[Trinidad]

 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.

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.

Rik

[blackshoe]

I think you're being a bit too contentious. If you find out when 2♠ is bid that it means 4-4 majors invitational, you have not been misinformed, even if all that's on their card is "two way checkback". Okay, if they don't tell you about 2♠ it's MI, but is that what's happening?

In the first instance, I'm not sure whether this meaning of 2♠ is an explcit agreement or a logical inference from the fact of two way checkback. Certainly if the pair have discussed it it's an explicit agreement, but if they haven't?

[barmar]

 Cthulhu D, on 2014-November-17, 08:55, said:

Its just not possible to discuss the many and multitudinous possible contested auctions so often you are not going to have a specific agreement, but will infer from analogous situations. It seems ridiculous that you want to ding me for MI when I say 'This exact situation is undiscussed, but in this related situation the bid means X'

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.

[Trinidad]

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-17, 09:13, said:

I think you're being a bit too contentious.

Of course, I am contentious. After all, this is a discussion about principles, not about a real case.

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-17, 09:13, said:

If you find out when 2♠ is bid that it means 4-4 majors invitational, you have not been misinformed, even if all that's on their card is "two way checkback".

Of course, I have been misinformed because they don't have an agreement that 2♠ means 4-4 majors invitational.

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-17, 09:13, said:

In the first instance, I'm not sure whether this meaning of 2♠ is an explcit agreement or a logical inference from the fact of two way checkback. Certainly if the pair have discussed it it's an explicit agreement, but if they haven't?

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?

Rik

[blackshoe]

"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.

[nige1]

 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

[Cthulhu D]

 nige1, on 2014-November-17, 15:09, said:

I fear that Trinidad's lying accusations are an ad hominem attack. Lying implies intent to deceive. Offering to speculate is not lying. When you're more likely lhan opponents to surmise partner's meaning, and you accede to opponent's request to speculate, then you are not lying, especially If you rarely get it wrong. If what you say, in good faith, turns out to be untrue, then you are 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

He's not actually accusing you of lying - he's pointing out the problem with the proposed disclosure threshold for scratch partnerships. It is entirely possible that after the discussion 'Bergen Raises' 'OK' Partner means 1H-4C to be the 16-18 3 card raise (as is commonly played playing Bergen Raises), and you have in theory discussed it (because, as he notes, the actual book on the topic calls for that).

You're in a real spot for the same reason you should never *disclose* these agreements by saying 'Bergen raises' or whatever and should specify the hand type. There are so many variations of 'Bergen Raises' that it's hard to know exactly what one is intended. Appropriate disclosure might be:

"4C could be an ace ask, a 16-18 HCP raise with 3 card support or a splinter singleton club, typically with 4 card spade support, but may have different ranges in a good hand. Based on the shared experiences I have with this partner, I would rate the singleton club as most likely and the ace ask as least likely."

You can see the problem(s).

[nige1]

 Trinidad, on 2014-November-17, 03:26, said:

Why are you lying about your agreements?

 Trinidad, on 2014-November-17, 09:03, said:

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.

 Cthulhu D, on 2014-November-17, 18:32, said:

He's not actually accusing you of lying - he's pointing out the problem with the proposed disclosure threshold for scratch partnerships.

Are you sure?

 Cthulhu D, on 2014-November-17, 18:32, said:

It is entirely possible that after the discussion 'Bergen Raises' 'OK' Partner means 1H-4C to be the 16-18 3 card raise (as is commonly played playing Bergen Raises), and you have in theory discussed it (because, as he notes, the actual book on the topic calls for that). You're in a real spot for the same reason you should never *disclose* these agreements by saying 'Bergen raises' or whatever and should specify the hand type. There are so many variations of 'Bergen Raises' that it's hard to know exactly what one is intended.

I agree with Cthulhu, I mentioned the pitfall of using convention-names, like Bergen, in explanations, earlier in this thread Stayman is another case in point. Few players use his convention as he originally defined it. Some don't even use his 2N response.

 Cthulhu D, on 2014-November-17, 18:32, said:

Appropriate disclosure might be: "4C could be an ace ask, a 16-18 HCP raise with 3 card support or a splinter singleton club, typically with 4 card spade support, but may have different ranges in a good hand. Based on the shared experiences I have with this partner, I would rate the singleton club as most likely and the ace ask as least likely."

