[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2012-December-30, 17:06, said:

I think that someone is misunderstanding something. From where I stand the meta-agreement is that you cannot have a hand that you previously denied. Some people refer to that as 'The box principle'. As a consequence, 3♦ cannot be natural (since with a hand with diamonds and spades, we would have doubled 2♦).

The problem, though, is that North said answered yes to "was everything natural?". Should the opponents understand this to mean "except the bids that obviously couldn't be natural", so that South doesn't have to offer a correction?

How much of this is GBK, which players aren't required to explain?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-December-29, 22:33, said:

I think what they're saying is that they don't have an agreement about what 3♦ means. However, they have meta-agreements that provide implicit agreements about what it doesn't mean.

So if South were to offer a correction, the best he could say is "Partner's explanation was wrong, it's not natural. But since we don't have an agreement about what it shows, I don't need to provide any more information."

Trinidad, on 2012-December-30, 17:06, said:

blackshoe, on 2012-December-30, 09:42, said:

No, but if he based his expectation on meta-agreements about what 3♦ doesn't mean, that should be disclosed.

I think that someone is misunderstanding something. From where I stand the meta-agreement is that you cannot have a hand that you previously denied. Some people refer to that as 'The box principle'. As a consequence, 3♦ cannot be natural (since with a hand with diamonds and spades, we would have doubled 2♦). This is exactly what Barmar wanted to disclose. Where do you see that NS had more detailed meta-agreements? What law (or regulation) says that NS should have more detailed meta-agreements?

Barmar suggested (see above) that the pair in question have meta-agreements that provide implicit agreements relevant to what 3♦ doesn't mean — and therefor IMO relevant to what it does mean. As for you second question, my answer is "none" (unless the WBF is the RA, at least).

Trinidad, on 2012-December-30, 17:06, said:

blackshoe, on 2012-December-30, 09:42, said:

A suggestion for players: don't tell the TD what the laws and regulations require — he's supposed to tell you what they require.

I don't understand this. Where is it coming from and where do you intend to go with this?

It comes from Barmar's suggestion that they might say "we don't have any agreement, so I don't have to say anything more". I don't intend to go anywhere with it, I think it stands on its own.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2012-December-30, 22:03, said:

Trinidad, on 2012-December-30, 17:06, said:

I think that someone is misunderstanding something. From where I stand the meta-agreement is that you cannot have a hand that you previously denied. Some people refer to that as 'The box principle'. As a consequence, 3♦ cannot be natural (since with a hand with diamonds and spades, we would have doubled 2♦).

The problem, though, is that North said answered yes to "was everything natural?". Should the opponents understand this to mean "except the bids that obviously couldn't be natural", so that South doesn't have to offer a correction?

How much of this is GBK, which players aren't required to explain?

Maybe I wasn't clear. The explanation by North was wrong. I was talking about how you said that South should correct the explanation:

barmar, on 2012-December-29, 22:33, said:

So if South were to offer a correction, the best he could say is "Partner's explanation was wrong, it's not natural. But since we don't have an agreement about what it shows, I don't need to provide any more information."

I think this is exactly correct.

Rik

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-30, 22:14, said:

Barmar suggested (see above) that the pair in question have meta-agreements that provide implicit agreements relevant to what 3♦ doesn't mean — and therefor IMO relevant to what it does mean.

Indeed. The meta-agreement is that 3♦ cannot mean diamonds. And that is included in the explanation that Barmar suggested (I highlighted the corresponding texts for you):

barmar, on 2012-December-29, 22:33, said:

I think what they're saying is that they don't have an agreement about what 3♦ means. However, they have meta-agreements that provide implicit agreements about what it doesn't mean [natural diamonds].

So if South were to offer a correction, the best he could say is "Partner's explanation was wrong, it's not natural. But since we don't have an agreement about what it shows, I don't need to provide any more information."

Rik

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-30, 09:42, said:

A suggestion for players: don't tell the TD what the laws and regulations require — he's supposed to tell you what they require.

blackshoe, on 2012-December-30, 22:14, said:

It comes from Barmar's suggestion that they might say "we don't have any agreement, so I don't have to say anything more". I don't intend to go anywhere with it, I think it stands on its own.

Ahh, I see. I never interpreted this as if Barmar was saying this to a TD. To me this seemed like something he would say to his opponents. But you are, of course, correct. This is something that at least should be said in the presence of the TD.

