[mycroft]

...And I play it as good 14-15, probably x=4=5+=x, or maybe a good balanced 16 if we're NV.

Oh, you know we're not playing Precision, for some reason? And you're expected to remember that?

I have accepted "natural and standard" in the past, and will do so in future. I've even accepted "everything to 3♥ is natural and standard, and then..." I don't want to waste people's time, I just want a complete explanation, *and* in some cases, don't want to tip off to declarer (or create UI for partner) what I'm interested in.

[TimG]

CSGibson, on 2012-October-27, 11:09, said:

It is not improper to offer any related understandings that may impact the current auction; it is definitely in the spirit of full disclosure, and obviously the passer is not telling what he took it as (or he wouldn't be passing), just the relevant agreements which may impact partner's understanding of the auction.

If North had said "No agreement, but we play Bergen Raises when there is no double" and it turned out responder had a weak hand with clubs, he would have been chastised for giving extraneous information, for muddying the waters. If North had alerted it and then given this explanation, he would be accused of giving UI information to partner (UI that he's not sure what the agreement is).

The solution, of course, is to know what your agreements are. But, I don't think it is helpful to guess as to meanings, or hedge your bets with "I'm not sure, it could be this or it could be that." Either "there is no special partnership understanding" or perhaps even "I am unaware of any special partnership understanding" or, if there is a special partnership understanding, an unequivocal description of the understanding.

[mycroft]

But you *are* aware of a special partnership understanding - you play Bergen raises, at least without the double.

And if I don't know that, as a defender, and you guess right as to what it means and I guess wrong, we're just as damaged - and I, at least, would feel a lot more aggrieved - as if you said "undiscussed, but Bergen without the double" and it was a WJS (who makes Alertable calls without any agreement anyway? Everybody, around here, because WJO is so standard that people don't know that there's an alternative; but yeah). Yes, people would say "I would have guessed right without the information", but *nobody* is going to guess right without the information if he thought Bergen was on over double.

Yes, it's a bit of a catch-22, you can't be "right"; but at least this way, at least in the ACBL, the regulations are on your side.

[TimG]

mycroft, on 2012-October-30, 16:15, said:

But you *are* aware of a special partnership understanding - you play Bergen raises, at least without the double.

And if I don't know that, as a defender, and you guess right as to what it means and I guess wrong, we're just as damaged - and I, at least, would feel a lot more aggrieved - as if you said "undiscussed, but Bergen without the double" and it was a WJS (who makes Alertable calls without any agreement anyway?

If you are going to guess Bergen, then alert it and explain that it is Bergen, you must have some reason for believing you have this agreement. If you're going to guess natural, then don't alert and don't muddy the waters with a possible agreement. If it turns out you have given misinformation, the director will sort it out.

Let me ask a slightly different question. Suppose North had alerted and explained when asked (by East): "3♣ is natural and weak, non-forcing, but we play Bergen if there was no double." Is North off the disclosure hook no matter what South has? I don't think he should be. It should still be MI if South believes there is an agreement to play Bergen and North has forgotten or misunderstood.

[CSGibson]

TimG, on 2012-October-30, 20:42, said:

If you are going to guess Bergen, then alert it and explain that it is Bergen, you must have some reason for believing you have this agreement. If you're going to guess natural, then don't alert and don't muddy the waters with a possible agreement. If it turns out you have given misinformation, the director will sort it out.

Let me ask a slightly different question. Suppose North had alerted and explained when asked (by East): "3♣ is natural and weak, non-forcing, but we play Bergen if there was no double." Is North off the disclosure hook no matter what South has? I don't think he should be. It should still be MI if South believes there is an agreement to play Bergen and North has forgotten or misunderstood.

No. In your case, North is telling what their agreement is. If their agreement is something else, or if they have no agreement, he has given them MI, and E is entitled to full redress; if North has explained their agreement correctly, no redress should be given no matter what hand South actually has.

In the actual case, North is telling east that they have no agreement, and that therefore east should use bridge logic to figure it out. In the course of that, North is disclosing other relevant agreements that lay the foundation of the bridge logic for the partnership. To do otherwise would violate the principles of full disclosure.

