"What partner needs to know"

[VixTD]

I have started playing occasional games with two of the better players at a club. They play together quite often, so I borrowed their convention card and tried to follow it.

 

Under carding methods it states nothing other than "count" (i.e. high-low = even). This would appear to apply when following suit (whether partner or declarer has led to the trick), and when discarding. When we came to discuss the boards in the pub after the game, I was asked on one hand why I had switched suits at trick two when partner had encouraged.

 

"But we don't play attitude signals, we play count", I reminded them.

 

"Yes, but in this situation surely it's clear that partner's card will show attitude" was the reply.

 

It turns out that they play attitude signals in many more situations than the card suggests. When pressed, they said that they primarily show count, but "tell partner what they think he needs to know".

 

I am not happy with this, I don't think it's adequate disclosure, but they won't change their methods, and I'm trying to find a way to describe what they actually do. The best I've come up with is "attitude on partner's lead and when discarding in active defence (e.g. cashout situations), count otherwise". I've never seen the like of this on a convention card before, but I think it must be an improvement on the original.

 

Any thoughts on whether this might meet the requirements on disclosure?

[Jeremy69A]

"We tell partner what he needs to know" has not gone down very well on a number of appeal committees I have sat on. At the very least the card should say count(hi-lo even) but some attitude e.g. partner's lead and other situations you define.

As well as telling partner what he needs to know there is the little matter of telling the opponents what you are doing.

[barmar]

I think this is "just bridge". Regardless of your normal signaling methods, sometimes you have to make exceptions to solve problems. You hope that partner will recognize the problem as well, and figure out what you're doing.

 

For instance, you play 3/5 leads, but need to lead from J98x. You might decide to lead x because 8 is more likely to confuse partner (it looks more like the top of a doubleton).

[gordontd]

I think this is just misinformation. They claim to play count, when in certain situations that they are both very well aware of, they don't.

[VixTD]

Until I've played with them a while I don't think I'll be able to define when we show count. I agree that "give partner the signal we think he's looking for" is dubious - we probably know from experience what this is better than our opponents do, and we're not telling them.

 

"On partner's lead, sometimes attitude, sometimes count" is not much better. They'll want to know when attitude, and when count.

 

I was just wondering whether "attitude in active defence situations, count in passive" is any better. I'll then get asked to define "active" and "passive". Sometimes it won't be clear.

[jallerton]

The EBU convention card asks for:

 

"CARDING METHODS Describe Primary method. State alternative in brackets."

 

On that basis, something like: "Standard Count(Standard Attitude in some cashout situations)" would be reasonable.

 

Few convention cards go into great detail as to when particular signals apply. There's not enough room to explain all situations on the convention card. In some grey areas, regular partners don't always agree whether count/attitude/suit preference should apply!

[paua]

I have started playing occasional games with two of the better players at a club. They play together quite often, so I borrowed their convention card and tried to follow it.

 

Under carding methods it states nothing other than "count" (i.e. high-low = even). This would appear to apply when following suit (whether partner or declarer has led to the trick), and when discarding. When we came to discuss the boards in the pub after the game, I was asked on one hand why I had switched suits at trick two when partner had encouraged.

 

"But we don't play attitude signals, we play count", I reminded them.

 

"Yes, but in this situation surely it's clear that partner's card will show attitude" was the reply.

 

It turns out that they play attitude signals in many more situations than the card suggests. When pressed, they said that they primarily show count, but "tell partner what they think he needs to know".

 

I am not happy with this, I don't think it's adequate disclosure, but they won't change their methods, and I'm trying to find a way to describe what they actually do. The best I've come up with is "attitude on partner's lead and when discarding in active defence (e.g. cashout situations), count otherwise". I've never seen the like of this on a convention card before, but I think it must be an improvement on the original.

 

Any thoughts on whether this might meet the requirements on disclosure?

 

 

I too think this is "just bridge".

Dummy wins the opening lead with a singleton. 3rd hand shows suit preference now rather than attitude. Does that really need to be disclosed ?

6NT. The bidding indicates I have no points. Am I ever going to signal attitude ?

Declarer has 9 trumps and is drawing trumps. Am I going to lie about my count ?

