[LghtnngRod]

A while ago I played online with a pickup partner. Long enough ago that attempt at tracing the ID would be futile, even if still in MyHands. I only ever play with pickups.

During system discussion partner advised me privately that it only ever leads a major at trick1 v. NT, which may be a short suit angling for my length.

I took the statement as likely hyperbole. What would it lead with C:KQJT9 and a side Ace against uncontested auction 1S-2H-2S-3H-3S-3N-P?
I would also ask you for the purpose of this thread to disregard the merits of the policy.
OK, whether it was being entirely literal is beside the point, I feel, which is that it had a tendency to lead a major considerably more frequently than would be expected without being prewarned (even acknowledging that perhaps that tendency is generally rife anyway).

From an ethical standpoint, what are your disclosure obligations here? However moronic the policy, its success rate may be inflated by a greater appreciation of its existence by partner than by opponents from whom the policy is concealed. And that seems to me unfair and probably illegal. On the other hand, partner no doubt was trying not so much to form a partnership agreement as rather to educate me as to its perception of best bridge strategy (however warped that perception) and there is no requirement to extend bridge tutorials also to opponents.

Thoughts?

[CSGibson]

No warnings to opponents are necessary. You should not be disclosing anything but what your leads mean systemically - you certainly don't have to disclose lead tendancies in my opinion.

[nige1]

CSGibson, on 2014-February-11, 19:38, said:

No warnings to opponents are necessary. You should not be disclosing anything but what your leads mean systemically - you certainly don't have to disclose lead tendancies in my opinion.

On-line, IMO, when partner leads. you should message declarer about discussed idiosyncrasies.

[gnasher]

It's a partnership understanding. The Laws tell us that "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done."

The normal way to disclose leading methods on BBO is for the opponents to ask you and you to answer. If an opponent asks you what your leads are, you should tell them about this.

There's no requirement on BBO to have a convention card, but if you have one you should make sure it's correct. So, you should disclose it on your card too.

[ggwhiz]

There is a significant minority in my neck of the woods that choose to lead from xxx against notrump before leading away from a King or Queen and it is never disclosed nor is that required.

Same thing imo as I don't believe any player who says always or never.

[WellSpyder]

gnasher, on 2014-February-12, 04:33, said:

It's a partnership understanding. The Laws tell us that "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done."

The normal way to disclose leading methods on BBO is for the opponents to ask you and you to answer. If an opponent asks you what your leads are, you should tell them about this.

There's no requirement on BBO to have a convention card, but if you have one you should make sure it's correct. So, you should disclose it on your card too.

I agree with this in general, but I have a hard time with the implications of taking this to its logical conclusion, bearing in mind (a) that implicit agreements developed over time playing together are just as much partnership agreements as explicit partnership agreements and (b) aren't both members of a partnership supposed to be playing the same thing?

I know one or two of my partners have different preferences between alternative leads - for example over the likelihood of a trump lead, or the relative merits of leading (from) an unsupported A or K. Similarly, and closer to the OP, there may be different tendencies in terms of the frequency of passive vs active leads against 3NT. There is certainly no partnership agreement here - in some cases I can imagine quite strong disagreements over the relative merits of different leads. But there is nevertheless some degree of recognition of what partner is more likely to do.

is it enough simply to say these are differences in degree not absolutes so there is nothing to disclose? What about recognised differences in the percentage of the time we will deliberately not follow nominal agreements such as deciding it would be less misleading on this occasion to lead the middle card from 10xx even though our standard agreement is to treat the 10 as an honour and lead low? Or the likelihood of deciding this is an occasion on which it is better to lead an honour from KQxx against NT even though our normal agreement would be to lead 4th highest?

[blackshoe]

ggwhiz, on 2014-February-12, 10:51, said:

There is a significant minority in my neck of the woods that choose to lead from xxx against notrump before leading away from a King or Queen and it is never disclosed nor is that required.

