Difference in style
Law 40a4
- The agreed meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the
partnership by whom it is made (this requirement does not restrict style and judgement,
only method).
I have had a player at my club ask about a 3 diamond call based on
AXX
-
XXXXXX
XXXX
I stated that I regarded this as a deviation not a psych (it's close IMHO). However there was a follow up.
The player stated that their partner was getting in the habit of making very light pre-emptive calls (although they themselves don't) and they were thinking of amending their card. The question is: to what?
a) Keep the stated length at 7+ although the player may allow for the fact that partner might have 6.
b) Amend the stated length to 6+ although the player's partner knows the player will always have 7.
c) Amend the stated length to 6+, usually 7+ (please ask)
d) Keep the stated length at 7+ and advise the player they must regard their partner's call as showing 7+
e) Something else? None of the above seem satisfactory.
Comments
If one member of the partnership frequently does the call on a length of 6 and the other player knows it then their agreement is actually 6+ per 40a1(a) - "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players."
Of course, three-level bids aren't announced and the player should describe his partner's typical style when asked. The answer might vary from one side of the table to the other. For example, "Preemptive and we allow the bid to be made on a length of six cards but I've never known partner to have fewer than seven."
This reminds me of one story I read of Bergen and Cohen. Marty Bergen had opened 2H in 3rd seat and Cohen described it as "weak, could be ridiculous".
I sometimes wonder if my convention cards should have a note to the effect I'm the lunatic in the partnership :)
Well, 6 card pre-empts are completely legitimate, which rules out option d). Are we sure this player never pre-empts on 6 themselves?
I'd regard this as a difference in style rather than different methods, which would mean it's permitted under the laws. Since 6 generally can include 7 but 7 will appear to preclude 6, b) or c) seems to be best. It does seem slightly unsatisfactory, but then variances in style are part of the game. If asked for an explanation, they should be sure to be clear what they expect their partner to have.
I consider that the method adopted by this partnership is that the call is natural and pre-emptive, so they are not in breach of Law 40A4.
Disclosure, of course, is key, so that opponents are not in danger of being misled by something that it might not occur to them to ask about. I would put something on the system card to the effect that pre-empts are of decidedly variable quality.
Of course it is important to ensure that each player accurately describes his expectations of what the bid shows when his partner makes it (and I think it would be helpful to have some reference to the fact that the partners' styles do differ - otherwise W pre-empts on board 1, and E gives an accurate description of W's pre-empting style; E then pre-empts later in the same round, and N/S wrongly assume that the same style applies without having any reason to ask again).
In one partnership I play very weak pre-empts in certain well-defined positions. We actually alert these, and there is a case for the player whose partner may have a very weak 6-card suit doing the same.