Signals are just indications, not promises or demands.

[MickyB]

I agree that the pair in question are giving MI. Disclosing accurately in every situation is tricky, though, as defensive situations cannot always be placed into neat boxes in the same way that most [occurring] auctions can be. If a couple of vague statements about when you might show attitude instead of count is considered insufficient, you'll often have no choice but to state how you intend to take partner's card, which we already know to be incorrect procedure.

 

BTW, my normal agreement is "attitude unless attitude is known, in which case, count". How far is that off sufficient disclosure in your opinion, Jeremy?

[gnasher]

I think this is "just bridge".

It's possible for it to both "just bridge" and something that you write on the convention card.

 

Regardless of your normal signaling methods, sometimes you have to make exceptions to solve problems. You hope that partner will recognize the problem as well, and figure out what you're doing.

But that's not what was described in the original post. They're not making an exceptional deviation from the partnership's methods and hoping that partner will work it out: they clearly have a prior understanding that the signal will sometimes be attitude.

 

Dummy wins the opening lead with a singleton. 3rd hand shows suit preference now rather than attitude. Does that really need to be disclosed ?

Yes. It should be disclosed by whatever means the Regulating Authority specifies. In England (which is where VixTD plays), the regulations read "If the meaning of a signal depends upon the situation, the primary meaning and any alternative meanings must be stated on the convention card."

 

There is a box on the EBU convention card labelled "Other carding agreements, including secondary methods (state when applicable) and exceptions to above." If a partnership's signals are sometimes suit-preference, they should say so, and give an indication of when this applies.

 

Different jurisdictions may approach this differently. For example, the WBF requires a much higher level of detail than the EBU. Others may require less.

[gnasher]

I agree that the pair in question are giving MI. Disclosing accurately in every situation is tricky, though, as defensive situations cannot always be placed into neat boxes in the same way that most [occurring] auctions can be. If a couple of vague statements about when you might show attitude instead of count is considered insufficient, you'll often have no choice but to state how you intend to take partner's card, which we already know to be incorrect procedure.

You just have to explain your partnership understandings, but that includes understandings derived from shared experience. Tell declarer what you would know if you were a spectator who couldn't see any of the cards except dummy. Depending on the situation, that might be "In this siutuation it's standard attitude", "It depends whether he thinks I know his holding in the suit: if he does, it's count; otherwise it's attitude", or "No firm agreement, but I think he would give count here", or "Our general agreement is 'attitude unless count is important'; I'm not sure which applies here."

 

BTW, my normal agreement is "attitude unless attitude is known, in which case, count". How far is that off sufficient disclosure in your opinion, Jeremy?

I'm not Jeremy, but I'll answer anyway. That's sufficient for the convention card or as a response to a general question. It's not sufficient as an answer to a question about a specific situation.

[pran]

It's possible for it to both "just bridge" and something that you write on the convention card.

 

 

But that's not what was described in the original post. They're not making an exceptional deviation from the partnership's methods and hoping that partner will work it out: they clearly have a prior understanding that the signal will sometimes be attitude.

 

 

Yes. It should be disclosed by whatever means the Regulating Authority specifies. In England (which is where VixTD plays), the regulations read "If the meaning of a signal depends upon the situation, the primary meaning and any alternative meanings must be stated on the convention card."

 

There is a box on the EBU convention card labelled "Other carding agreements, including secondary methods (state when applicable) and exceptions to above." If a partnership's signals are sometimes suit-preference, they should say so, and give an indication of when this applies.

 

Different jurisdictions may approach this differently. For example, the WBF requires a much higher level of detail than the EBU. Others may require less.

How partnership understandings shall be disclosed is a matter of regulation.

The fact that they shall be fully disclosed is set in the laws.

[phil_20686]

I am unsure about what situations the OP means.

 

I think most experts play relatively flexible signals. For example, you might play K for count, but if you lead the K vs NT and QJxx appears in dummy you clearly should give SP. Primarily we give count, but there are innumerable situations in which it doesn't make sense to give count. Its not like there are clear or easy rules about when you give count. E.g. If you are playing vs a relay system that described declarers shape, you would never give count signals. Similarly, you will never give partner count signals if the play has revealed the count to partner, even if it is not yet clear to you.

