"What partner needs to know"

[Finch]

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?

 

I ask them how they work out what partner needs to know. I ask them if this situation has come up before, and what signal was given then.

[Finch]

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).

 

Once that's happened once, it becomes part of your leading agreements and you should disclose it. I'd never lead 4th from that holding and my partner knows that.

[Finch]

I too think this is "just bridge".

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

2. 6NT. The bidding indicates I have no points. Am I ever going to signal attitude ?

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

Signals are just indications, not promises or demands.

 

If you have discussed this with your partner, it's not "just bridge". It's an agreement.

Take your examples (I've added numbering into your post)

 

1. Yes. If it's a NT contract I would give either count or attitude, not suit preference, and partner knows which it would be. If it's a suit contract I might still give attitude depending on the position, and partner knows that as well. These both need to be disclosed.

2. Yes. You might discourage to tell partner you do not have a length stop in the suit, or give suit preference for the suit you hold the 10 in.

3. I don't understand the question. If you play count signals in trumps (which some people do in some positions) then you and your partner may have discussed when you will give them truthfully. If you play something else (e.g. suit preference) you will of course disclose that.

[bluejak]

While I am unhappy with the inadequate disclosure following from telling partner what he needs to know, one swallow does not make a summer, and it does not become an agreement because it happened once. If discussed, yes, but not otherwise.

 

Suppose you agree to play 3rd/lowest. You pick up J982 and decide you cannot afford the 8 and the 9 is misleading. You lead the 2 and partner miscounts the hand and lets the contract through. You decide that was a bad idea!

 

Now your partner tells the opponents you have an agreement to lead 4th when 3rd is a high card. Is he right? No, of course not.

 

I believe in Full Disclosure as a principle, but not in single undiscussed experiences being treated as agreements.

[pran]

While I am unhappy with the inadequate disclosure following from telling partner what he needs to know, one swallow does not make a summer, and it does not become an agreement because it happened once. If discussed, yes, but not otherwise.

 

Suppose you agree to play 3rd/lowest. You pick up J982 and decide you cannot afford the 8 and the 9 is misleading. You lead the 2 and partner miscounts the hand and lets the contract through. You decide that was a bad idea!

 

Now your partner tells the opponents you have an agreement to lead 4th when 3rd is a high card. Is he right? No, of course not.

 

I believe in Full Disclosure as a principle, but not in single undiscussed experiences being treated as agreements.

There is a significant difference between partnership agreements and partnership understandings: The latter can exist without any previous experience or discussion within the partnership ("undiscussed") but must still be fully disclosed (Law 40A1).

 

So "undiscussed" is never an acceptable disclosure of an implicit partnership understanding.

 

(I would consider bluejak's "single swallow" here as an (unfortunate) deviation from the partnership understanding whether it is explicit or implicit)

[Vampyr]

 

Now your partner tells the opponents you have an agreement to lead 4th when 3rd is a high card. Is he right? No, of course not.

 

 

It depends on whether you have agreed with partner after the hand that you will never do it again.

 

In either case, if it is not disclosed and it happens again, I hope that you will explain to the director that the opponents may have been damaged by your lack of disclosure.

 

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

 

Sure; and checking it, as long as that is not the only information you have included in that section, is fine.

[bluejak]

It depends on whether you have agreed with partner after the hand that you will never do it again.

 

In either case, if it is not disclosed and it happens again, I hope that you will explain to the director that the opponents may have been damaged by your lack of disclosure.

No. That is not the way it is. If you do not have an understanding or agreement then you do not have an understanding or agreement, and the fact that sometime somewhere something similar occurred does not change that.

 

The whole aim of informing opponents correctly is to be helpful, and every partnership of reasonable experience has a myriad of odd happenings. It is not helpful to the opponents nor required by Law to detail something that happened which may or may not happen again.

 

It is only when it becomes an implicit [or explicit] agreement that it needs to be disclosed. Confusing opponents unnecessarily with things that may never happen again is bad for the game and not required by Law.

[barmar]

While I understand that we technically should provide disclosure like this, I really have a hard time seeing how it can be practical. Lots of things come up in the history of a partnership, but it seems like it would be really hard to enumerate the possibilities when answering a general question about your defensive carding methods.

 

Are you supposed to explain "We make 3rd and 5th leads, unless we have a 4-card holding where the 3rd card would be misleading"? Do you have to be specific about which cards would be "misleading"?

 

And I still don't see how to deal with the "tell partner what he needs to know" issue that started the thread. I think it's rarely possible to describe this in any general way, it's usually based on what you have in your hand and the specifics of the deal.

 

I'm not talking about potential agreements like "When partner leads a suit in which dummy has a singleton, we give suit preference instead of attitude." But even this also admits of exceptions -- should you qualify it with "But if he has a Yarborough, he gives count"?

 

It seems like disclosure could go on and on, trying to describe all the possibilities. I wouldn't even expect players to think of them when remembering their agreements -- exceptions generally only come to mind when they actually come up.

