[nige1]

nige1, on 2014-November-12, 11:34, said:

Some players seem sure of their partnership agreements but I guess that the majority, like me, are never certain. With each putative "agreement", I could associate a rough probability in an open interval e.g. Stayman (about 99%) and e.g. some potential Kickback bids in a competitive auction (about 1%). The problem is that different players handle uncertainty in different ways.

• If they're reasonably sure, some state their surmise as unqualified fact. They open themselves to misinformation rulings
• Unless they're pretty sure, most just claim "no agreement" and won't be budged. As far as current Bridge law is concerned, that's the safest position.
• A few like me, say they're unsure, but offer to speculate. And now we're in vampyr territory

IMO, the law should be changed to "If you don't know and it's not on your system card, then you must guess". You can point to your system-card but if opponents can't find it there, then you must guess. If you get it wrong, then you should be subject to MI law. Shades of Bobby Wolf but it would encourage players to complete their system-cards or to adopt a standard card.

pran, on 2014-November-12, 12:01, said:

There are three possibilities:
1: The player being unable to give a complete and correct explanation because he has forgotten the agreement - he is (of course) at fault
2: There is indeed no partnership understanding (explicit or implicit) - the player making such a call is at fault!
A good player will never place his partner in a position where the partner cannot be expected to have any idea on what is going on. If he does he is the one causing his partner to misinform opponents.
In either case, opponents have been misinformed, and if they are consequently damaged then they should receive redress.
3: Partner does indeed have the idea which then, being an implicit partnership understanding, is what he is supposed to tell opponents.
If partner now gives the correct explanation then no damage is done.
However, if he turns out to give an incorrect explanation then we have an unfortunate example of alternative 2 above!

blackshoe, on 2014-November-12, 12:15, said:

Please let's not confuse what we would like the laws to say with what they do say.

nige1, on 2014-November-12, 12:18, said:

Addendum to my previous post. When you're unsure what partner's call means, the director has the power to ask you to leave the table and to instruct your partner to explain it's systemic meaning to opponents. An excellent theoretical solution, although unused, in my practical experience. Even better, if the law empowered players to exercise that option themselves. A cynic might predict a miracle-cure for system-amnesia

blackshoe, on 2014-November-12, 12:28, said:

One more time: stick to what the laws say, not what you would like them to say. If you want to discuss the latter, there's another forum here for that.

OK, I don't think current Bridge law copes well with disclosure. Pran and I were suggesting "improvements". I'd like to add others' suggestions to the poll.

[kenrexford]

As a related note, a discussion from my past illustrates a problem with disclosure. I had 1453 pattern, opened 1D, and then rebid 2C. Partner disagreed with my choice. Strangely, a person at the controversial Wagar table was consulted as to whether 2C or 1NT was "right." She stated that either bid was a reasonable option. Pressed, she could not pick.

The point? Disclosure to the extreme would require assessment of judgment. Some options partner might consider might never be imagined until Dummy hits. Some judgments might be debated as if errors in judgment to one partner's perspective. Do you disclose the possibility that partner might have a holding that you consider an error? Can you later argue that disclosure was accurate but that partner is an idiot?

I am thinking of the Wagar situation. Passing the redouble might seem right on the cards given to some, but some North players might view this as an error, a deviation perhaps, not from system but from sound judgment.

Usually seems to capture the concept. Means nothing does also, perhaps, depending on judgment differenxes.

[barmar]

You can only ever be required to disclose your agreements. Sometimes you have a hand for which no agreed call fits, and you have to improvise and choose the "least lie". This should be understood by the opponents, you shouldn't have to mention the possibility every time you explain a call.

This is very different from when partner makes a call that you're actually unsure of the meaning of.

[barmar]

I don't understand the first poll question. If you're unsure of something, what else can you do other than guess? Is your question actually whether you should disclose what your guess is and/or that you're guessing?

[nige1]

barmar, on 2014-November-13, 10:31, said:

You can only ever be required to disclose your agreements. Sometimes you have a hand for which no agreed call fits, and you have to improvise and choose the "least lie". This should be understood by the opponents, you shouldn't have to mention the possibility every time you explain a call. This is very different from when partner makes a call that you're actually unsure of the meaning of.

Yes.the suggestion is that you try to disclose the systemic meaning (implicit or explicit). In a novel context, however, you can suddenly become aware of a hole in your system and realise that partner must improvise by extending the meaning of a system-bid on certain hands. Then, IMO. you should disclose that possibility because it's an implicit component of your system, which you can infer more easily than an opponent can. Anyway, I agree it's an interesting question -- which has been addressed in previous topics.

barmar, on 2014-November-13, 10:32, said:

I don't understand the first poll question. If you're unsure of something, what else can you do other than guess? Is your question actually whether you should disclose what your guess is and/or that you're guessing?