 

The lead of an ace and finding a singleton in dummy vs a suit, is the most well known time to discard your prior carding agreements, but all such agreements are `just bridge' and often its not like its even very clear to the defence what their signals mean. There are lots of ambiguous situations where your meta-rules conflict.

 

I think we just have to accept that carding is not something that it is particularly easily to disclose. I mean, if I agree with an expert partner that we give count, there are still a gazillion undiscussed situations where I would expect either SP or attitude, and I just expect that expert partners to know that. There is also the never asked question about whether your signals ask for a switch, or just show that you have a feature in that suit. This is actually a very important difference. A lot of experts play that in situations where you hold almost all the defensive assets, SP is close to a command to switch, but when you don't hold very many its more like "this is the only suit where I hold any card of interest", and this is kind of expected to be GBK aswell.

 

I just don't understand how I can give full disclosure to a non expert. "I give the signals that I would expect a random expert to expect" is probably full disclosure, it is also incredibly unhelpful to any non experts. :)

[WellSpyder]

I think we just have to accept that carding is not something that it is particularly easily to disclose. I mean, if I agree with an expert partner that we give count, there are still a gazillion undiscussed situations where I would expect either SP or attitude, and I just expect that expert partners to know that. There is also the never asked question about whether your signals ask for a switch, or just show that you have a feature in that suit. This is actually a very important difference. A lot of experts play that in situations where you hold almost all the defensive assets, SP is close to a command to switch, but when you don't hold very many its more like "this is the only suit where I hold any card of interest", and this is kind of expected to be GBK aswell.

 

I just don't understand how I can give full disclosure to a non expert. "I give the signals that I would expect a random expert to expect" is probably full disclosure, it is also incredibly unhelpful to any non experts. :)

All that is probably true. It is still 100% wrong just to put "count" on your system card if what you are actually playing is "what we think partner needs to know, with count in unclear situations".

[gnasher]

I think we just have to accept that carding is not something that it is particularly easily to disclose.

In that case we should take particular care to try to disclose it as well as possible.

[barmar]

All that is probably true. It is still 100% wrong just to put "count" on your system card if what you are actually playing is "what we think partner needs to know, with count in unclear situations".

The ACBL CC has a checkbox labeled something like "Primary signal to partner's leads". That word "primary" is significant.

[bluejak]

I too think this is "just bridge".

Dummy wins the opening lead with a singleton. 3rd hand shows suit preference now rather than attitude. Does that really need to be disclosed ?

6NT. The bidding indicates I have no points. Am I ever going to signal attitude ?

Declarer has 9 trumps and is drawing trumps. Am I going to lie about my count ?

Signals are just indications, not promises or demands.

Let us look at your first question: dummy wins the opening lead with a singleton. I play with a client whom I have taught to show count. Her signal will be count unambiguously.

 

With my regular partner I have an agreement that it is Lavinthal at suit, count at NT.

 

With one or two of my irregular partners I do not know how they play this.

 

Do these need to be disclosed? Of course. It is certainly not "just bridge" that I play one thing with one partner, and a different thing with another. How are opponents to know that? Yet I know it, so if I do not disclose it then it becomes a Concealed Partnership Understanding, which is a no-no.

 

How to disclose it is another matter entirely, but certainly I would explain each position in response to a direct question.

[barmar]

If you have specific agreements about certain situations, you obviously have to disclose them.

 

But "tell partner what they think he needs to know" is not so straightforward. There aren't specific rules to this, you recognize the situations using bridge logic. There's no guarantee that you and partner will be on the same wavelength when it comes up.

[bluejak]

Yeah, true - ok, maybe true.

 

The trouble with "tell partner what he needs to know" is that I do not believe that bridge logic is the only criterion. There is also partnership experience.

 

There was a pair that told people they led randomly from xxx. This was investigated, and it was discovered that:

 

• In partner's suit they generally led the middle card
  
• If the top card was 8 or better they generally led the smallest card
  
• If the top card was 7 or less they generally led the top card
  

They were very surprised to be told that they should disclose this, and that random was an inaccurate description of their methods.

