Style disclosure

[aguahombre]

This question comes from an appeal. But I don't really want to get into the actual rulings, so move it if you want.

 

Red/Red:

 

(1S) 3C...Next player asks for style.

 

Your agreement is "normal attention to colors", or not suicidal. Your experience is that partner might have bid 3C on:

 

XXX

XX

X

AKQJXXX or

 

AKJXXXX + an outside King at these colors.

 

How would you disclose your partnership style?

 

I personally am opposed to using "preemptive", because it means nothing ---or "intermediate", which means strong but just short of a double to some people. And, my idea of normal attention to vulnerability might not be everyone's. But, what would be a helpful answer to the question?

[akwoo]

I think a good reply would be "sound preempt for this vulnerability, meaning usually more than 6.5 playing tricks with little defense".

[Trinidad]

I would reply: "My partner is so conservative that the bid practically doesn't exist." or "Suggests me to bid 3NT."

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

I would reply: "My partner is so conservative that the bid practically doesn't exist." or "Suggests me to bid 3NT."

 

Rik

Is that a suggestion, or an objection to the conditions? At equal red, the examples I gave were maximums the hypothetical me has seen partner hold. AKJTXXX and out is possible.

[gnasher]

I'd say "AKJ10xxx and nothing else would be a minimum. With the queen of trumps or a side king as well, that would make it a maximum."

[Trinidad]

Is that a suggestion, or an objection to the conditions? At equal red, the examples I gave were maximums the hypothetical me has seen partner hold. AKJTXXX and out is possible.

No, sorry, I thought these were typical hands, rather than maximum hands. And my post was a somewhat lame way to express my opinion on such a style of preemptive jump overcalls.

 

More serious, now: How about: "His maximum hands are about a queen stronger than most would expect.", followed by some description of the minimum hands?

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

6-7 playing tricks ?

[aguahombre]

The AC in the case gave advice (not an adverse ruling) that the pair should use "heavy". The ACBL uses "sound" vs "light" for its CC checkboxes.

 

Gnasher, Rik, and Cyber seem to shy away from adjectives which are subject to the eye of the beholder. "Intermediate" also means different things to different people. "Disciplined" doesn't get it done either, IMO.

[Cyberyeti]

The AC in the case gave advice (not an adverse ruling) that the pair should use "heavy". The ACBL uses "sound" vs "light" for its CC checkboxes.

 

Gnasher, Rik, and Cyber seem to shy away from advectives which are subject to the eye of the beholder. "Intermediate" also means different things to different people. "Disciplined" doesn't get it done either, IMO.

Weak to intermediate, good 7 card suit I think would be acceptable in the EBU.

[Cascade]

The standard in the laws is:

 

"When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players."

 

Its not completely clear what is "special information" but I feel if you are getting an advantage from information that you withhold then you are not fulfilling your obligations.

 

And you might argue that it is not practical to give all information.

 

I think a good practical answer typically includes some quantitative information and some qualitative information. The quantitative information could be in terms of hcp or playing tricks or similar. There are potential difficulties when using something that is not standard like playing tricks (everyone counts them differently) or if you count your hcp in a non-standard way ( I received an email enquiry recently about partnerships that completely discount singleton honours, king and below, without disclosing). If so I feel you do need to be careful about something that could be misleading.

 

We don't have a weak jump overcall of 3♣ so here are some examples of what I say for our weak twos:

 

"5-10 5 or 6 hearts, could be quite weak or a very weak suit at this vulnerability" for our favourable weak twos

 

"5-10 5 or 6 hearts, usually six or extra distribution and sound when vulnerable" for vulnerable weak twos.

 

I will also add information about the position - "aggressive in first seat" etc

[gnasher]

The AC in the case gave advice (not an adverse ruling) that the pair should use "heavy". The ACBL uses "sound" vs "light" for its CC checkboxes.