I agree that the form of Barmar's statement is perhaps a little blunt. It might be better if the second part ("I am not supposed to say anything more") would be worded in the form of a question towards the TD.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2012-December-31, 03:41, said:

Indeed. The meta-agreement is that 3♦ cannot mean diamonds. And that is included in the explanation that Barmar suggested (I highlighted the corresponding texts for you):

If there is no relevant information available other than "not natural", then fine. But if the pair has any information that would inform the partner of the 3♦ bidder as to what that bidder is doing (what he intends by 3♦) that information should be disclosed without any foot dragging.

"I don't have to say anything more" is confrontational and unnecessary. "The only relevant thing I can tell you is that 3♦ is not natural". Or "3♦ is not natural; beyond that we have no agreement."

I find it hard to believe that a pair could have an agreement, meta or otherwise, that a bid is not natural, and have no idea what it means. Maybe that's just me.

[f0rdy]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-31, 08:11, said:

If there is no relevant information available other than "not natural", then fine. But if the pair has any information that would inform the partner of the 3♦ bidder as to what that bidder is doing (what he intends by 3♦) that information should be disclosed without any foot dragging.

"I don't have to say anything more" is confrontational and unnecessary. "The only relevant thing I can tell you is that 3♦ is not natural". Or "3♦ is not natural; beyond that we have no agreement."

I find it hard to believe that a pair could have an agreement, meta or otherwise, that a bid is not natural, and have no idea what it means. Maybe that's just me.

I can think of at least two variants I've experienced, with near-pickup partners (but friends, so aware of each other's style):

A) A cue of opponents suit in a slightly complicated auction "I'm sure it's not natural, but I'm not sure whether it's showing support or asking for a stop."

B) A cue of opponents suit in a slightly complicated auction "I'm sure it's not natural, but I'm not sure whether it's showing a stop or asking for one."

(And C, I've just been reading a thread where there seems to be a number of views on what 1H P 1S 2C 3C shows, including disagreement within a partnership. I'm sure none of them what ever have considered it to be natural)

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-31, 08:11, said:

If there is no relevant information available other than "not natural", then fine. But if the pair has any information that would inform the partner of the 3♦ bidder as to what that bidder is doing (what he intends by 3♦) that information should be disclosed without any foot dragging.

"I don't have to say anything more" is confrontational and unnecessary. "The only relevant thing I can tell you is that 3♦ is not natural". Or "3♦ is not natural; beyond that we have no agreement."

I find it hard to believe that a pair could have an agreement, meta or otherwise, that a bid is not natural, and have no idea what it means. Maybe that's just me.

I am extremely uncomfortable with the tendency to consider "No agreement" as an acceptable disclosure during the auction.

First of all, on a technicality, this is a plain wrong disclosure because players are not supposed to disclose their agreements, they are required to disclose their partnership understandings.

Now, before I accept "not discussed" or similar I shall want to be convinced that they indeed have no understanding, and then in particular why at all the player made the call in question. How did he expect his partner to understand the call?

My experience is that most players have the expectation, or at least hope that their partners will understand their intention with a call, or they simply refrain from trying that call until they have discussed it for later use.

Now then, which principle will best serve bridge: The player's partner who seriously did not understand a call saying so and that being the end of story, or the player making the call subsequently (at the proper time) disclosing his intention with the call?

The first alternative will just protect the offending side and often lead directly to an unfair disadvantage for the non-offending side.
The second alternative is consistent with treating "no understanding" as equivalent to "misinformation" and will thus protect the non-offending side.

[gnasher]

pran, on 2012-December-31, 09:11, said:

Now then, which principle will best serve bridge: The player's partner who seriously did not understand a call saying so and that being the end of story, or the player making the call subsequently (at the proper time) disclosing his intention with the call?

The first alternative will just protect the offending side and often lead directly to an unfair disadvantage for the non-offending side.
The second alternative is consistent with treating "no understanding" as equivalent to "misinformation" and will thus protect the non-offending side.

Why do you call them the "offending side"? If they genuinely have no partnership understanding, they have committed no offence.

[pran]

gnasher, on 2012-December-31, 10:02, said:

Why do you call them the "offending side"? If they genuinely have no partnership understanding, they have committed no offence.

Because I consider them failing to give the required disclosure unless they convince me that they really have no partnership understanding.

And I am very difficult to convince unless they also give a good reason why they use a particular call for which they allegedly have no partnership understanding.

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2012-December-30, 22:03, said:

The problem, though, is that North said answered yes to "was everything natural?". Should the opponents understand this to mean "except the bids that obviously couldn't be natural", so that South doesn't have to offer a correction?

How much of this is GBK, which players aren't required to explain?

It is not GBK that saying a bid is natural means that it is not natural because the person saying so thinks it is obvious that it is not natural.

