Source of tricks ?

[Cyberyeti]

The auction proceeds unopposed 1N-2♦(♥)-3♦(source of tricks in diamonds, at least 4♦, at least 3 good ♥)-4♥

 

What would you consider to be the minimum holding for the description "source of tricks" ?

[lamford]

The auction proceeds unopposed 1N-2♦(♥)-3♦(source of tricks in diamonds, at least 4♦, at least 3 good ♥)-4♥

 

What would you consider to be the minimum holding for the description "source of tricks" ?

QJxx if that is the method. What else can one bid on Ax AKxx QJxx xxx if playing a weak NT, or on Ax AKxx QJxx Kxx if playing a strong NT? It also depends on what 3H and 2NT mean. And you can ask them to elaborate, although, in the words of Catherine Tate, "Am I bovvered?"

[Hanoi5]

KQJx

QJTxx

[Cyberyeti]

QJxx if that is the method. What else can one bid on Ax AKxx QJxx xxx if playing a weak NT, or on Ax AKxx QJxx Kxx if playing a strong NT? It also depends on what 3H and 2NT mean. And you can ask them to elaborate, although, in the words of Catherine Tate, "Am I bovvered?"

 

It became relevant in the play, dummy had Qx, I had K8xx and I had to work out whether to cover (correct for AJxx/AJ9x, irrelevant for AJ10x, wrong for AJ109). Afterwards they were extremely evasive about what 2N and 3♥ would mean, I did ask. I think they may have also said maximum about the 3♦, but I'm not sure.

 

I do think there's a difference between "reasonable 4 card suit" and "source of tricks" with the latter being stronger. Am I wrong in this ? I was expecting AQJx/AJ109 or something like that for the description of "source of tricks" ie something that will make tricks opposite xxx and a lot of tricks opposite Hxx.

[lamford]

It became relevant in the play, dummy had Qx, I had K8xx and I had to work out whether to cover (correct for AJxx/AJ9x, irrelevant for AJ10x, wrong for AJ109). Afterwards they were extremely evasive about what 2N and 3♥ would mean, I did ask. I think they may have also said maximum about the 3♦, but I'm not sure.

 

I do think there's a difference between "reasonable 4 card suit" and "source of tricks" with the latter being stronger. Am I wrong in this ? I was expecting AQJx/AJ109 or something like that for the description of "source of tricks" ie something that will make tricks opposite xxx and a lot of tricks opposite Hxx.

I think you are right in your expectation but you can always ask a supplementary question if it matters. And no partnership would distinguish between AJxx, AJ9x or AJ109 in the auction!

[Cyberyeti]

I think you are right in your expectation but you can always ask a supplementary question if it matters. And no partnership would distinguish between AJxx, AJ9x or AJ109 in the auction!

 

To me, AJ109 is a source of tricks, AJ52 is not, because of how they play opposite xxx or Qxx, the border comes at AJ10x which I have no strong views on but would probably consider OK, I was wondering what other people thought.

 

I didn't think I even needed to ask as to me AJ52 simply was manifestly not something that should be described as a source of tricks, unfortunately, that was the holding and I didn't cover.

[barmar]

Yeah, AJxx is at most 2 tricks, calling that a "source of tricks" is really stretching the concept.

 

 

[lamford]

To me, AJ109 is a source of tricks, AJ52 is not, because of how they play opposite xxx or Qxx, the border comes at AJ10x which I have no strong views on but would probably consider OK, I was wondering what other people thought.

 

I didn't think I even needed to ask as to me AJ52 simply was manifestly not something that should be described as a source of tricks, unfortunately, that was the holding and I didn't cover.

The key information is what they would bid with a maximum but without a suitable source of tricks. You are entitled to know:

"about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding." (Law 20F). Was there any reason why you could not ask? I presume that 2S showed a low doubleton somewhere and 2NT showed a source of tricks in spades, and 3H maybe a minimum with 4 trumps., or something along those lines - it matters not. If that were the case, then the chap has to bid something and 3D might well have been the nearest he could manage.

[aguahombre]

Our definition when we use the term "source of tricks" is a suit which has the potential to produce a side source of tricks.

 

IMO, AJ9X or KQTX will do. But, that shouldn't mean squat to you when trying to pry information out of the unpryable. We don't have the super-accept agreements given in the OP, so it is up to them to know and disclose what they have agreed.

 

It is up to us, however, to not make up our own understanding of something that might mean something different to the opponents ---and to require them to explain via more specific terms than "source of tricks".

[barmar]

"source of tricks" is a common term among bridge players. You shouldn't have to cross-examine the opponents to find out that they're using it in a completely different way than everyone else.

 

If someone described AJ52 as a source of tricks to me, I'd feel like I was lied to. If they were inexperienced players I might give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were confused about terminology. But if they're good players, they should know what this means to the community.

[nige1]

The auction proceeds unopposed 1N-2♦(♥)-3♦(source of tricks in diamonds, at least 4♦, at least 3 good ♥)-4♥ What would you consider to be the minimum holding for the description "source of tricks" ?

Only a few transfer breaks are available. Presumably:

• 3♥ = MIN. 4+ ♥.
• 2N = MAX 4+ ♥. No other suit worth emphasizing.
• 2♠/3♣/3♦ MAX. 3+ ♥. Source of tricks. With such an understanding, the "source of tricks" might be 4 to an honour (at least).

[aguahombre]

"source of tricks" is a common term among bridge players. You shouldn't have to cross-examine the opponents to find out that they're using it in a completely different way than everyone else.

This is precisely why I dislike using names for conventions or agreements. Sure the phrase "source of tricks" is used a lot. I would never presume that my definition of the term is the same as yours, nor would I assume that there is a particular way "everyone else" uses the term.

