[barmar]

In practice, the ACBL CC is used much more as a template to help new partnerships figure out their agreements (i.e. each section serves as a suggestion of what to discuss with the new partner), and a reminder to the players themselves when getting together with an occasional partner, and not so much as a method of disclosure to opponents or officials.

[TimG]

aguahombre, on 2012-November-01, 09:56, said:

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

I may have to reconsider my position! :-)

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-November-01, 09:28, said:

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.

If Tim says "I can speculate if you like", do you think he will always be understood to mean "I can, if you like, tell you about our relevant implicit agreements, and disclose all special information conveyed to me through partnership agreement or partnership experience"?

Even if this will always be understood, I think it's better to answer the question properly the first time, rather than to give half an answer and then ask whether they want the other half.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-November-01, 16:31

[bluejak]

Sure. I was talking about the principle, not the actual perfect wording.

[mycroft]

I would prefer "We have no agreement about this auction. We have agreements about related auctions, however, if you wish to hear them."

Not what is required, but if you're concerned opponents will hear "it has to be Bergen" out of "no agreement, but without the double it would be Bergen" - and that is a legitimate worry, I've seen people do it frequently - that might be a better way of making it clear that you're about to give some potential options that will weight high in your guessing.

[TimG]

gnasher, on 2012-November-01, 16:28, said:

If Tim says "I can speculate if you like", do you think he will always be understood to mean "I can, if you like, tell you about our relevant implicit agreements, and disclose all special information conveyed to me through partnership agreement or partnership experience"?

I do not think that playing Bergen raises in a non-competitive auction equates to an implicit agreement to play them over doubles. Partnership experience is two minutes to review a CC (that did not have Bergen raises in the "vs takeout doubles" section) and whatever hands they've played in this event. Upon which of these is North supposed to base his alert of 3C and two-way explanation?

[gnasher]

TimG, on 2012-November-02, 16:34, said:

I do not think that playing Bergen raises in a non-competitive auction equates to an implicit agreement to play them over doubles.

No, of course it doesn't. It does, however, constitute special information conveyed to you through partnership agreement. I'm not suggesting that you should state an agreement that you don't have. All you have to do is give the opponents the same information as you have. Something like "We don't have any agreement about this sequence. We did agree to play Bergen raises in an uncontested auction, but we didn't discuss whether that applies here."

[TimG]

Contrary to the way it may seem, I don't think I am advocating non-disclosure. I think there ought to be a certain likelihood that the "speculation" is true before it enters the picture. At some small likelihood, the extra information has more potential to mislead than to be helpful. When this is the case, it doesn't seem right to me to include the speculation. Perhaps an offer to speculate is in order, but I don't think the speculation should just be given.

I wouldn't think an alert of 3C in the given auction is appropriate (unless natural and NF is alertable). But, if you think it is right to automatically give the information about the non-competitive treatment, doesn't that mean you should also alert 3C?

[gnasher]

I think you're making this seem harder than it actually is. If you find yourself wondering whether partner might think that the agreement applies, and not dismissing the idea, that makes the agreement relevant. If you don't find yourself wondering that, presumably you don't think the agreement relevant, so you won't have any reason to mention it.

Having decided which agreements are relevant, that gives you a set of possible meanings for the call. If one of the possible meanings would require an alert, you alert.

[TimG]

I wouldn't be wondering whether Bergen applies in the competitive auction. I might think about it after an opponent questioned me. I guess that difference explains most of our disagreement about this.

[sailoranch]

This reminds me of a time I was playing with a new partner. The auction was something like 1♣-(2♣ majors) and I bid 2♠ with diamonds, believing we had agreed Unusual vs. Unusual, lower for lower. Partner did not alert, and when prompted by LHO, he claimed "no agreement." UvU was, in fact, not listed on our otherwise detailed card.

LHO passed, partner raised diamonds, and opps called the director, who looks at our card, shrugs, and says, "Well, if they have no agreement, then they have no agreement," and walks away.

[gnasher]

TimG, on 2012-November-04, 20:33, said:

I wouldn't be wondering whether Bergen applies in the competitive auction. I might think about it after an opponent questioned me. I guess that difference explains most of our disagreement about this.

I don't think our disagreement is about the specifics of the case. I think our disagreement is over how to present an agreement whose relevance is uncertain.

In the situation you describe, if, in the first instance, I thought we had no relevant agreements I would say "No agreement". If an opponent's subsequent question caused me to wonder if partner meant it as Bergen, I would then say "We did agree to play Bergen in an uncontested auction, but so far as I know it doesn't apply here." That is, I'd tell the opponents exactly what I knew, without either inventing or concealing an agreement.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2012-November-05, 03:10, said:

In the situation you describe, if, in the first instance, I thought we had no relevant agreements I would say "No agreement". If an opponent's subsequent question caused me to wonder if partner meant it as Bergen, I would then say "We did agree to play Bergen in an uncontested auction, but so far as I know it doesn't apply here." That is, I'd tell the opponents exactly what I knew, without either inventing or concealing an agreement.

That form of the answer seems to suffer from the same problem, in suggesting a level of certainty that doesn't really exist. If it doesn't apply here, why even mention it?

The point of this whole thread is that whether the convention does or doesn't apply is unclear. The players in the partnership are both guessing, and the opponents should be given enough information that they know they should try to guess as well. Any answer that implies more certainty than this could be considered MI. So you have to find a way to answer the question that doesn't bias it one way or the other.

In regular partnerships this is where the dreaded "I'm taking it as ..." comes up. While we don't like this formulation, it's often used in cases where there is no specific discussion, but experience with similar auctions strongly suggests a meaning.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2012-November-05, 13:51, said:

That form of the answer seems to suffer from the same problem, in suggesting a level of certainty that doesn't really exist. If it doesn't apply here, why even mention it?

I wasn't suggesting a particular form of words. If I had less certainty, I would express less certainty. For example, "We did agree to play Bergen in an uncontested auction, but I'm not sure if it applies apply here."