I think it "obvious" that 1♣ P 1♠ 2♠ is never natural. I am finding more people over time who disagree with this. "Obvious" agreements need to be disclosed unless they are universally obvious.

gnasher, on 2012-December-31, 10:02, said:

Why do you call them the "offending side"? If they genuinely have no partnership understanding, they have committed no offence.

It is an unfortunate fact [unfortunate for pedants, anyway ] that the Laws have long referred to the side that creates a situation whether through an infraction or not as the offending side, and we might as well accept it.

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2012-December-31, 10:38, said:

Because I consider them failing to give the required disclosure unless they convince me that they really have no partnership understanding.

And I am very difficult to convince unless they also give a good reason why they use a particular call for which they allegedly have no partnership understanding.

Come on, Sven. You and I have never played togther before. Suppose that we would play together. We agree something simple, let's say SAYC, something on leads and signals and nothing more. (This does happen a lot.) Now, on the first board, we are faced with this auction.

I might well bid 3♦, hoping that you will figure out that it cannot possibly be natural and that I don't have a better bid available.

While this may be my intention with the 3♦ bid, we do not have an explicit or implicit agreement about the precise meaning of 3♦, nor do we have any partnership understanding. I am merely hoping that you can figure out from GBK that:
- 3♦ is not natural
- It denies holding a hand that could have made a more descriptive call. (After all, my goal in life is not to torture partner.)

There is no partnership understanding, but a good player will be able to figure out a meaning of 3♦ based on GBK. So, it is perfectly possible that you and I would be on the exact same wavelength about the 3♦ bid, without basing this on a partnership understanding, but only basing it on GBK and logic. This means that there is nothing to alert or explain.
If you still would figure out what I intended with 3♦, the opponents don't have any reason to complain: The whole thing was based on GBK, which is specifically exempted from disclosure. Also, using the same GBK, they could have reached the same conclusion.

Now suppose that you were a little absent minded. You didn't apply GBK and you didn't come to the easy conclusion that 3♦ cannot be natural. You would still know that we didn't have a partnership understanding about 3♦. And it is very easy to confuse "no partnership understanding" with "it must be natural". So, unfortunately, you explain 3♦ as natural ("what else?").

In that case, I will have to correct that you were wrong and that 3♦ was not natural, adding that there was no specific partnership understanding, and maybe adding that from GBK it is easy to derive that 3♦ cannot be natural. But I cannot possibly explain more, since we don't have any more agreements. If I would explain more, I would be lying.

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2012-December-31, 11:51, said:

Come on, Sven. You and I have never played togther before. Suppose that we would play together. We agree something simple, let's say SAYC, something on leads and signals and nothing more. (This does happen a lot.) Now, on the first board, we are faced with this auction.

I might well bid 3♦, hoping that you will figure out that it cannot possibly be natural and that I don't have a better bid available.

While this may be my intention with the 3♦ bid, we do not have an explicit or implicit agreement about the precise meaning of 3♦, nor do we have any partnership understanding. I am merely hoping that you can figure out from GBK that:
- 3♦ is not natural
- It denies holding a hand that could have made a more descriptive call. (After all, my goal in life is not to torture partner.)

There is no partnership understanding, but a good player will be able to figure out a meaning of 3♦ based on GBK. So, it is perfectly possible that you and I would be on the exact same wavelength about the 3♦ bid, without basing this on a partnership understanding, but only basing it on GBK and logic. This means that there is nothing to alert or explain.
If you still would figure out what I intended with 3♦, the opponents don't have any reason to complain: The whole thing was based on GBK, which is specifically exempted from disclosure. Also, using the same GBK, they could have reached the same conclusion.

Now suppose that you were a little absent minded. You didn't apply GBK and you didn't come to the easy conclusion that 3♦ cannot be natural. You would still know that we didn't have a partnership understanding about 3♦. And it is very easy to confuse "no partnership understanding" with "it must be natural". So, unfortunately, you explain 3♦ as natural ("what else?").

In that case, I will have to correct that you were wrong and that 3♦ was not natural, adding that there was no specific partnership understanding, and maybe adding that from GBK it is easy to derive that 3♦ cannot be natural. But I cannot possibly explain more, since we don't have any more agreements. If I would explain more, I would be lying.

Rik

1: The exceptions for GBK presuppose that it is GBK (also) for the opponents!
2: The way I understand the laws I have an obligation to make sure opponents receive the same knowledge as I have on my understanding of (in this case) your 3♦ bid whether this understanding is the result of discussions, agreements or my deductions on what you can possibly have meant.

