Suit preference when obvious.

[mr1303]

Declarer, in a 4-4 spade fit in 4S, wins the opening lead (a heart, which opponents have bid) and LHO discards the 2 of diamonds. Asking about carding methods, told count, or suit preference when obvious. Declarer then insists on knowing which it is.

 

Is declarer entitled to know? Opps give a number of examples of when it would be obvious, and state how they would give suit preference.

 

The director was called on this one.

[blackshoe]

I'm confused. Normally it's declarer's LHO who makes the opening lead. And normally, a player who has bid or supported a suit doesn't show out on the first round of that suit. So what the heck is going on here?

[Mbodell]

I think you are entitled to any explicit or implicit agreements about what "obvious" means. Like if they agree that it is suit preference if the dummy has a stiff, or if one hand has no trump, or whatever. That doesn't mean they tell you "that card was suit preference" but could tell you that "It is suit preference when obvious, for instance when A or B or C is true" and have declarer be able to know that B is obviously true this time.

[barmar]

Haven't we been over this before? Would someone like to find the past threads about it so we don't rehash it all again?

[Zelandakh]

What is obvious to a pair that has played together for many years is often not obvious to an opponent. On the other hand, what is obvious to one half of a pick up pair is often not to the other half. Declarer is entitled to know everything that the player's partner knew prior to picking their cards up. If the situation is similar to one that has come up before then declarer should be told this. If similar situations have come up multiple times before and the signalling method chosen was always the same then I would say that the defenders are close to trying to confuse declarer deliberately by the described explanation.

[jallerton]

I agree with Zelandakh.

 

If a partnership has discussed its discards, it will have agreed on a primary method. The opponents are entitled to know what this primary method is.

 

If a partnership has played a few sessions together, each partner will have a pretty good idea when the other partner considers that the primary method does not apply. Again, the opponents are entitled to know this.

 

The opening post is a bit unclear, but I assume that it means to refer to a discard at trick 1 or 2. If so, in a national event, I'd expect the discarder's partner to know whether the discard in this situation was suit preference or count, and declarer is entitled to a straight answer to her question.

[Trinidad]

The opponents should state what they know. That means that there are three possible answers:

 

1) "This is count for diamonds"

2) "This is suit preference for ..."

3) "This situation has not occured before. I honestly don't know whether this is a count or suit preference situation." To be followed by examples of what would be count and what would be suit preference.

 

I think that in this situation it is pretty unlikely that 3) is the correct answer.

 

Rik