BBO Discussion Forums: "What partner needs to know" - BBO Discussion Forums

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?

barmar, on 2012-October-10, 15:13, said:

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.

bluejak, on 2012-October-10, 18:15, said:

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

Quote

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).

barmar, on 2012-October-10, 15:13, said:

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

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).

mycroft, on 2012-October-10, 17:44, said:

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.

barmar, on 2012-October-05, 10:54, said:

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.

paua, on 2012-October-05, 15:26, said:

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.

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.

bluejak, on 2012-October-13, 18:08, said:

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)

bluejak, on 2012-October-13, 18:08, said:

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.

barmar, on 2012-October-08, 17:23, said:

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

Vampyr, on 2012-October-14, 13:09, said:

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.

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?

barmar, on 2012-October-14, 17:19, said:

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?

FrancesHinden, on 2012-October-15, 15:27, said:

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.

Quote

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".

barmar, on 2012-October-15, 16:09, said:

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.

bluejak, on 2012-October-14, 17:05, said:

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?

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.

blackshoe, on 2012-October-15, 18:49, said:

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.

Vampyr, on 2012-October-15, 20:56, said:

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

Vampyr, on 2012-October-15, 20:56, said:

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