[FrancesHinden]

I got told off by my partner for a new transgression yesterday.
We were playing a 32-board KO teams match in four sets of 8 boards.
Going into the last set we were 16 imps up.

On the first board of the last set I opened the bidding, my partner had a balanced 13-count, and I made 3NT for +600. I knew that this was very likely, though not 100%, to be a game swing in because the defence had been very poor and to make it on normal defence would need very good card reading plus a strip squeeze which I doubted the other side were up to finding. He did not pay huge attention to the play as dummy and assumed weak NT opposite 13 count with double stops in every suit would be flat.

This was followed by 4 boards likely to be flat but some possibilities.

Then my partner went off in a partscore he could (and arguably should) have made. Most likely either 5 out or flat.

Then we had what was almost certainly an 11-imp swing out (http://forums.bridge...showtopic=23228).

He was thus worried that we'd lost all our lead by the time it came to the last board. He decided not to do anything random but to trust team-mates to have a plus card if necessary (we thought we were the better team).

After we scored up (the last set was a 16-all tie so we won overall), and I explained that I had been reasonably happy with our card, I was told off for not letting him know that the 3NT was a good board, as it might have affected his actions later in the set.

I asked how I was supposed to do this in front of the opponents, as saying 'oh by the way LHO let the contract through that's a good board' is not exactly going to win friends and influencfe people.

He said we should have some pre-arranged communication method so we can let each other know if something unexpected has happened.

Does anyone do this?

[Gerben42]

I have had an agreement that taking an unneccessary card that is harder to get for partner conveys a special message, for example if the suit on the table is

♥QJT832

then asking for the 3 or the Jack would be unusual and convey information about the contract being good or not.

[whereagles]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 15 2008, 03:19 PM, said:

He said we should have some pre-arranged communication method so we can let each other know if something unexpected has happened.

Does anyone do this?

usually a wink of the eye will do

anymore and opps might think you're cheating (i.e. using that communication method during play.. lol)

[ArtK78]

If partner is not interested in watching the play of the hand when dummy (and I am not saying that partner should - dummy has every reason to relax during the play of the hand) then partner has no right to complain about it later.

It would be grossly inappropriate for you to make any comment at the table concerning the assumed good result on the board.

[FrancesHinden]

Gerben42, on Jan 15 2008, 04:24 PM, said:

I have had an agreement that taking an unneccessary card that is harder to get for partner conveys a special message, for example if the suit on the table is

♥QJT832

then asking for the 3 or the Jack would be unusual and convey information about the contract being good or not.

We do play a specific verson of this, called the Walton echo: playing in a doubled or redoubled contract, an obviously irrelevant/unnecessary peter from equivalent low cards in dummy (e.g. playing the 8 from 8765) says you are going to make it. But that's more to help partner's adrenalin levels during the play of the hand.

[mycroft]

Sounds like the Beer Echo - if you avoid playing the D7 when you can, you're going to make the contract. If you do play it from D..87.. before the 8, "we're doomed, partner".

Of course, against opponents who know the Beer Card, it is entirely appropriate to falsecard the Beer Echo.

Michael

[pclayton]

I hope this is a client, not a regular partner Frances. If one of my partners exhibited such a fragile ego, I'd have bigger concerns. Is this really the kind of personality you want across the table from you in the big match?

The 'unnecessary' card pulled from dummy is a well-known ploy meant to say, don't worry about anything. It's one of those partnership agreements that should not require disclosure to the opponents btw

Repeat to self, "its only a game'....

[bid_em_up]

One partner of mine would always play the lowest winning card in his hand (when running a long suit) to indicate that the contract was making (or good), so from AKQ982, he would play the AKQ, followed by the two (assuming the suit is now good).

Another means of doing so could be simply a matter of asking a question regarding partners family, the weather, news topic, etc. would indicate you thought that was a reasonable board.

"How are your roses doing?" could indicate things look rosy right about now.
"How's Little John doing, I bet that IMP is growing every day" This works especially well if the opponents do not know your partner, since they may or may not have kids.
"Sure has been sunny lately".

Anything like this applied discretely could let partner know, without insulting the opponents.

Personally, I haven't really done anything to this effect, but I really can't see any harm in it either.

But I'm sure somebody will object.

[y66]

If you ever play with that guy in DC, let's work out something for "do you want me to shoot him for you?" Or just tell me now. Can be there in 8 hours.

[EricK]

I have heard (and I don't know how true this is) that Belladonna and Garozzo used to have an agreement that when dummy went down declarer would say "Thank you" if it was what he was expecting and "Grazie" if there had been some sort of mix-up. Apparently on one hand Belladonna absent-mindedly said "grazie" even though Garozzo had bid perfectly. "Grazie? What do you mean 'Grazie'?" yelled Garozzo.

