[Antrax]

After last night's session, going over the defense for some hand, partner explained "I knew you had to have a trump honor since you love to lead trumps against those part-scores and instead you led a passive club. So..."
Regardless of the bridge merit of it, that's indeed an accurate description of my tendencies to choose a lead. The question is, is this knowledge and related inferences something that needs to be disclosed somehow?

[blackshoe]

If they ask, yes. If your RA has regulations about alerting or otherwise proactively disclosing such things, yes. If your particular style is highly unusual, probably yes (depends on the regulations in force, but most RAs seem to require alerts for "highly unusual" agreements or styles). Most regulatory effort is directed towards the bidding, there really isn't a whole lot about the play.

[matmat]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-17, 23:06, said:

If they ask, yes.

What are they supposed to ask?

"What are your leads?"

and if that is not sufficient to get the correct description, then what would?

"Do you have any agreements about leads against suited part-scores?"
"When do you lead trump?"
"Do you have any specific concealed partnership understandings we should be aware of?"

seems like fairly thin ice to me.

[CSGibson]

This is just bridge. Partner was able to tell this was a passive lead, and knew that you didn't lead trump. He's allowed to draw inference, as is declarer if he can read the lead as passive also.

[matmat]

CSGibson, on 2011-April-18, 00:26, said:

This is just bridge. Partner was able to tell this was a passive lead, and knew that you didn't lead trump. He's allowed to draw inference, as is declarer if he can read the lead as passive also.

I somewhat disagree with this. I think that there is a difference between:
"you always lead trump, you led a club, therefore you have a trump honor"
and
"you always lead passively, you led a club, therefore you have little in clubs"

[paulg]

Do your trump leads normally work against these part-score contracts? If so then disclosure that you tend to find the best lead is not really needed. If not, then disclosure that your leads are normally poor puts you in the same boat as the rest of the world. Just bridge as CSGibson says.

[matmat]

Say I have a partner who likes to psych 1M after 1m-(x)-.

is this alertable, or is it just bridge?

[helene_t]

Shogi has an aversion against underleading kings. I have an obsession with underleading kings. We know this from each other. We don't normally volunteer this information but we probably somehow should. I did volunteer it once, I don't remember the situation but I somehow was able to deduce from dummy's holding plus Shogi's tendencies that his lead of a five is most likely to be MUD or the highest of a doubleton, and I felt that declarer should know also.

But this is problematic since if I say "p probably doesn't have the king" I am effectively saying that I have it myself, and my partner hears that also. I should, of course, also say it when I "know" that declarer holds the king but I am afraid I would be less inclined to do so.

Probably best just to put it on the CC and then only say it when asked explicitly.

[paulg]

matmat, on 2011-April-18, 01:28, said:

Say I have a partner who likes to psych 1M after 1m-(x)-.

is this alertable, or is it just bridge?

Given the frequency that I infer from 'likes to', it is a partnership understanding that is probably not permitted in many jurisdictions.

[matmat]

paulg, on 2011-April-18, 02:47, said:

Given the frequency that I infer from 'likes to', it is a partnership understanding that is probably not permitted in many jurisdictions.

Suppose we are in a jurisdiction where that particular treatment is not illegal. What then?

The OP used the language "love to," doesn't that make you wonder at least a little bit about whether it shouldn't be treated as a CPU?

[Antrax]

paulg, on 2011-April-18, 01:21, said:

Do your trump leads normally work against these part-score contracts? If so then disclosure that you tend to find the best lead is not really needed.

I think they do, or I wouldn't do them as often Normally if I suspect opponents are above their law level, or it seems we got dealt from the 50 HCP deck, I tend to lead trump and see what's what. The hand in question was one of those (50 HCP variant), which was also known to partner.

[paulg]

matmat, on 2011-April-18, 02:58, said:

Suppose we are in a jurisdiction where that particular treatment is not illegal. What then?

Alertable. It is not a psych if it happens frequently.

matmat, on 2011-April-18, 02:58, said:

The OP used the language "love to," doesn't that make you wonder at least a little bit about whether it shouldn't be treated as a CPU?

I wonder a little bit, but I guess I really read the OP as 'loves to lead trumps except when he has an honour OR an obvious alternative". I may be putting words into the OP's mouth, but are these trump leads at the expense of a side ace/king lead? Or QJT in a side suit?