Thank you, Barmar, I've clarified the question.

[RMB1]

Quote

When you're unsure of the meaning of your partner's call, opponents should have the power to ask him to explain its systemic meaning, in your absence?

OTHER.

When you're unsure of the meaning of your partner's call, but there is a systemic meaning, opponents should have the power right to ask the TD to investigate, including asking him to explain its systemic meaning

[nige1]

RMB1, on 2014-November-13, 11:53, said:

OTHER. When you're unsure of the meaning of your partner's call, but there is a systemic meaning, opponents should have the power right to ask the TD to investigate, including asking him to explain its systemic meaning

RMB1 seems to be arguing against change. In these circumstances, under current law, I believe that you can call the director and he can ask the caller to explain the systemic meaning of his own call.

Unfortunately, if the director were called every time that a player claimed no agreement, then the director would have little time for anything else. The suggestion is it to make it legal for a player to shorten the process, avoiding the director call.

[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2014-November-13, 19:06, said:

RMB1 seems to be arguing against change. In these circumstances, under current law, I believe that you can call the director and he can ask the caller to explain the systemic meaning of his own call. Unfortunately, if the director were called every time that a player claimed no agreement, then the director would have little time for anything else. The suggestion is it to make it legal for a player to shorten the process, avoiding the director call.

We're not dealing with "no agreement". (No agreement cases are easy: If there is no agreement than the explanation is correct. If there was an agreement, the bidder will have to call the TD at the appropriate time and we have an MI case.)

We are dealing with "(I think) We have an agreement, but I can't remember what it is." In that case it is a good idea to take the player from the table and let the bidder explain the partnership agreement.

And for the record: The TD is being called too little rather than too often. Law changes simply aimed at reducing the amount of TD calls and "shortening the process" are a very bad idea.

Rik

[paulg]

nige1, on 2014-November-13, 19:06, said:

The suggestion is it to make it legal for a player to shorten the process, avoiding the director call.

We both know people who try to do this already and giving them the right to do so will only increase the bullying of less experienced players.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2014-November-12, 05:14, said:

I think that "deemed misinformation" would be better than "unacceptable explanation". Imagine a game where all calls by a side were "undiscussed", and the other side had to guess at the meaning of every call, and have a whole system to cope with every "undiscussed" bid of the opponents. For example, 1S - (3C, undiscussed). Now I play with most partners that if 3C is natural, double is takeout, if 3C is Ghestem, double is looking for a penalty. If 3C is "undiscussed", I do not have a clue what to do.

blackshoe, on 2014-November-14, 08:43, said:

One of the prerequisites for "damage" is that the opponents must have committed an infraction. Is "having no agreements" an infraction?

Vampyr, on 2014-November-14, 08:49, said:

Not per se, but regulations could define it as misinformation in order to protect opponents from damage.

blackshoe, on 2014-November-14, 08:58, said:

I suppose they could, although I'm not sure that would be a legal regulation. In any case, I don't know of any jurisdiction that has such a regulation.

I have added Lamfords suggestion to the poll. Presumably, you would still have to alert (or to announce) but then you would say "no agreement" (assuming that is the truth, as far as you remember); and this would be treated as MI.

This is quite different from making you guess the systemic meaning. If you have to guess then opponents have relevant information on which to base their actions and can claim MI if you guess wrong; but if you guess right then there would be no MI, so no redress.

[nige1]

Trinidad, on 2014-November-14, 05:04, said:

We're not dealing with "no agreement". (No agreement cases are easy: If there is no agreement than the explanation is correct. If there was an agreement, the bidder will have to call the TD at the appropriate time and we have an MI case.) We are dealing with "(I think) We have an agreement, but I can't remember what it is." In that case it is a good idea to take the player from the table and let the bidder explain the partnership agreement. And for the record: The TD is being called too little rather than too often. Law changes simply aimed at reducing the amount of TD calls and "shortening the process" are a very bad idea.

Trinidad and I represent 2 opposing camps of opinion on this often discussed matter. IMO, current law encourages players to say "no agreement" rather than risk of giving MI.

When an opponent says "no agreement", it's surprising how often he takes successful action. I'm not a mind-reader. Nevertheless, I think that "No agreement" is sometimes the truth, as far as he remembers. However, if asked, his partner would rarely claim that his own call was meaningless. More often, he would tell you what, he thinks. they agreed. Even when there's no explicit agreement about his call, the bidder hoped that his partner could deduce its likely meaning from general principles, common experience, analogy with similar auctions, and negative inferences from other agreements -- i.e. he believes that they have, at least, an implicit agreement.

I'm only guessing, based on how people seem to rationalize in other circumstances. In my experience, however, an opponent has never called the director, later, to admit to an implicit agreement, after his partner has claimed "no agreement".