Saying that North is muddying the waters with ancillary agreements is wrong. When North says they have no agreements, the waters are as muddy as they are going to be; any further explanations about underlying principles/relevant agreements are cleansing the water of some of that mud for an experienced east, and giving him a chance to get it right.

[gnasher]

TimG, on 2012-October-30, 20:42, said:

If you are going to guess Bergen, then alert it and explain that it is Bergen, you must have some reason for believing you have this agreement. If you're going to guess natural, then don't alert and don't muddy the waters with a possible agreement. If it turns out you have given misinformation, the director will sort it out.

That's definitely wrong. If you don't have an agreement, it's misinformation to state that you do.

Quote

Let me ask a slightly different question. Suppose North had alerted and explained when asked (by East): "3♣ is natural and weak, non-forcing, but we play Bergen if there was no double." Is North off the disclosure hook no matter what South has? I don't think he should be. It should still be MI if South believes there is an agreement to play Bergen and North has forgotten or misunderstood.

If North's explanation is correct (ie there is no agreement about this sequence, but they do play Bergen in the uncontested sequence), there is no misinformation.
If the partnership does have an agreement to play Bergen in this sequence, North's explanation is misinformation.
If South thinks they do have an agreement, the director will assume misinformation.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2012-October-29, 23:15, said:

there's not much variation in 1m-1♥-3♥ -- I'm not sure I've ever run into anyone who plays this as something other than a game invitational raise

I play 1♣ - 1♥; 3♥ as 15-17 with precisely 4=0=4=5 shape and 1♦ - 1♥; 3♥ as 14-17 with precisely 4=4=5=0 shape and 6 controls. But I guess that does not count since in neither case does the 1♥ response show hearts. I imagine 1♣ - 1♥; 3♥ has a somewhat different meaning for Transfer Walshers too. Also, what is GBK for you might not be for someone else. For example, blackshoe's auction was apparently 1m - 1♥; 4♥. You might think it is GBK that this denies a small singleton but perhaps he has never heard of splinter bids; or perhaps one or both of the opponents have not. He is entitled to know what agreements are in place. I run into the same issue quite often here, with opponents telling me they play Forum D (or, worse, Forum D+) as if that is GBK, despite the fact I come from an Acol background and have no idea about many aspects of Forum D. When I try to ask them what that actually means I get blank expressions. An example from Saturday (RHO dealing)
(P) - P - (2♣) - P
(2♦) - 3♥ - 3NT

2♣ was alerted and explained as "semiforcing", which I now know means Benji. I asked what balanced ranges were included in the 2♣ opening. Blankness. Then an offer that bidding a suit would have been a strong two. So I tried asking what the auction 2♣ - 2♦; 2NT would have meant. The answer was naturally that that would have been impossible because of the 3♥ bid. Eventually Declarer told me they would tell me later, which I found laughable, but it was a club game so I ended up letting it go. It just was not worth spending more effort to get the answer I wanted.

The point is that what is obvious very much depends on the person involved. And withholding information that someone specifically asks for because you think they ought to know it already is simply illegal. If you find out later the question was only being asked to highlight something to their partner, well that is a completely different situation. Worry about that when it comes up.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2012-October-31, 04:18, said:

If North's explanation is correct (ie there is no agreement about this sequence, but they do play Bergen in the uncontested sequence), there is no misinformation.
If the partnership does have an agreement to play Bergen in this sequence, North's explanation is misinformation.
If South thinks they do have an agreement, the director will assume misinformation.

Maybe. The law says

Quote

Law 21B1{b}: The Director is to presume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Here there is evidence to the contrary, so the director must consider that, and any other evidence he can gather (system cards, notes, whatever) before concluding there was MI. I'll grant you that we tend to give more weight to evidence of MI in these cases, but if the only evidence of MI is "South thinks they have an agreement", and there is more evidence than just "North thinks they don't" that they do not have one, then I think the TD must rule misbid, rather than mis-explanation. Of course, if it's just "he said, she said", then rule it a mis-explanation. But you have to consider all the available evidence.

[bluejak]

TimG, on 2012-October-30, 15:47, said:

If North had said "No agreement, but we play Bergen Raises when there is no double" and it turned out responder had a weak hand with clubs, he would have been chastised for giving extraneous information, for muddying the waters.