 

As an analogy, imagine you and your partner decide to bid some MSC hands together. These are almost by definition hands that don't fit well into standard bidding systems. Do your decisions in this process become disclosable agreements? If asked what a bid means, should you mention hands like in the MSC problem that came up a year or two before, even though you've probably forgotten that discussion? In fact, as a more concrete example, if partner makes a reverse from 1♣ to 2♦, should you mention the possibility that he holds the MSC Death Hand?

[Finch]

While I understand that we technically should provide disclosure like this, I really have a hard time seeing how it can be practical. Lots of things come up in the history of a partnership, but it seems like it would be really hard to enumerate the possibilities when answering a general question about your defensive carding methods.

 

Are you supposed to explain "We make 3rd and 5th leads, unless we have a 4-card holding where the 3rd card would be misleading"? Do you have to be specific about which cards would be "misleading"?

 

And I still don't see how to deal with the "tell partner what he needs to know" issue that started the thread. I think it's rarely possible to describe this in any general way, it's usually based on what you have in your hand and the specifics of the deal.

 

I'm not talking about potential agreements like "When partner leads a suit in which dummy has a singleton, we give suit preference instead of attitude." But even this also admits of exceptions -- should you qualify it with "But if he has a Yarborough, he gives count"?

 

It seems like disclosure could go on and on, trying to describe all the possibilities. I wouldn't even expect players to think of them when remembering their agreements -- exceptions generally only come to mind when they actually come up.

 

As an analogy, imagine you and your partner decide to bid some MSC hands together. These are almost by definition hands that don't fit well into standard bidding systems. Do your decisions in this process become disclosable agreements? If asked what a bid means, should you mention hands like in the MSC problem that came up a year or two before, even though you've probably forgotten that discussion? In fact, as a more concrete example, if partner makes a reverse from 1♣ to 2♦, should you mention the possibility that he holds the MSC Death Hand?

 

As I've already said, and others have said, you disclose partnership understanding.

Some pairs have discussed leading 4th when 3rd highest is potentially misleading playing 3&5. This is very common treatment in Norway (or so I'm told). This is clearly completely different to strict 3rd & 5th (or 3rd & long) which I play. Of course you disclose it and this is something that's important enough that it should be on the card rather than just saying "3rd & 5th". I don't see why you even think you wouldn't explain this.

 

If a player can't remember what he and his partner have discussed, then it's probably not a partnership understanding. If you've discussed something and agreed it, you disclose it. Why is this even suggested to be a problem?

 

When we do bidding practice and new sequences come up, if we then agree that a sequence could include a particular hand type, we would then disclose it when it came up (and it would get put into the system file immediately). As a more concrete example, if you know that your partner's revserse into 2D might be the "MSC death hand" (whatever that is, there's more than one of them) then I really don't understand why you shouldn't tell the opponents. I have methods which, after a response showing hearts, allow me to keep my reverse into diamonds promising 4+ diamonds and longer clubs so I can confidently say that 2D is natural.

 

Just step back a bit: why are you so worried about explaining partnership agreements to the opponents?

[barmar]

As I've already said, and others have said, you disclose partnership understanding.

Some pairs have discussed leading 4th when 3rd highest is potentially misleading playing 3&5. This is very common treatment in Norway (or so I'm told). This is clearly completely different to strict 3rd & 5th (or 3rd & long) which I play. Of course you disclose it and this is something that's important enough that it should be on the card rather than just saying "3rd & 5th". I don't see why you even think you wouldn't explain this.

Because never in my life have I heard anyone explain it.

 

Similarly, I play 4th best leads. But if I'm leading from a 3-card suit, I lead 3rd best.

Just step back a bit: why are you so worried about explaining partnership agreements to the opponents?

I'm not. I'm trying to explain why meeting this expectation fully is impactical.

 

I'm the one who said that telling partner what he needs to know is "just bridge".

[Vampyr]

I'm the one who said that telling partner what he needs to know is "just bridge".

 

Then your explanation will be quite lengthy, as you will then have to tell the opponents the entirety of what you believe to be "just bridge". Tell them the truth, and put the more common situations on your convention card.

[Vampyr]

No. That is not the way it is. If you do not have an understanding or agreement then you do not have an understanding or agreement, and the fact that sometime somewhere something similar occurred does not change that.

 

 

How many times do you have to do the same thing that is "not your agreement" until it becomes your agreement? You say not 2. 3? 10? 100? 10^8?

[blackshoe]

As many times as it takes for the partner of the doer to expect that may be what you are doing. Actually, it's not just a matter of how many times; it's also a matter of how frequently it happens.

[Vampyr]

As many times as it takes for the partner of the doer to expect that may be what you are doing. Actually, it's not just a matter of how many times; it's also a matter of how frequently it happens.

 

So if it happens once and you say "I didn't want to lead the 8 because I thought it might be misleading," it's clear that it must be disclosed. If you happen to say nothing it's not disclosable? This doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

I think that "expect" is not the right word; you are looking for "not be surprised". Which I think partner won't be after the first time.