 

There are other similar positions. Many players know that "attitude" or "count" means Lavinthal when dummy has a singleton. They have an agreement with each other in this position but seem to think it is not disclosable. Perhaps like paua they think this is just bridge, but many people do not play it so it is not just bridge.

[mycroft]

A lot of these carding issues are "just bridge" after it has been pointed out once. Without the explanation (which may have nothing to do with this partner, or this decade for that matter), it's not clear.

 

I've always liked the response to "We play what partner will want to know.": "So, facing this dummy and the auction, what would partner most likely want to know? Please don't tell me anything about your hand."

[barmar]

A lot of these carding issues are "just bridge" after it has been pointed out once. Without the explanation (which may have nothing to do with this partner, or this decade for that matter), it's not clear.

 

I've always liked the response to "We play what partner will want to know.": "So, facing this dummy and the auction, what would partner most likely want to know? Please don't tell me anything about your hand."

And what if the only reason you could figure out what partner wants to know is based on what you have in your hand?

 

If you lead K from both AK and KQ, and partner leads the K, you should explain that he's showing either the A, Q, or shortness. The opponent can't expect you to narrow down the explanation if you happen to hold the A and/or Q.

 

bluejak's example where there were rules that could be enumerated is not the usual case. Usually, it's much more nebulous. 90% of the time you do what it says on the CC, but occasionally you figure out that something else is more important, and these tend to be unique, not describable in any general way.

[mycroft]

Then there's an issue. But remember, these are people who explicitly state, as full disclosure, "we signal what partner needs to know." (occasionally "we rarely signal, but when we do, we signal what partner needs to know.") As a principle of full disclosure, this is potentially the best they can do, but except when playing against another expert, it's *clearly insufficient*, and certainly *at least* Concealed Partnership Experience, if not Understanding. But how, legally, do you deal with that?

[bluejak]

bluejak's example where there were rules that could be enumerated is not the usual case. Usually, it's much more nebulous. 90% of the time you do what it says on the CC, but occasionally you figure out that something else is more important, and these tend to be unique, not describable in any general way.

Sorry to disagree, but it is the normal case. LHO leads the ♦A, dummy has xxx, and RHO plays the ♦9. You ask "What signals do you play?" and get the answer "We signal what partner needs to know". Do you really think this pair do not have an agreement what they play on ace leads?

 

In my view, most pairs who say that they tell partner what he needs to know, so long as they have been playing for some time, are telling porkies. I just do not believe them.

[barmar]

Sorry to disagree, but it is the normal case. LHO leads the ♦A, dummy has xxx, and RHO plays the ♦9. You ask "What signals do you play?" and get the answer "We signal what partner needs to know". Do you really think this pair do not have an agreement what they play on ace leads?

It's normal for that pair, but I was talking about players in general.

In my view, most pairs who say that they tell partner what he needs to know, so long as they have been playing for some time, are telling porkies. I just do not believe them.

I haven't encountered many (maybe not any?) players who've said something like this, so it's hard for me to respond to that. I'm still thinking about the original case, where the pair states a particular signalling style (e.g. primarily attitude), but occasionally deviates in order to tell partner what they think they need to know. I think this is the norm (ignoring all the novices who barely know how to signal at all).

[gnasher]

And what if the only reason you could figure out what partner wants to know is based on what you have in your hand?

You tell them what you would know if you were dummy. That might have to involve some conditional clauses.

[Finch]

There's a big difference between regular partnerships and occasional ones; and also between 'thinking' partnerships and non-thinking ones.

 

For virtually any regular partnership I agree that 'tell partner what he needs/wants to know' is simply insufficient disclosure. All this stuff about 'general bridge knowledge' or 'just bridge' is trying to conceal partnership agreements. If it's come up before and/or you have discussed it, it's an agreement not GBK and your opponents are entitled to know it.

 

The convention card may not have room for all your signalling agreements (certainly it doesn't have room for all of mine) but it certainly has room to say e.g. primary attitude, secondary count, sometimes suit preference which is enough to tell declarer he should ask if he cares.

 

And as gnasher says, you tell them what you would know if you were dummy (assuming dummy knows your bidding agreements, if there were any bidding).