No, he would not. He has done what is required of him.

TimG, on 2012-October-30, 20:42, said:

If you are going to guess Bergen, then alert it and explain that it is Bergen, you must have some reason for believing you have this agreement. If you're going to guess natural, then don't alert and don't muddy the waters with a possible agreement. If it turns out you have given misinformation, the director will sort it out.

It is not a question of letting the TD sort it out: you must make every effort to avoid an infraction. When you have some evidence that affects what the call means, it is correct to tell people the evidence.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2012-October-31, 04:18, said:

That's definitely wrong. If you don't have an agreement, it's misinformation to state that you do.

Saying "We haven't discussed this, but in some related auctions it means X" is not stating that you have an agreement, so it's not MI.

The general principle is that the opponents are entitled to the same information as you have about the meaning of partner's calls. If you have to guess, so do they. But if you have some information that may help you with that guess, such as agreements about similar auctions, the opponents are also entitled to that.

[TimG]

How about: "We have no special partnership understanding. . .but I can speculate if you'd like."

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2012-October-31, 15:49, said:

Saying "We haven't discussed this, but in some related auctions it means X" is not stating that you have an agreement, so it's not MI.

I didn't say it was.

[gnasher]

TimG, on 2012-November-01, 06:07, said:

How about: "We have no special partnership understanding. . .but I can speculate if you'd like."

Do you think that's an improvement on doing what the rules say you should do?

[aguahombre]

TimG, on 2012-November-01, 06:07, said:

How about: "We have no special partnership understanding. . .but I can speculate if you'd like."

gnasher, on 2012-November-01, 08:48, said:

Do you think that's an improvement on doing what the rules say you should do?

I do. But, I won't use TimG's phrasing until I believe it is within the rules to do so ---or someone convinces me that it is within the current rules.

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2012-November-01, 09:05, said:

I do. But, I won't use TimG's phrasing until I believe it is within the rules to do so ---or someone convinces me that it is within the current rules.

Law 40 said:

A. Players’ Systemic Agreements
1. (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.

Law 20 said:

F. Explanation of Calls
1. During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question. The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until his turn to call or play. Law 16 may apply and the Regulating Authority may establish regulations for written explanations.
2. After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing auction. At his turn to play from his hand or from dummy declarer may request an explanation of a defender’s call or card play understandings. Explanations should be given on a like basis to 1 and by the partner of the player whose action is explained.

It is clear from these three Laws that implicit understandings and understandings based on other agreements are part of the disclosable agreements. Thus, a player who speculates based on his comparable experience, so long as he says so, is following these Laws.

[aguahombre]

Wow. Agreeing with Tim and being right at the same time. Then to discover it is also legal...a trifecta.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-October-17, 20:24, said:

I'm not saying that this particular pair made any of these agreements. I'm saying that you can't conclude much from the CC, because it doesn't cover all these details. Even among pairs that DO have detailed agreements, they're not likely to be mentioned on the CC because there's no place to check them off.

Is it normal for agreements that don't have their own check box not to be mentioned at all on the CC? Is it considered proper disclosure?

[blackshoe]

I don't know about "normal". It happens. No, it's not proper disclosure.

One of the problems with the whole "checkbox" thing, IMO, is that the checkboxes are set up under the assumption that you're playing SA or something reasonably close to it. If you're playing something significantly different (Precision, say, or even Romex), the checkboxes often don't work well. That's why I prefer the design of the WBF system card, or the EBU one, to the ACBL's. That and the ACBL's ridiculous insistence on putting a private score on the back of the system card.

[barmar]

There are a few places on the ACBL CC where you can write arbitrary notes. But not a lot of room if you have lots of extra gadgets.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-November-01, 10:39, said:

There are a few places on the ACBL CC where you can write arbitrary notes. But not a lot of room if you have lots of extra gadgets.

When I played in the ACBL I used to prepare a CC on the computer, so I could eliminate the check boxes and text that were not applicable; this made more room for agreements that I did have, though it was often difficult to find room in the sections where I needed it. In general the card is just too small and cluttered.

Another problem with the check-boxes is that they give people ideas. Loads of players who are not ready play lots of conventions without knowing why; the boxes serve as "suggestions".