Same thing imo as I don't believe any player who says always or never.

There are two parts to choosing an opening lead: choosing the suit and choosing the card within the suit. You seem to be saying that only the latter is disclosable. This is incorrect. A pair which with some frequency chooses a different suit than most players would choose is required to disclose that tendency. Failure to do so is either ignorance or willful concealment. As for players who speak in absolutes, whether you choose to believe them or not is entirely up to you. I'll grant they're probably exaggerating, at least, but that's only "probably", it's not "certainly".

[CSGibson]

So it sounds like majority opinion that I can ask the partner of the opening leader after the lead is faced against a slam how frequently they lead away from kings against suit slams, for example, or whether their partner would tend to lead conservatively or aggressively in their partnership experience in that situation?

Can anyone show me a single case where that has ever been contested successfully? Or has anyone ever heard of a single case where the director made them disclose that information?

[ggwhiz]

CSGibson, on 2014-February-12, 13:12, said:

So it sounds like majority opinion that I can ask the partner of the opening leader after the lead is faced against a slam how frequently they lead away from kings against suit slams, for example, or whether their partner would tend to lead conservatively or aggressively in their partnership experience in that situation?

Can anyone show me a single case where that has ever been contested successfully? Or has anyone ever heard of a single case where the director made them disclose that information?

So declarer asks me if we lead away from Kings it's a loaded question since I'm looking at my hand and know where it is. If I say less than 10% and pard has the King I'm ethically boxed into slime ball territory as well as if I say often and am looking at it.

I'm just telling them 4th best, standard and if I'm pressed I guess I have to say 50-50 but it's an improper question and not subject to disclosure imo.

[blackshoe]

ggwhiz, on 2014-February-12, 16:12, said:

So declarer asks me if we lead away from Kings it's a loaded question since I'm looking at my hand and know where it is. If I say less than 10% and pard has the King I'm ethically boxed into slime ball territory as well as if I say often and am looking at it.

I'm just telling them 4th best, standard and if I'm pressed I guess I have to say 50-50 but it's an improper question and not subject to disclosure imo.

It's really easy to come up with a scenario where opponents ask a "loaded" question, and then say it's "improper". That's well and good, but suppose they ask a "not loaded" question - are you still going to say it's "not subject to disclosure"?

[Cyberyeti]

If you know that partner has this strong preference for majors, when you double an auction like 1N-3N is there an inference that you want partner to lead a minor ? and what should you disclose ?

[ggwhiz]

blackshoe, on 2014-February-12, 16:34, said:

It's really easy to come up with a scenario where opponents ask a "loaded" question, and then say it's "improper". That's well and good, but suppose they ask a "not loaded" question - are you still going to say it's "not subject to disclosure"?

I answered to specific circumstances as in mid play of the hand. Of course if they ask about style before I've got my cards in hand they will get an honest answer.

[blackshoe]

if they ask "what is your partnership (or your partner's) style?" after you have your cards in hand they should still get an honest answer.

[gnasher]

WellSpyder, on 2014-February-12, 11:18, said:

I know one or two of my partners have different preferences between alternative leads - for example over the likelihood of a trump lead, or the relative merits of leading (from) an unsupported A or K. Similarly, and closer to the OP, there may be different tendencies in terms of the frequency of passive vs active leads against 3NT. There is certainly no partnership agreement here - in some cases I can imagine quite strong disagreements over the relative merits of different leads. But there is nevertheless some degree of recognition of what partner is more likely to do.

is it enough simply to say these are differences in degree not absolutes so there is nothing to disclose?

No, they're implicit understandings, and disclosable under the rules. A tendency to lead aggressively is just as disclosable as a tendency to overcall aggressively.

Quote

What about recognised differences in the percentage of the time we will deliberately not follow nominal agreements such as deciding it would be less misleading on this occasion to lead the middle card from 10xx even though our standard agreement is to treat the 10 as an honour and lead low? Or the likelihood of deciding this is an occasion on which it is better to lead an honour from KQxx against NT even though our normal agreement would be to lead 4th highest?