Fair enough Although, under current law, it might be better to say "No firm agreement but I'll speculate, if you like". That's what I try to do but I'm not even sure if it's legal.

[blackshoe]

According to the law, you should not speculate, but you should disclose any mutual experience you might have with this partner, or any other agreements you have with him, that might be germane. Frankly I don't see why that's so hard to understand, or why people think it needs changing.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-17, 23:52, said:

According to the law, you should not speculate, but you should disclose any mutual experience you might have with this partner, or any other agreements you have with him, that might be germane. Frankly I don't see why that's so hard to understand, or why people think it needs changing.

As far as I have understood there are players who want every reason they can claim for avoiding giving information to their opponents.

[helene_t]

 pran, on 2014-November-18, 02:02, said:

As far as I have understood there are players who want every reason they can claim for avoiding giving information to their opponents.

This is not my impression.

What I did encounter sometimes while I lived in the Netherlands was pairs that refused to disclose agreements which they considered to be GBK. There might be a need for tidying up the GBK concept.

What I have seen more frequently is the opposite, namely that players get out of their way to explain some agreement when they don't have any. This could be because they think they are obliged to do so - the EBU regulation that you have to alert a call if you don't know what it means but are going to take it as having an alertable meaning may contribute to this. Also, some players pose the question as "how do you take that?" which sounds like they want you to guess.

Another reason could be that some pairs want to build the imago as a pair that has sophisticated agreements.

[Trinidad]

 nige1, on 2014-November-17, 15:09, said:

Let's be clear about the example: Trinidad's opponent claims no firm agreement but offers to speculate. Trinidad asks him to do so.

Forget it, I would never ask an opponent to speculate.

 nige1, on 2014-November-17, 15:09, said:

I fear that Trinidad's lying accusations are an ad hominem attack. Lying implies intent to deceive.

I can understand that you see my lying accusations as an ad hominem attack. They are not meant to be, but, of course, I apologize.

Lying implies no intent to deceive. There are tons of reasons why people can be lying. An obvious one is because they care about someone's feelings ("You'll do fine"). Another one is because people want to be helpful. Lying simply means "intentionally saying something that you know to be untrue". It doesn't carry in its meaning anything about why someone is saying something that he knows to be untrue.

So when you say that you agreed that 4♣ shows 4+♥, a singleton club and game going values or that you agreed that 2♠ shows 4-4 in the majors, is invitational and non-forcing you are lying because you have never agreed to that and you know it.

The reason for your lying is not to deceive but to be more helpful than you can be. That makes the lying still wrong, but the intent is honorable. And the simple fact that the intent is honorable should not mean that we turn this lying into law.

Rik

[Trinidad]

 helene_t, on 2014-November-18, 04:11, said:

 pran, on 2014-November-18, 02:02, said:

As far as I have understood there are players who want every reason they can claim for avoiding giving information to their opponents.

This is not my impression.

Not mine either.

 helene_t, on 2014-November-18, 04:11, said:

What I did encounter sometimes while I lived in the Netherlands was pairs that refused to disclose agreements which they considered to be GBK. There might be a need for tidying up the GBK concept.

I think that there is something else going on here. The world is still very separated. In one country it is GBK that sequence XYZ shows A, whereas in another country it is GBK that it shows B. The "General" in General Bridge Knowledge is not as general as people think.

A simple example: For years, people in the Netherlands were taught Acol by the nationally famous method by Cees Sint and Ton Schipperheyn. For all these people it is "General" Bridge Knowledge that four card suits are opened up the line. If a gentleman or lady who learned to play in the bridge club on Acol Road would walk into these Dutch bridge clubs, they would initially be pleased to see everybody play Acol but end up totally confused.

Who is at fault? Nobody really, except that it would be good to realize that what is general "here" is not general "everywhere". But that is not a bridge question. That is a cultural question. It belongs in the school system.

Rik

[paulg]

 Trinidad, on 2014-November-18, 04:41, said:

Lying implies no intent to deceive.

