[Cthulhu D]

P had pre-empted showing 4/4 in the majors or better, weak hand and opposition bid up to 4S. Oppo leads the J of spades from the closed hand towards AKxx in dummy, partner plays some random middle spot and then declarer asks me 'so what sort of hands does [partner] bid that with?'

The situation is

A) Partner has never pre-empted with 4 small in a suit before
B) I have pre-empted with 4 small in a suit fairly often.
C) I'm looking at the stiff Q of spades, so partner blatantly has done it this time

What's my disclosure requirement here? I think I said 'any 4/4 5/4 or 5/5 weaker than an opening hand is fine, we pre-empt aggressively' and they went wrong anyway, but it was a tough spot. What am I supposed to do?

Edit: Vvvvvv: I think it was an honest question, this was literally the first time ever they had encountered an Ekrens style assumed fit preempt.

[nigel_k]

What you said is fine.

You do have to disclose partner's tendencies, not just what you have explicitly agreed. In theory it is ok to do so without looking at your hand, i.e. you could say that partner has never bid like this with four small even though you know he has exactly that. But I'd rather help the opponents out a little than have them go away thinking I am dishonest when I have no real way to prove otherwise.

[aguahombre]

Declarer was fishing; tacky question designed to get a read on you, not your agreements.

[sfi]

aguahombre, on 2012-June-11, 21:48, said:

Declarer was fishing; tacky question designed to get a read on you, not your agreements.

You may well be unfair to declarer with this statement. They may simply have not thought about the issue beforehand and are trying to work out the hand at this point. It would have been better to have asked beforehand, but if they have not done so, then they are entitled to the information now.

The OP's statement at the table was fine.

[aguahombre]

sfi, on 2012-June-11, 22:27, said:

You may well be unfair to declarer with this statement. They may simply have not thought about the issue beforehand and are trying to work out the hand at this point. It would have been better to have asked beforehand, but if they have not done so, then they are entitled to the information now.

The OP's statement at the table was fine.

Yes, the OP's statement at the table was fine. Yes, they are entitled to disclosure. The question was legal AND tacky.

[Codo]

aguahombre, on 2012-June-11, 21:48, said:

Declarer was fishing; tacky question designed to get a read on you, not your agreements.

You did read the OP and still make this statement?

May I repeat the last sentence for you: "Vvvvvv: I think it was an honest question, this was literally the first time ever they had encountered an Ekrens style assumed fit preempt."

For the real question: I agree with Nigel.

[Mbodell]

I think it is proper to say something like our partnership agreement is that any 4/4 4/5 5/5 weaker than opening is allowed, although partner tends to have better suit quality than I do or some such. Some people have similar style discrepancies around how often they make a weak 2 with a 5 card suit, or how often they make a two suited preemptive call with 5/4 versus 5/5 (like a 2nt opening for minors).

[Cthulhu D]

Codo, on 2012-June-12, 00:23, said:

You did read the OP and still make this statement?

May I repeat the last sentence for you: "Vvvvvv: I think it was an honest question, this was literally the first time ever they had encountered an Ekrens style assumed fit preempt."

For the real question: I agree with Nigel.

That was edited in by me after Auguhombre's post sorry. Habit from another forum. This forum does not mark 'edited by' when you edit though which is a shame.


Vvvv: I forgot! And forget.

This post has been edited by Cthulhu D: 2012-June-12, 04:21

[gnasher]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-June-12, 03:43, said:

That was edited in by me after Auguhombre's post sorry. Habit from another forum. This forum does not mark 'edited by' when you edit though which is a shame.

It does if you tick "Show 'Edit by' line".

Or you could just put the word "Edit:" in front of it.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-June-12, 04:00

[phil_20686]

aguahombre, on 2012-June-11, 21:48, said:

Declarer was fishing; tacky question designed to get a read on you, not your agreements.

Assuming that declarer had a legitimate need to ask the question, it makes perfect sense that he should wait till now to do so, as it is likely to put you under pressure since you know the layout and don't want to reveal it. That's just good table presence. Admittedly you shouldn't really ask a question that you don't need the answer to.

This is not dissimilar to playing quickly as declarer in order to put defenders under pressure, and so you can get information about the layouts from when they stop to think.

[barmar]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-June-12, 03:43, said:

Vvvv: I forgot! And forget.

Does "Vvvv:" have any special significance in your edits?

[ahydra]

barmar, on 2012-June-12, 09:28, said:

Does "Vvvv:" have any special significance in your edits?

I imagine he's referring to a post below his (cf. ^^^^^).

ahydra

[aguahombre]

phil_20686, on 2012-June-12, 04:32, said:

Assuming that declarer had a legitimate need to ask the question, it makes perfect sense that he should wait till now to do so, as it is likely to put you under pressure since you know the layout and don't want to reveal it. That's just good table presence. Admittedly you shouldn't really ask a question that you don't need the answer to.

I guess my lack of the good table presence to use this is another reason I am not considered a super-tough opponent. The way I read your post, the "legitimate need" to ask the question at this particular time is precisely to get lefty's reaction.

[billw55]

aguahombre, on 2012-June-11, 21:48, said:

Declarer was fishing; tacky question designed to get a read on you, not your agreements.

Definitely agree. There is no legitimate need for this question. Declarer already knows the spade division and that finessing is right, and is mucking about solely on the chance of smoking out the stiff queen. I consider this unethical if not actually illegal. Perhaps an argument could even be made that the remark violates law 74B2 or 74C4. But realistically, he will probably just get away with it.

[aguahombre]

This occurs at the highest levels, and we would be hard pressed to ever even consider these questions to be a violation of a law. They are, however, something to be prepared for with careful/consistent/smooth wording of our disclosure(s).

I got a chuckle when a top player with renown for his active (maybe overboard) ethics flawlessly answered the original question and the first follow-up by his former partner. Then, when a third inquiry came out, he merely said, "You're fishing." His partner had the focus honor

In the OP case, the fishing is on the first inquiry.

[barmar]

billw55, on 2012-July-09, 14:15, said:

Perhaps an argument could even be made that the remark violates law 74B2 or 74C4.

I don't think so. It's a legitimate question, I'd be hard pressed to call it a "gratuitous comment" (74B2). And what "significant occurrence" is it calling attention to (74C4)? I think the latter is intended for comments like "he showed out of that suit".