 

If you don't want to ask, that is entirely on you. I, personaliy, won't accept "Capp" or somesuch as an explanation of a call; and I don't particularly care if the opponent feels put out by having to explain what his/her partner's call means -- or whether they think I am just being a jerk because "everyone knows" what Capp means.

[barmar]

"source of tricks" is not the name of a convention, it's a description of a holding.

 

If you can't presume that your definition of terms is the same as someone else's, how can you have any meaningful communication?

[Trinidad]

"source of tricks" is a common term among bridge players. You shouldn't have to cross-examine the opponents to find out that they're using it in a completely different way than everyone else.

 

If someone described AJ52 as a source of tricks to me, I'd feel like I was lied to. If they were inexperienced players I might give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were confused about terminology. But if they're good players, they should know what this means to the community.

That may all be true, but everything needs to be seen in the perspective of the auction. Normally, to me, a "source of tricks" is a nice 6+ card suit headed by something like KQT or better. It is pretty obvious that the term can't really apply to a 1NT opener. Asking an extra question or two when the opponents clearly don't understand what they are explaining cannot really hurt.

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

"source of tricks" is not the name of a convention, it's a description of a holding.

 

If you can't presume that your definition of terms is the same as someone else's, how can you have any meaningful communication?

How about by discussing with partner what it entails, in more detail in different contexts, and being able to articulate same to the opponents when they ask in a particular context.

 

This would fall under "duh", IMO. Not doing the above are failures to communicate...and if you and partner have not communicated about a particular sequence, you don't describe it at all in terms like "source of tricks". It is just undiscussed or a natural suit bid of some kind undiscussed.

[helene_t]

It is just a long suit trial, showing a decent 4-card suit. They may or may not have specific agreements about how good the suit has to be, but if they had they probably would have disclosed it better.

[barmar]

It is just a long suit trial, showing a decent 4-card suit. They may or may not have specific agreements about how good the suit has to be, but if they had they probably would have disclosed it better.

If that's what they meant, why didn't they just say so? Calling a 4-card suit with broken honors a trick source is just plain deceptive. That's more like the kind of suit I make a help-suit game try with -- it's not a source of tricks by itself, but it has potential if partner has an honor or two to fill in the hole.

This shouldn't be subject to partnership agreement. You can't have a partnership agreement to call a 3-card suit a "doubleton", can you? These are just common bridge terms, they mean what the bridge community has agreed they mean. Humpty Dumpty is wrong, words don't mean what you want them to mean.

[helene_t]

Yes I am not saying it is great disclosure, but depending on the level of the players I just think that a misnamed long suit trial is much more likely than the agreent to show HHHx alongside the four-card hearts support.

[Zelandakh]

If you can't presume that your definition of terms is the same as someone else's, how can you have any meaningful communication?

By asking "And what does that mean precisely?" or words to that effect. I am reminded of the case reported here of someone at a major (world?) championship getting very upset because an opponent described their call as Minor Suit Stayman whereas they "knew" that Stayman always asks for a major. For a more obvious example, look up the definition of relay in the ACBL. And for an even better example, some pairs around here play "Standard American". No problem you might think. Except it turns out that Standard American means playing Forum D with a short club (5542). Yet for all of the locals this is perfectly meaningful communication that they all understand.

[blackshoe]

Humpty Dumpty is wrong, words don't mean what you want them to mean.

Humpty didn't say that. He said "Words mean what I want them to mean." B-)

[barmar]

By asking "And what does that mean precisely?" or words to that effect.

That doesn't solve anything. If you don't have common terminology, you won't understand the answer to that question, either.

 

"A source of tricks is at least a 4 card suit with at least 2 honors."

"What do you mean by 'honors'?" (Do they really count the 10?)

 

Eventually you may land in the vicinity of "that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

[hotShot]

I would say, a "source of tricks" should produce at least 3 tricks in the selected denomination.

[aguahombre]

I won't be describing the tin cans that homeless guy collects as a source of income because "everyone" who is "anyone" knows what a source of income is and I wouldn't want to mislead the knowledgeable elite into thinking they would get rich taking his loot.

 

Or, I might ask myself: How can these smart people be so dumb they don't even ask how many cans are involved?

[Cyberyeti]

I won't be describing the tin cans that homeless guy collects as a source of income because "everyone" who is "anyone" knows what a source of income is and I wouldn't want to mislead the knowledgeable elite into thinking they would get rich taking his loot.

 

Or, I might ask myself: How can these smart people be so dumb they don't even ask how many cans are involved?

 

 

This was more a case of finding he was getting £100 for 3 cans, it was a long way what I thought a source of tricks was, I didn't really consider anybody would describe that holding in that way.

 

I've been thinking about my definition, and it would be something like "50:50 or better for 2 tricks opposite xxx, and 75%+ for 3 tricks opposite Qxx". I didn't extend it to holdings including the Q, I don't know how other people think on this. So something like AJ98/AJ102/KJ102 would be the minimum for me. I suspect we play the same system as them and use the description of "reasonable 4 card suit" rather than "source of tricks".

[barmar]

I suspect we play the same system as them and use the description of "reasonable 4 card suit" rather than "source of tricks".

That seems like a better description to me.

 

A similar issue can arise with a convention like Ogust. The responses distinguish between "good" and "bad" suits. Everyone I've ever played with seemed to understand that a good suit is 6 cards to 2 of the top 3 honors. Although I do have one occasional partner who likes to open weak 2's frequently with 5-card suits, so he considers almost any 6-card suit to be "good", but he doesn't use the good/bad terminology, he describes the responses as showing 5- or 6-card suits -- he knows his style is non-mainstream, and the usual wording would confuse opponents.