Cthulhu D Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 P had pre-empted showing 4/4 in the majors or better, weak hand and opposition bid up to 4S. Oppo leads the J of spades from the closed hand towards AKxx in dummy, partner plays some random middle spot and then declarer asks me 'so what sort of hands does [partner] bid that with?' The situation is A) Partner has never pre-empted with 4 small in a suit beforeB) I have pre-empted with 4 small in a suit fairly often. C) I'm looking at the stiff Q of spades, so partner blatantly has done it this time What's my disclosure requirement here? I think I said 'any 4/4 5/4 or 5/5 weaker than an opening hand is fine, we pre-empt aggressively' and they went wrong anyway, but it was a tough spot. What am I supposed to do? Edit: Vvvvvv: I think it was an honest question, this was literally the first time ever they had encountered an Ekrens style assumed fit preempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel_k Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 What you said is fine. You do have to disclose partner's tendencies, not just what you have explicitly agreed. In theory it is ok to do so without looking at your hand, i.e. you could say that partner has never bid like this with four small even though you know he has exactly that. But I'd rather help the opponents out a little than have them go away thinking I am dishonest when I have no real way to prove otherwise. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Declarer was fishing; tacky question designed to get a read on you, not your agreements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfi Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Declarer was fishing; tacky question designed to get a read on you, not your agreements. You may well be unfair to declarer with this statement. They may simply have not thought about the issue beforehand and are trying to work out the hand at this point. It would have been better to have asked beforehand, but if they have not done so, then they are entitled to the information now. The OP's statement at the table was fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 You may well be unfair to declarer with this statement. They may simply have not thought about the issue beforehand and are trying to work out the hand at this point. It would have been better to have asked beforehand, but if they have not done so, then they are entitled to the information now. The OP's statement at the table was fine.Yes, the OP's statement at the table was fine. Yes, they are entitled to disclosure. The question was legal AND tacky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Declarer was fishing; tacky question designed to get a read on you, not your agreements. You did read the OP and still make this statement? May I repeat the last sentence for you: "Vvvvvv: I think it was an honest question, this was literally the first time ever they had encountered an Ekrens style assumed fit preempt." For the real question: I agree with Nigel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 I think it is proper to say something like our partnership agreement is that any 4/4 4/5 5/5 weaker than opening is allowed, although partner tends to have better suit quality than I do or some such. Some people have similar style discrepancies around how often they make a weak 2 with a 5 card suit, or how often they make a two suited preemptive call with 5/4 versus 5/5 (like a 2nt opening for minors). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cthulhu D Posted June 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) You did read the OP and still make this statement? May I repeat the last sentence for you: "Vvvvvv: I think it was an honest question, this was literally the first time ever they had encountered an Ekrens style assumed fit preempt." For the real question: I agree with Nigel. That was edited in by me after Auguhombre's post sorry. Habit from another forum. This forum does not mark 'edited by' when you edit though which is a shame. Vvvv: I forgot! And forget. Edited June 12, 2012 by Cthulhu D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) That was edited in by me after Auguhombre's post sorry. Habit from another forum. This forum does not mark 'edited by' when you edit though which is a shame. It does if you tick "Show 'Edit by' line". Or you could just put the word "Edit:" in front of it. Edited June 12, 2012 by gnasher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_20686 Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Declarer was fishing; tacky question designed to get a read on you, not your agreements. Assuming that declarer had a legitimate need to ask the question, it makes perfect sense that he should wait till now to do so, as it is likely to put you under pressure since you know the layout and don't want to reveal it. That's just good table presence. Admittedly you shouldn't really ask a question that you don't need the answer to. This is not dissimilar to playing quickly as declarer in order to put defenders under pressure, and so you can get information about the layouts from when they stop to think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Vvvv: I forgot! And forget.Does "Vvvv:" have any special significance in your edits? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahydra Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Does "Vvvv:" have any special significance in your edits? I imagine he's referring to a post below his (cf. ^^^^^). ahydra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Assuming that declarer had a legitimate need to ask the question, it makes perfect sense that he should wait till now to do so, as it is likely to put you under pressure since you know the layout and don't want to reveal it. That's just good table presence. Admittedly you shouldn't really ask a question that you don't need the answer to.I guess my lack of the good table presence to use this is another reason I am not considered a super-tough opponent. The way I read your post, the "legitimate need" to ask the question at this particular time is precisely to get lefty's reaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 Declarer was fishing; tacky question designed to get a read on you, not your agreements.Definitely agree. There is no legitimate need for this question. Declarer already knows the spade division and that finessing is right, and is mucking about solely on the chance of smoking out the stiff queen. I consider this unethical if not actually illegal. Perhaps an argument could even be made that the remark violates law 74B2 or 74C4. But realistically, he will probably just get away with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 This occurs at the highest levels, and we would be hard pressed to ever even consider these questions to be a violation of a law. They are, however, something to be prepared for with careful/consistent/smooth wording of our disclosure(s). I got a chuckle when a top player with renown for his active (maybe overboard) ethics flawlessly answered the original question and the first follow-up by his former partner. Then, when a third inquiry came out, he merely said, "You're fishing." His partner had the focus honor :P In the OP case, the fishing is on the first inquiry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted July 10, 2012 Report Share Posted July 10, 2012 Perhaps an argument could even be made that the remark violates law 74B2 or 74C4.I don't think so. It's a legitimate question, I'd be hard pressed to call it a "gratuitous comment" (74B2). And what "significant occurrence" is it calling attention to (74C4)? I think the latter is intended for comments like "he showed out of that suit". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.