It is very clear that this is your understanding and how you use the term. However for most British people (and their dictionaries), the most common use of the term lying absolutely implies an intent to deceive.

Perhaps a cultural difference in translation.

[Trinidad]

 paulg, on 2014-November-18, 05:03, said:

It is very clear that this is your understanding and how you use the term.

I am glad about that.

 paulg, on 2014-November-18, 05:03, said:

However for most British people (and their dictionaries), the most common use of the term lying absolutely implies an intent to deceive.

From the Oxford dictionary (the last time I looked Oxford was British):

Quote

Lie: (Noun) An intentionally false statement

And the term "white lie" doesn't exist in Britain either?

I will not contest that the term "lying" is often used in a context of intentional deception, but I (and the good people of Oxford) will contest that it means or even implies an intent to deceive by itself. In this particular context it should be pretty clear that there is no intent to deceive: Nige1 proposes a law change where he wants people to be helpful, by forcing them to knowingly say something that isn't true. In Oxford that is known as a lie.

Rik

[gordontd]

Rik, the quotation you give seens to me to support exactly the opposite position to the one you are arguing.

[blackshoe]

 Trinidad, on 2014-November-18, 04:56, said:

Not mine either.

I think that there is something else going on here. The world is still very separated. In one country it is GBK that sequence XYZ shows A, whereas in another country it is GBK that it shows B. The "General" in General Bridge Knowledge is not as general as people think.

A simple example: For years, people in the Netherlands were taught Acol by the nationally famous method by Cees Sint and Ton Schipperheyn. For all these people it is "General" Bridge Knowledge that four card suits are opened up the line. If a gentleman or lady who learned to play in the bridge club on Acol Road would walk into these Dutch bridge clubs, they would initially be pleased to see everybody play Acol but end up totally confused.

Who is at fault? Nobody really, except that it would be good to realize that what is general "here" is not general "everywhere". But that is not a bridge question. That is a cultural question. It belongs in the school system.

Rik

Good point.

[helene_t]

Different dictionaries differ as to whether the "intention to deceive" is part of the definition or not, but I find it a bit hard to see how one could deliberately tell an untruth without wanting to deceive, except in cases in which the target person is assumed to recognize the untruth, such as when joking or when pretenting to be misinformed.

If the question is "what does 2♠ mean?" then I don't think it is a lye to say what one thinks partner intends to convey with the 2♠ bid, even if that message is not based on a partnership-specific understanding.

Therefore, I sometimes ask it this way: "Do you have any agreement about this 2♠ bid?". To this, the answer is often "no", and I am sure that usually I would have gotten an answer like "I am not sure but probably it means that ..." if I had asked what the bid means.

But maybe this is not good since it is a bit rude to imply that I suspect that they haven't discussed it.

[barmar]

Just because partner is able to figure out your intent in a bid or play, it doesn't necessarily mean you have an agreement about it, explicit or implicit.

Bridge books and magazine columns on defense sometimes pose a problem where you need to prevent partner from end-playing you, so you discard an ace. He's supposed to figure out that you have a tenace in the other suit, so he should lead that.

Would you ever think to explain to opponents that you have an "agreement" that the discard of an ace is a signal to switch to another suit? What you have is an agreement that partner should try to work out why you did something unusual.

When you're defending a suit contract, and you open lead a suit that RHO bid, it's likely to be a singleton. Is that an agreement? No, it's more GBK -- in bridge columns, the author often refers to it as "an obvious singleton".

[nige1]

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-17, 23:52, said:

According to the law, you should not speculate, but you should disclose any mutual experience you might have with this partner, or any other agreements you have with him, that might be germane. Frankly I don't see why that's so hard to understand, or why people think it needs changing.

IMO, the law as blackshoe describes it, is hard to understand, impossible to implement in real-time, and in dire need of change. Although I speak for myself, I feel that most people, who are unsure of their agreements, are also unsure of the evidence on which their agreements are based, which necessarily includes related agreements and vague memories, of which they're also unsure. Hence an attempt to "disclose mutual experience and other relevant agreements" presents us with the same problem, only worse Furthermore, any such explanation would be hard to put into words and even harder to understand

It would be more efficient to cut straight to your speculative conclusions. And that is the suggested law-change.