Those are disclosable too. If you might lead two different cards from the same holding, your convention card should say so.

[WellSpyder]

gnasher, on 2014-February-13, 02:39, said:

No, they're implicit understandings, and disclosable under the rules. A tendency to lead aggressively is just as disclosable as a tendency to overcall aggressively.

So if asked "do you have a tendency to lead aggressively or passively?" am I supposed to answer with respect to our tendency as a partnership, or my (my partner's?) tendency as an individual? Is it even permitted to have different implicit understandings about such things according to which partner is on lead?

[helene_t]

WellSpyder, on 2014-February-13, 03:29, said:

So if asked "do you have a tendency to lead aggressively or passively?" am I supposed to answer with respect to our tendency as a partnership, or my (my partner's?) tendency as an individual? Is it even permitted to have different implicit understandings about such things according to which partner is on lead?

You are of course supposed to disclose your de facto partnership understanding. If you know that your p tend to lead passively and your p knows that you tend to lead aggressively then opps are entitled to know exactly that.

Legal or not (I certainly hope it is legal), partners have different tendencies. It's not like you can get away with concealing a partnership understanding on the basis of "Oh I thought it was an illegal agreement so we weren't allowed to disclose it".

[barmar]

Where is the boundary between "style", which should be disclosed, and individual judgement, which doesn't have to be? If a player has read the Bird/Anthias books, he'll learn that leading majors is very effective in many auctions that lead to NT contracts, and that informs his judgement, resulting in a higher tendency to lead majors.

[ggwhiz]

blackshoe, on 2014-February-12, 20:17, said:

if they ask "what is your partnership (or your partner's) style?" after you have your cards in hand they should still get an honest answer.

I agree as long as they are not as specific as asking about a missing king when I know where it is. That's how I interpreted the scenario up thread.

Indeed I've played against opponents who I respect a great deal who will often ask your defensive "style" say, before the opening lead on the 1st hand of a match and I learned to give a good enough answer that they didn't need to ask again later.

They would tend to ask about bidding "style" as needed for various auctions, pre-empts etc. but always phrased and timed the question in a way that I never felt threatened into giving the show away.

[gnasher]

WellSpyder, on 2014-February-13, 03:29, said:

So if asked "do you have a tendency to lead aggressively or passively?" am I supposed to answer with respect to our tendency as a partnership, or my (my partner's?) tendency as an individual? Is it even permitted to have different implicit understandings about such things according to which partner is on lead?

You're supposed to answer with respect to your personal knowledge of your partner's tendencies.

[helene_t]

barmar, on 2014-February-13, 10:54, said:

Where is the boundary between "style", which should be disclosed, and individual judgement, which doesn't have to be? If a player has read the Bird/Anthias books, he'll learn that leading majors is very effective in many auctions that lead to NT contracts, and that informs his judgement, resulting in a higher tendency to lead majors.

Doesn't individual judgement have to be disclosed? If I am playing with Shogi and he leads a a spot card against a suit contract, it can systematically be MUD, top of doubleton, or lowest away from an honour. However he almost never leads away from a king or an ace so it really means "small from a suit lead by Q, J or T". The latter is our de facto agreement.

Now it is quite normal rarely to lead away from an ace against a suit contract but not leading away from a king is a personal style thing which I am away of and will make use of. So declarer should be aware of it as well.

It is a bit more tricky if our partnership understanding is that "p is not very good so you can't really draw any conclusion from his failure to lead a trump when the auction screams for a trump lead". Shogi and I used to have a footnote saying "Helene sometimes forgets to give correct count", and when playing with a novice I have sometimes informed opps about p's novice status because my partner was afraid of TD calls in case she mixed something up and opps felt misinformed. But my experience is that such disclaimers work badly. Most opps seem not to care and some find it annoying.