will be useful to partner. Many times, we don't signal at all." Whether this particular situation is one where partner believes a signal will be useful depends on whether she already knows and believes I already know how many cards Declarer holds in the suit, and I would tell Declarer that ---if he still wants to continue fishing.

 

Declarer is not entitled to know whether we can deduce from his bidding and play how many cards he holds in the suit.

 

I also know that a player of (say) Gnasher's quality would not woodenly give count in a situation just because it "looks" like a case where partner would need count, yet he knows it isn't.

[iviehoff]

Which of these do you disagree with?

It can only be in a small number of long experienced and high quality partnerships that signalling behaviour in such a specific situation can have reached the level of being an implicit agreement. Given that there are two plausible alternatives, and they would come to an implicit agreement to consistently choose one rather than the other, only then I can agree that such people may have a disclosable agreement.

 

For the great majority of people in the great majority of situations, we are just working out what we would do. And even if in fact everyone of competence could agree that there was only one sensible thing to do in such a situation, that would still be exercise of judgment in play, not an implicit agreement.