 

Gnasher, Rik, and Cyber seem to shy away from adjectives which are subject to the eye of the beholder. "Intermediate" also means different things to different people. "Disciplined" doesn't get it done either, IMO.

Adjectives are fine if they're going to be understood, and obviously it takes less time than giving examples. However, if you choose an adjective when you could have given a more precise definition, and that leads to a misunderstanding, it's at least partly your fault.

 

If I had this agreement and I were playing against people I knew would understand, I might say something like "Very solid" or "Like something from a 1960s textbook".

[lalldonn]

Preemptive but very sound, then I would give an example hand that is typical or that he recently opened 3c with.

[ggwhiz]

I have a tough time with this and everything in my partnership must come with max. disclaimers as in "Wide range, not usually suicidal but count the lattes. They all came with double shots".

[billw55]

Sound suit with zero or one outside value.

[barmar]

count the lattes

I can't find a definition of "lattes" other than "short for caffe lattes" (a variety of coffee).

[aguahombre]

I can't find a definition of "lattes" other than "short for caffe lattes" (a variety of coffee).

Yes, and he also mentioned a double shot. I prefer quads. Maybe he actually meant the reference to expresso.

 

It is the plural of latte.

[ggwhiz]

I have a tough time with this and everything in my partnership must come with max. disclaimers as in "Wide range, not usually suicidal but count the lattes. They all came with double shots".

 

A better description is that the soundness of the bid is inversely proportional to the caffeine intake. Sorry, at my level that's the best disclosure I can give you.

 

Of course I once had an opp call the Director on my pard, be summarily dismissed and then ask this question on the next hand. What can you say but "She doesn't like you anymore"?

[gordontd]

I can't find a definition of "lattes" other than "short for caffe lattes" (a variety of coffee).

Lattie is Polari for apartment, but that probably doesn't clarify anything. :)

[CamHenry]

I have a tough time with this and everything in my partnership must come with max. disclaimers as in "Wide range, not usually suicidal but count the lattes. They all came with double shots".

 

There are times when a description of my bids could well be "nominally XYZ, but he hasn't had an opening hand in twelve boards: this may have an effect".

 

(I resisted the temptation to open in third on 932/Q9863/J85/76, all white, last night...)

[bluejak]

(I resisted the temptation to open in third on 932/Q9863/J85/76, all white, last night...)

Why?

 

Anyway, aren't you English? The English term is "White", "All White" is an Americanism.

 

If you went to work on an egg, and it wouldn't start, what would you do? Pull the yolk out and it will be all white. :)

 

[i think you may have to be of a certain age to understand that.]

[Vampyr]

Anyway, aren't you English? The English term is "White", "All White" is an Americanism.

 

Just the plain "white" would refer to our own vulnerability -- what about the opponents?

 

Anyway what is normal in my experience is "love all".

[WellSpyder]

Just the plain "white" would refer to our own vulnerability -- what about the opponents?

I think you are betraying your transatlantic origins here, Vampyr. If the opponents are vulnerable and you are not, the English term is "green", not "white", so a single colour defines both sides' vulnerability not just one.

[gordontd]

Just the plain "white" would refer to our own vulnerability -- what about the opponents?

 

Anyway what is normal in my experience is "love all".

I have a feeling the terminology is related more to age than to geography.

[mycroft]

Heh, I've described our weak 2s (playing K/S - we may be playing EHAA soon, at least for a laugh, at which point these'll start being "sound" weak 2s...) as "Natural weak 2. Agressive, though; I've seen J-sixth at these colours...don't think that's the minimum, either." (cue "asking about unAlerted weak 2♦ and passing" rant).

 

Usually when asked about style, my opponents say "weak". What kind of suit strength? "Oh, I expect 2/top 3..." Am I the only one asking this?

[Zelandakh]

If you went to work on an egg, and it wouldn't start, what would you do? Pull the yolk out and it will be all white. :)

Nowadays all the eggs are auto-yolked. Very handy when you want to make a meringue.