I agree with Trinidad, that players should call the director more often. On an average club night, however, at least one of my opponents claims "no agreement". If my experience is typical and the director were called each time, then that would mean a lot of director calls.

[pran]

nige1, on 2014-November-14, 11:39, said:

[...]
On an average club night, however, at least one of my opponents claims "no agreement".

If a player regularly claims "no agreement" he is in my opinion clearly incriminating himself.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-November-14, 11:43, said:

If a player regularly claims "no agreement" he is in my opinion clearly incriminating himself.

Some time ago, over a period of a couple of weeks, i played 4 times with 4 different people with whom I had not played before, and had not seen at the table before. I also played with several different players with whom I had not played in several months at least, and with whom I did not play more than a game or two when I played with them previously. I don't recall having occasion to "claim no agreement" but if I had on say 3 or 4 occasions during that week , would you say I had "incriminated" myself?

[nige1]

paulg, on 2014-November-14, 08:16, said:

We both know people who try to do this already and giving them the right to do so will only increase the bullying of less experienced players.

In theory, the new zero tolerance policy should take care of this kind of thing. In practice, friends and I have called the director on several recent occasions, about an opponent's obnoxious behaviour, to zero effect.

[akwoo]

I will agree with "You must state your best guess," but only after excusing your partner from the table.

Your guess is, after all, UI to your partner, and it is more UI beyond your not being sure. I don't think regulations should require you to transmit UI to your partner unless it's absolutely necessary to ensure full disclosure.

[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2014-November-14, 11:39, said:

When an opponent says "no agreement", it's surprising how often he takes successful action. I'm not a mind-reader. Nevertheless, I think that "No agreement" is sometimes the truth, as far as he remembers. However, if asked, his partner would rarely claim that his own call was meaningless. More often, he would tell you what, he thinks. they agreed. Even when there's no explicit agreement about his call, the bidder hoped that his partner could deduce its likely meaning from general principles, common experience, analogy with similar auctions, and negative inferences from other agreements -- i.e. he believes that they have, at least, an implicit agreement.

What you describe is not an implicit agreement (which would indeed need to be disclosed). It is general bridge knowledge (this doesn't need to be disclosed).

• An explicit agreement is an agreement that the pair has said out loud, one that you find on the CC or in a system book. "We play Stayman" is an explicit agreement.
  
• An implicit agreement is an agreement that was never said out loud, but that grew on the pair by partnership experience. A tendency to frequently upgrade 14 HCP hands into a 15-17 1NT (explicitly agreed) is an implicit agreement that the range is 14+ - 17.
  
• A likely meaning from general principles is not specific for the partnership and is general bridge knowledge. It is not surprising that two players who never met before but have the same level of general bridge knowledge will often derive the same likely meaning for a call from general principles. But that doesn't make it an implicit agreement.

Rik

[nige1]

nige1, on 2014-November-14, 11:39, said:

Even when there's no explicit agreement about his call, the bidder hoped that his partner could deduce its likely meaning from general principles, common experience, analogy with similar auctions, and negative inferences from other agreements -- i.e. he believes that they have, at least, an implicit agreement.

Trinidad, on 2014-November-14, 17:53, said:

What you describe is not an implicit agreement (which would indeed need to be disclosed). It is general bridge knowledge (this doesn't need to be disclosed).

OK this is where we disagree.

IMO, General Bridge Knowledge is a myth invented by prevaricators. Whenever a director has managed to extract the information as to what opponents agree to be relevant "General Bridge Knowledge", it has almost always come as a surprise to me.

Even if you have faith in "General Bridge Knowledge", how can you believe that it's legal to refrain from mentioning "inferences from similar auctions and negative inferences from other agreements"?

[blackshoe]

I disagree with your opinion on "general bridge knowledge," Nigel. Besides, the phrase in the law book is not that, it's "knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players."

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-14, 21:22, said:

I disagree with your opinion on "general bridge knowledge," Nigel. Besides, the phrase in the law book is not that, it's "knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players."

Fair enough, Blackshoe. In my (seemingly atypical) experience, shared understandings vary from time to time, from country to country, from club to club, and even from clique to clique. Hence I'm unsure what bidding understandings are matters generally known to bridge-players. I accept that others have a different perception.

More worrying would be if Blackshoe also believes that you still have "no agreement" when you can make a reasonable deduction of the meaning of an undiscussed call by analogy with other partnership auctions and negative inferences from other partnership agreements

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2014-November-14, 21:51, said:

More worrying would be if Blackshoe also believes that you still have "no agreement" when you can make a reasonable deduction of the meaning of an undiscussed call by analogy with other partnership auctions and negative inferences from other partnership agreements

You can stop worrying — at least about that.