Trinidad, on 2014-November-17, 03:26, said:
?!? You have an agreement to play the name of the convention. You have no agreement about what you understand by partner's bid. Why are you lying about your agreements?
blackshoe, on 2014-November-17, 08:15, said:
Rik, if you asked that question at the table, I would give you a zero tolerance penalty.
Trinidad, on 2014-November-17, 09:03, said:
Most certainly. But we are not at the table, we are in a discussion forum. And we are dealing with someone who is not merely lying about his agreements, but advocates that everybody should do that and we should incorporate it in the Laws. And in this case it couldn't be easier to explain the actual agreements, since there are only explicit partnership agreements ("We play Bergen Raises" or "We play two way checkback Stayman") and zero implicit partnership agreements. Why would you tell the opponents the conclusion of a whole pile of interpretations and guesses when you can (and should) simply tell them your agreements? And to be absolutely clear: If at the table I would know that my opponents have only agreed to "We play two-way checkback Stayman" and I get the explanation about the auction 1♦-1♥; 1NT-2♠ as showing 4-4 in the majors and invitational, I would call the TD for MI, even in the unlikely event that the explanation describes the hand correctly. And I expect the TD to warn my opponents and stick to explaining their agreements.
Let's be clear about the example: Trinidad's opponent claims no firm agreement but offers to speculate. Trinidad asks him to do so. By following what he considers to be valid inferences, the opponent starts a correct explanation of what his partner meant. Trinidad calls the director to complain? .. Well, that's Trinidad's prerogative
barmar, on 2014-November-17, 10:14, said:
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you give this type of explanation, and it turns out not to describe the actual meaning, but you somehow get a good result, they'll cry MI. If you just say "undiscussed", but you manage to guess right and get a good result, they'll also cry MI. The only way the opponents will let you off the hook is if your lack of a firm agreement results in them getting a good board.
In practice,
under current law, claiming no agreement seems to have few repercussions. An amusing example: In a Welsh national competition, we played against a married couple. LHO discarded the ten of spades. The carding agreement section of opponent's system-card was blank. I asked RHO about discards and she said "No agreement". At the end of the round, I went back to the table to retrieve something, The husband was berating his wife for failing to comply with his spade signal. I called the director. not to claim damage but to suggest that the couple might change their system-cards. The man protested that I was accusing him of cheating and, anyway, he couldn't change the cards because they were in plastic wrappers.. The director said he'd go away to decide on a ruling. The couple didn't change their cards.
Previously, I was trying to show that even a
first-time partnership can have more implicit agreements than they might think. Now my contention is that an
experienced partnership, like that Welsh couple, develop even more rapport over time. When they take an undiscussed action, in a novel context,
their "guess" at what it means will normally be better than yours. Trinidad, on 2014-November-17, 10:20, said:
Of course, I am contentious. After all, this is a discussion about principles, not about a real case. Of course, I have been misinformed because they don't have an agreement that 2♠ means 4-4 majors invitational. If they have discussed it, it is an explicit agreement. But they didn't discuss it and there are no implicit agreements. And there is no logical inference either. The system was 2/1 GF, the auction started 1♦-1♥; 1NT. What would be logical about responder introducing a four card spade suit?
blackshoe, on 2014-November-17, 11:43, said:
"There are no implicit agreements" is just wrong. I gave the logic by which 2♠ indicates responder is 4-4 in the majors upthread. Or rather I gave Rosenkranz's logic — or his character Godfrey's. You may disagree with it, but of both members of this pair come up with "responder is 4-4 majors" based on it, they have an implicit agreement, whether you like it or not.
I fear that Trinidad's lying accusations are an ad hominem attack. Lying implies intent to deceive. Offering to speculate isn't lying. When you're more likely lhan opponents to surmise partner's meaning, and you accede to opponent's request to speculate, then you're not lying, especially If you rarely get it wrong.
If what you say, in good faith, turns out to be untrue, then you're still not lying.
Of course, Trinidad might be right that this speculation is
against current law. If so, that's a pity but this thread is about a
suggested law-change. My examples are part of the argument for that change. The rules of a game can legitimate certain lies (e.g. Liar dice). The rules of Bridge already allow some lies (e.g. psychs, false-cards). Anyway,
If the law were changed so that you had to state your guess, then stating your guess would not be a lie.
Sto pro veritate