Now, if I give an (in your opinion) incorrect description of your call then you have the duty to correct my description at the proper time, and it is my honest opinion that you may not get away with a statement to the effect that we have no understanding unless you give a convincing explanation for why you in that case made that call.

I can only imagine one such explanation: "I believed we had an understanding, but eventually realized that I was wrong."

[mycroft]

I have made "not natural, but no meaning" bids before, and I am sure I shall again. "I have no other way to force" is a good one. "I have no other way to force that doesn't lie horribly" is another. "I know what I want to bid, but I also know that this partner isn't going to understand, so I'm making a bid partner can't pass" is a third, especially if I'm playing standby in a club. "I'm going to cue and bid 3NT, and hope partner will figure out: 1) the cue is not natural, but we have no agreement about it and 2) If I hand [other potential hand] I would have bid 3NT right away" and maybe I'll survive.

There's also "we haven't agreed anything, but everyone in the club plays either X or Y, and I'm hoping he'll guess X". That isn't "not natural but no meaning", however.

I think in this case, however, the argument wasn't "he should have said no agreement", but "it's clear they have no agreement. If that was made clear to E/W (as opposed to knowing what South meant the bid as, which isn't their right by Law), then what would they have likely (ACBL) done/ thought reasonable to do, and how likely (ROW)?" In other words, the TD should consult and should rule as if they said they had no agreement with whatever relevant meta-agreements the TD has found out that they do have; the players are out of the picture at this point.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-December-31, 11:35, said:

I think it "obvious" that 1♣ P 1♠ 2♠ is never natural. I am finding more people over time who disagree with this. "Obvious" agreements need to be disclosed unless they are universally obvious.

Mike Lawrence mentions that it should be natural in his recently updated book on balancing (I know this is not a balancing bid, it was an aside in the section about bidding responder's suit after partner has balanced).

[barmar]

pran, on 2012-December-31, 12:29, said:

1: The exceptions for GBK presuppose that it is GBK (also) for the opponents!

If it's not, then it isn't GBK.

Quote

general |ˈjenərəl|
adjective
1 affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2012-December-31, 12:29, said:

1: The exceptions for GBK presuppose that it is GBK (also) for the opponents!

That is simply not true. The relevant Law is 40B6a (emphasis mine):

Quote

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

GBK means General Bridge Knowledge. That is not the same as Universal Bridge Knowledge. Now we can debate how general this 'general' should be. But I would think that the box principle ("You cannot show a hand that you have denied previously.") is well beyond general and close to universal. I think that if you would ask each of the opponents individually if anyone can show a hand that he has denied in the previous round of the auction, you would get two clear no's. So, the box principle is GBK.

The fact that I can draw the inference "3♦ cannot be natural" from "matters generally known to bridge players" (i.e. the box principle), is entirely due to my knowledge and experience. I do not need to disclose this to anybody.

And I do not need to care whether the opponents have "the knowledge or the experience" to draw that same inference, as long as my inference is based on "matters generally known to bridge players".

I don't know who South is. It is highly likely that I have never met him in my life let alone have played with him. Nevertheless, I can deduce that 3♦ is not natural from the simple fact that NS play natural in this auction. Since I don't know who South is, I have only my GBK to guide me. If that is not proof that the meaning of 3♦ can be inferred by GBK, then what is?

Rik

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-December-31, 12:29, said:

I can only imagine one such explanation: "I believed we had an understanding, but eventually realized that I was wrong."

Imagine greater.

If you require all players, at all levels, to have agreements understandings about all possible calls, you will, sooner or later, kill the game. Probably sooner.

[FrancesHinden]

Is it AI to the EW players that neither N or S ever asked about the meaning of the (alerted) 2D bid?
Should that affect the ruling about opening leader's LAs?

[ArtK78]

I don't know if this will add anything to the discussion, but this happened to me yesterday.

I was playing in the first round of a Sectional Swiss Teams in Wilmington Delaware with a partner who I have not played with in about 10 years.

On the first board, with my partner as dealer (no one vul) we had the following auction:

1♣ - (2♣)* - 2♦ - (2♥)
3♦ - (P) - P - (3♥)
P - (P) - 3♠ - (P)
3NT - All Pass

*Michaels

My RHO put the lead face down and then my LHO asked my partner about the meaning of the 3♠ bid. Both I and my partner broke out laughing. Our explanation was essentially that this was the first board we have played together in about 10 years and our pregame discussion did not include how to invite a game after we pass a hand out in partscore.

Nevertheless, he understood, through general bridge knowledge, that I had something of value in spades (I had QTxx), and we made 3NT on a heart lead into his AQ.

Would anyone argue that we need to come up with a better explanation for my 3♠ bid?