Join Bridge Winners
Full Disclosure

Partner opens a Precision 1 and I alert. Opponent inquires. I respond 11-15 high card points, s could be as short as 2. I become declarer in 2s. Dummy tables:

South
KQJ
107643
KJ1052
OPP complains that this hand looks nothing like what was disclosed. Director imposes no penalty but suggests that if we customarily upgrade we should indicate that in the disclosure.

First hand of next round (that is new OPPs), Board 1 (NV v. NV) I deal, pick up 

North
87
1086
AQJ983
85
W
N
E
S
3
?
and open a fairly standard 3, since our 2 is Meckwellian, showing 3 suits, lacking s, 4-4-1-4 (minus 1). OPP inquires of partner if mine is a standard preempt and he responds, "Yes."

Are we obligated under threat of penalty to go further in disclosing our methods to OPPs? Is it best practice to include all the nuance in the disclosure (here, I am fairly certain that the answer is yes, but partner occasionally gets annoyed when the disclosure goes on too long, with footnotes, etc. and with most OPPs, who are not capable of following that sort of detail, he has something of a point)?

On the second board we end up defending so I consulted director away from the table and he suggested sending partner away while I disclosed to OPPs that our minor suit preempts can be 6 carders because we have committed 2 minor to meanings other than preemptive.

124 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top