[blackshoe]

So if it happens once and you say "I didn't want to lead the 8 because I thought it might be misleading," it's clear that it must be disclosed. If you happen to say nothing it's not disclosable? This doesn't make a lot of sense.

Well, since that's not what I said, whether it makes sense is irrelevant, isn't it?

 

I think that "expect" is not the right word; you are looking for "not be surprised". Which I think partner won't be after the first time.

"Expect" is what I said, "expect" is what I meant. You do not get to twist my words to suit your own conclusions.

[Vampyr]

Well, since that's not what I said, whether it makes sense is irrelevant, isn't it?

 

 

"Expect" is what I said, "expect" is what I meant. You do not get to twist my words to suit your own conclusions.

 

I was trying to understand. But instead I shall simply say that you are wrong.

[blackshoe]

You're entitled to your opinion. I'll keep mine, thank you.

[gnasher]

Because never in my life have I heard anyone explain it.

I don't see why that's relevant. Even if some other players don't disclose their methods properly, that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to do so.

 

You should explain your methods in a way that your opponents will understand. That may vary with the opponents. It sounds as though when you play "3rd and 5th", it means "3rd, unless the 3rd is to valuable to waste". That's probably what everyone in your locality will understand by "3rd and 5th", so there's no need for more explanation. If, on the other hand, you played "3rd, unless the 3rd is to valuable to waste or might be misleading", that's not what your opponents would assume, so you should be more specific.

 

I'm not. I'm trying to explain why meeting this expectation fully is impactical.

So do the best you can. Saying "We tell partner what he needs to know" isn't even close to good disclosure.

 

I'm the one who said that telling partner what he needs to know is "just bridge".

Are you still talking about the case in the original post? The original post described a pair who

- Play count in most sitiuations but attitude in some.

- Write "count" on their card.

- Don't write "attitude" anywhere.

- Play in a jurisdiction where there is a space on the convention card for secondary methods, and where the regulations requre that secondary methods be documented.

 

This pair didn't even go as far as saying "We tell partner what he needs to know." It seems astonishing that anyone would consider this acceptable.

Edited October 16, 2012 by gnasher

[bluejak]

How many times do you have to do the same thing that is "not your agreement" until it becomes your agreement? You say not 2. 3? 10? 100? 10^8?

It is not a matter of numbers. It is a matter of when it is an agreement. If I play 3rd and lowest, and realise that partner is likely to lead the 4th from four when he cannot afford the 3rd, and it is because of either experience or discussion or agreements within our group then it is an agreement, implicit or explicit, and is disclosable.

 

If, on the other hand, on an isolated occasion my partner does something strange, I don't immediately dive the for the system file and writer it down. We haven't agreed anything.

[barmar]

As many times as it takes for the partner of the doer to expect that may be what you are doing. Actually, it's not just a matter of how many times; it's also a matter of how frequently it happens.

Right. I've been playing with my regular partner for about a dozen years. So something that comes up once or twice a year may have come up more than 10 times. I think I'm still unlikely to remember how we dealt with it the last time, so I'd probably have to work it out from basic principles each time. I wouldn't be surprised if we handled it differently each time, even if we discussed afterward what the "right" thing should be.

[Vampyr]

Right. I've been playing with my regular partner for about a dozen years. So something that comes up once or twice a year may have come up more than 10 times. I think I'm still unlikely to remember how we dealt with it the last time, so I'd probably have to work it out from basic principles each time. I wouldn't be surprised if we handled it differently each time, even if we discussed afterward what the "right" thing should be.

 

So you think that non-disclosure is still OK? This thread is a real eye-opener.

 

It seems that a lot of people's interest in the laws forum is based on their interest in how to circumvent the laws.

[blackshoe]

Can we not have a discussion of what the laws require without accusing each other of trying to circumvent it?

[mycroft]

So, you have to work it out from principles. But there is 10 years of partnership experience guiding you in working it out. "We tell partner what he needs to know" subsumes all of that into a meaningless (to declarer) phrase.

 

Again, yes, it's difficult to explain your experience. But starting with principles clear from your partnership is a good start. Even "Attitude is primary signal to partner's leads, with count or SP if attitude can be worked out, depending on what dummy is showing" is better than "what partner needs to know".

 

Again, the real ugly is "we rarely signal, but". "Yeah, so how do you know to signal? I'm not Al Roth, I can't work it out from first principles, and *I'm entitled to the information*." (not the judgement, but the ability to use my judgement to make the same guess partner and "rarely signaller" is making).

[barmar]

So you think that non-disclosure is still OK? This thread is a real eye-opener.

No, I'm saying that I can only be expected to disclose things I actually remember and think are relevant.

 

"Tell me everything you know about partner's leads" is an impossible task. It's like asking a driver to explain all the "rules of the road". I can't list them all, but I know what to do when a particular situation comes up, and after the fact I can explain why I did something.