[ArtK78]

There was a Bridge World article some years ago titled "The Congratulatory Jack." The thrust of the article was that when partner (dummy) had taken a risky action so that his partner was declaring, partner would play an unnecessary jack early in the play to convey to dummy that all was well.

This was often done in doubled contracts.

[cherdano]

pclayton, on Jan 15 2008, 10:40 AM, said:

I hope this is a client, not a regular partner Frances. If one of my partners exhibited such a fragile ego, I'd have bigger concerns. Is this really the kind of personality you want across the table from you in the big match?

The 'unnecessary' card pulled from dummy is a well-known ploy meant to say, don't worry about anything. It's one of those partnership agreements that should not require disclosure to the opponents btw

Repeat to self, "its only a game'....

What has this to do with ego? I suppose partner just wanted to know the likely score, so he could know whether to swing or not in the last few boards.

[pclayton]

cherdano, on Jan 15 2008, 10:44 AM, said:

pclayton, on Jan 15 2008, 10:40 AM, said:

I hope this is a client, not a regular partner Frances. If one of my partners exhibited such a fragile ego, I'd have bigger concerns. Is this really the kind of personality you want across the table from you in the big match?

The 'unnecessary' card pulled from dummy is a well-known ploy meant to say, don't worry about anything. It's one of those partnership agreements that should not require disclosure to the opponents btw 

Repeat to self, "its only a game'....

What has this to do with ego? I suppose partner just wanted to know the likely score, so he could know whether to swing or not in the last few boards.

Only everything.

Frances mentioned her partner was 'worried', and I'm guessing it was more than that, since she was 'told off'.

Getting rattled in a tight match shows exhibits a 'fragile ego' and lack of poise. Is this clear to you?

[cherdano]

pclayton, on Jan 15 2008, 01:20 PM, said:

cherdano, on Jan 15 2008, 10:44 AM, said:

pclayton, on Jan 15 2008, 10:40 AM, said:

I hope this is a client, not a regular partner Frances. If one of my partners exhibited such a fragile ego, I'd have bigger concerns. Is this really the kind of personality you want across the table from you in the big match?

The 'unnecessary' card pulled from dummy is a well-known ploy meant to say, don't worry about anything. It's one of those partnership agreements that should not require disclosure to the opponents btw 

Repeat to self, "its only a game'....

What has this to do with ego? I suppose partner just wanted to know the likely score, so he could know whether to swing or not in the last few boards.

Only everything.

Frances mentioned her partner was 'worried', and I'm guessing it was more than that, since she was 'told off'.

Getting rattled in a tight match shows exhibits a 'fragile ego' and lack of poise. Is this clear to you?

Thanks a lot for your lessons Phil.

Admittedly I don't have a good feeling for how strong a word "to tell off" is in English or American English. Being worried about having lost a lead seems quite a natural concern after you know you have blown 16 IMPs. I think you are jumping a little too much to a conclusion if you deduce a "fragile ego" and write "I hope this is a client" to someone who never plays professionally.

[Gerben42]

Not really ethical but after making such a contract I might pretend to wipe sweat from my forehead...

Better is if you normally say "just made" or "+1" or so, to suddenly switch to "nine tricks" or "ten tricks" when it is a particularly good board. This isn't suspicious.

[Ant590]

We're getting dangerously close to food asking bids...
http://www.bridgebum.com/fab.php

[Hanoi5]

But...Are these things legal?

[helene_t]

If you convey to partner in an undisclosed way that he might as well do something weired on the last board, then you know something about his bidding on the last board which opps don't know. This is potentially unethical. I think you must either say openly "this was a tough one" or whatever, or not say anything.

I wouldn't be worried about losing friends at the opp team, as long as I put it in a civilized way.

[fred]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 15 2008, 03:19 PM, said:

Does anyone do this?

I don't.

My thinking is that either my partner is a strong enough player to be able to know if our results are good/bad or he isn't.

If he is there is no reason to tell him (except perhaps to antagonize the opponents).

If he isn't then:

- I do not want to distract him by giving him extra things to think about that no longer matter (like analyzing the hand in question)
- I do not want such a player making any decisions based on his estimation of the state of the match
- I do not want such a player to become overconfident and lose focus

Besides that, I would consider it obnoxious if my opponents did this sort of thing and I try to be a pleasant person to play against

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[PassedOut]

My feeling is that it's losing bridge to swing for the fences in order to cover a bad result. You have teammates who might well be having a tremendous round. That final bad result could cost the match.