[mycroft]

I'm not sure *how* to do this, but the principles behind the Laws say that they should know about it. However, how to do it is almost impossible in general, in practise (which is where the "general bridge knowledge" thing comes about. If partner expects it from you because he expects it from everybody, GBK. If partner expects it from you because he's seen you do it a lot over the last 1000 hands, it's disclosable "partnership experience").

Having said that, Antrax, if you are in the ACBL, the answer to matmat's question question - "what are they supposed to ask" is "anything, at the appropriate point"; specifically, from the Alert Procedures:

Quote

• The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question.
• Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically.

[bluejak]

ACBL or not, I do not think it is normal, nor indeed helpful, to disclose full details of your style when asked what leads you make. But if asked about your style then you do need to.

Style is a difficult problem where disclosure is involved, since it needs to be disclosed but answering every question with full details of style does not seem right. Personally, I think style only needs telling if specifically asked.

[hrothgar]

Antrax, on 2011-April-17, 22:55, said:

After last night's session, going over the defense for some hand, partner explained "I knew you had to have a trump honor since you love to lead trumps against those part-scores and instead you led a passive club. So..."
Regardless of the bridge merit of it, that's indeed an accurate description of my tendencies to choose a lead. The question is, is this knowledge and related inferences something that needs to be disclosed somehow?

Simple what if:

Suppose that you "helpfully" provided this information to the opponents but the inference was wrong...
Partner did have a trump honor, but he chose to lead another suit for some other reason.

What do you think that the results of your alert would be?

I know that you're trying to be helpful, but you're opening Pandora's box...

[AlexJonson]

Antrax, on 2011-April-17, 22:55, said:

After last night's session, going over the defense for some hand, partner explained "I knew you had to have a trump honor since you love to lead trumps against those part-scores and instead you led a passive club. So..."
Regardless of the bridge merit of it, that's indeed an accurate description of my tendencies to choose a lead. The question is, is this knowledge and related inferences something that needs to be disclosed somehow?

I've noticed that my Jack Bridge program has a marked tendency to lead singleton trumps.

I doubt it would prefer that to AKQ in a side side suit v a part score.

In fact, is it just versus game it leads the singletons?

You know, I don't know, and I'm definitely not getting into fruitless speculation
about partners unknown habits in answer to questions.

'Does he more more often underlead A than Q against a slam'? Yes, guys, play on.

[pooltuna]

matmat, on 2011-April-18, 02:58, said:

Suppose we are in a jurisdiction where that particular treatment is not illegal. What then?

The OP used the language "love to," doesn't that make you wonder at least a little bit about whether it shouldn't be treated as a CPU?

Let;s see if I understand this correctly! You're saying I am constrained on the card maybe the suit I can lead because of our implicit tendencies? My reaction to this is buffalo chips. The opponents are entitled to your lead agreements only!!!!

[bluejak]

Quote

Law 40B6A:
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.

if you have, because of partnership experience, some ideas of partner's style it is disclosable. It is not buffalo chips, whatever that means, it is a matter of Law and fairness.

[AlexJonson]

I've a strong inmpression that partner leads my shortest suit versus NT (often my singleton). Is this 'special information'.

What on earth is 'special information' so we can all understand the intent of the Law you have quoted.

[matmat]

pooltuna, on 2011-April-18, 14:19, said:

Let;s see if I understand this correctly! You're saying I am constrained on the card maybe the suit I can lead because of our implicit tendencies? My reaction to this is buffalo chips. The opponents are entitled to your lead agreements only!!!!

No. You can lead whatever you like, however if there is an inference available to you, as partner, then perhaps that inference should also be available to declarer. Same way if my partner likes to psych in certain situations, and I am aware of this, despite not having the agreement to do so in those situations, I need to disclose this.

Say my partner and I agree to play 15-17 NTs, but my partner likes to adlib and open random 11s and 12s 1n in third chair white/red about 1/4 of the time. We don't have this agreement, so why should i tell you? our agreement is 15-17, that's all you're entitled to know. opening light in third chair... just bridge, you know?

i suppose i am just not really understanding what falls under the "oh this is style, therefore 'just bridge'" vs. "system"