[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-15, 22:44, said:

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


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

I was trying to understand. But instead I shall simply say that you are wrong.

[blackshoe]

You're entitled to your opinion. I'll keep mine, thank you.

[gnasher]

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

Because never in my life have I heard anyone explain it.

I don't see why that's relevant. Even if some other players don't disclose their methods properly, that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to do so.

You should explain your methods in a way that your opponents will understand. That may vary with the opponents. It sounds as though when you play "3rd and 5th", it means "3rd, unless the 3rd is to valuable to waste". That's probably what everyone in your locality will understand by "3rd and 5th", so there's no need for more explanation. If, on the other hand, you played "3rd, unless the 3rd is to valuable to waste or might be misleading", that's not what your opponents would assume, so you should be more specific.

Quote

I'm not. I'm trying to explain why meeting this expectation fully is impactical.

So do the best you can. Saying "We tell partner what he needs to know" isn't even close to good disclosure.

Quote

I'm the one who said that telling partner what he needs to know is "just bridge".

Are you still talking about the case in the original post? The original post described a pair who
- Play count in most sitiuations but attitude in some.
- Write "count" on their card.
- Don't write "attitude" anywhere.
- Play in a jurisdiction where there is a space on the convention card for secondary methods, and where the regulations requre that secondary methods be documented.

This pair didn't even go as far as saying "We tell partner what he needs to know." It seems astonishing that anyone would consider this acceptable.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-October-16, 03:18

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-15, 16:42, 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?

It is not a matter of numbers. It is a matter of when it is an agreement. If I play 3rd and lowest, and realise that partner is likely to lead the 4th from four when he cannot afford the 3rd, and it is because of either experience or discussion or agreements within our group then it is an agreement, implicit or explicit, and is disclosable.

If, on the other hand, on an isolated occasion my partner does something strange, I don't immediately dive the for the system file and writer it down. We haven't agreed anything.

[barmar]

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

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.

Right. I've been playing with my regular partner for about a dozen years. So something that comes up once or twice a year may have come up more than 10 times. I think I'm still unlikely to remember how we dealt with it the last time, so I'd probably have to work it out from basic principles each time. I wouldn't be surprised if we handled it differently each time, even if we discussed afterward what the "right" thing should be.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-October-16, 15:24, said:

Right. I've been playing with my regular partner for about a dozen years. So something that comes up once or twice a year may have come up more than 10 times. I think I'm still unlikely to remember how we dealt with it the last time, so I'd probably have to work it out from basic principles each time. I wouldn't be surprised if we handled it differently each time, even if we discussed afterward what the "right" thing should be.

So you think that non-disclosure is still OK? This thread is a real eye-opener.

It seems that a lot of people's interest in the laws forum is based on their interest in how to circumvent the laws.

[blackshoe]

Can we not have a discussion of what the laws require without accusing each other of trying to circumvent it?

[mycroft]

So, you have to work it out from principles. But there is 10 years of partnership experience guiding you in working it out. "We tell partner what he needs to know" subsumes all of that into a meaningless (to declarer) phrase.

Again, yes, it's difficult to explain your experience. But starting with principles clear from your partnership is a good start. Even "Attitude is primary signal to partner's leads, with count or SP if attitude can be worked out, depending on what dummy is showing" is better than "what partner needs to know".

Again, the real ugly is "we rarely signal, but". "Yeah, so how do you know to signal? I'm not Al Roth, I can't work it out from first principles, and *I'm entitled to the information*." (not the judgement, but the ability to use my judgement to make the same guess partner and "rarely signaller" is making).

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-16, 18:23, said:

So you think that non-disclosure is still OK? This thread is a real eye-opener.

No, I'm saying that I can only be expected to disclose things I actually remember and think are relevant.

"Tell me everything you know about partner's leads" is an impossible task. It's like asking a driver to explain all the "rules of the road". I can't list them all, but I know what to do when a particular situation comes up, and after the fact I can explain why I did something.