Trinidad

No. They are not entitled to the bidder's understanding of his call or what the bidder intended to show. They are only entitled to the agreement. (And that should be pretty clear from the last few posts before yours.) If the bidder thinks "A" and his partner thinks "B" then the agreement is "we have a disagreement". So, you, as a non-offender, are only entitled to "we have a disagreement". In practice, at the table, you will get "B", because it is inevitable. If you end up defending, you will usually get "A" too. (Though I find barmar's addition interesting: a TD should not give the non-offenders the bidder's thoughts about the convention. He should only give them the agreement, in this case: "no agreement".) If you end up declaring, you will not hear "A" until the hand is over. For the purpose of an AS, we give the "virtual non-offenders" the correct explanation, which in this case is: "No agreement". Rik

Let me make it 100% clear: During the play at the table the players are supposed to explain what they know. Supposedly they think they know what "Widget" means and, at that point, they don't know better than that they have an agreement with partner. An explanation of "Widget" (convention name only) is not allowed, so, at the table they will explain what they (think they) know the bid to mean in terms of distribution, strength, or whatever (e.g. "two suiter with spades and a minor"). If the Widgeteers end up declaring, the partner will have to correct, since he (thinks he) knows that "Widget" means something else (e.g. "three suited with short clubs"). One could say that the opponents are "entitled" to these explanations at the table, since as long as the Widgeteers follow the laws, they will have to provide this information. However, despite that both explanations are very informative and handy for the non-offenders, and that lawfully the non-offenders should always get these explanations when they are defending, both explanations are wrong. The correct explanation is: "We agreed to play Widget, but we don't agree what that means." For the purpose of assigning an AS, the non-offenders are only entitled to know the agreement of the Widgeteers. The truth is that the Widgeteers have no agreement. They only have a disagreement. (They may have a partial agreement, e.g. Widget shows two suiter with spades and a minor vs spades and a red suit. Then the agreement is: "Two suiter with spades and a side suit that we don't agree on." But let's not complicate matters and keep things nicely black and white.) As long as there is no agreement, "no agreement" (or "We agreed to play Widget, but we don't agree what that means.") is the correct explanation. So that is what the TD is supposed to give the panel and base his AS on. Rik

Sure it answers the question: The information they were entitled to is that player A has just made a bid and that A and B don't have an agreement what it means. So, if you need to adjust the score, you need to use your judgement (i.e. a panel) to figure out what the opponents would have bid had they heard the explanation: "We don't have an agreement." I could imagine that a more accurate description of the agreement might, e.g., be: "We don't have an agreement, but it isn't natural." because there may be some context. But for the purpose of an AS the opponents are not entitled to A, B or C, since neither of them reflects their disagreement. Rik

They don't have an agreement. We can agree to play that 2♣ is Stayman after 1NT. But if one of us is sure that Stayman asks for a four card minor and the other that it asks for the point count of the 1NT bidder, we have no agreement. Rik

They are superficially contradictory. The difference is in the boundary conditions. In the Widget case, you agreed to play Widget, thinking that partner plays it the same as you, because you don't know any other version. In the Bergen case, you agreed to play Bergen, but at the point where you need to do the explaining, you must realize that there are x different versions of Bergen ("everybody knows that"), and you never discussed which one to play. And to be more precise, the Bergen case was about a bid that you thought was undiscussed (but wasn't if you played Bergen raises according to Bergen) where you guessed an explanation anyway (not the Bergen one). In the Widget case, nobody is guessing an explanation. They know the explanation... They just know it wrong. Rik

That is short of your agreement (which was: "We will play Widget") And it is even further short of what you, in all likelihood, think you have agreed at the time that you are asked the question. Supposedly, you will only find out later that you and partner are not on the same page (actually not even in the same document). You can only explain what you think you have agreed on. (And "Widget" is unfortunately not good enough an explanation, since the name of the convention is not sufficcient.) Rik

There is a big difference between what the opponents ar entitled to and what you are supposed to tell them. It sounds mysterious, but it isn't. They are entitled to your agreement. You agreed to play Widget and nothing more. You haven't agreed to what "Widget" means. The opponents are only entitled to know your agreements. The meaning of "Widget" is not something you agree on, so the opponents are not entitled to that. So, they are entitled to "We agreed to play Widget (and perhaps when it applies), but that is all we agreed on." You are supposed to tell what you know about your partner's bid. In this case, the partner of the Widget bidder "knows" that the Widget bid shows B (at least he thinks so). He doesn'tknow any better than that this is the agreement. So, he is supposed to explain: "That is the Widget convention, partner is showing B." Now, the Widget bidder thinks that his partner has misexplained. At the appropriate time, the Widget bidder is supposed to call the TD and tell him: "We agreed to play Widget, but my partner got confused and he thought it showed B, but -quite obviously- it shows A." At this point, it becomes clear that the widget bidder and his partner have completely different ideas about Widget. It also becomes clear that there is effectively no agreement. Concrete, this means: If the Widget pair ends up declaring, the defenders will know how the Widget bidder intended his bid. They will also know that there was a misunderstanding and can interpret the subsequent bidding with this information. If an AS needs to be assigned, we assume that the opponents received the explanation: "We play Widget, but don't agree on what it means.", because that is the explanation of the agreement. Rik

Aren't the physical factors a consequence of the mental element? If you have been thinking for 50 seconds about your last holiday, regardless of whether you hold the queen or ace, and your mind wondered to that nice little restaurant where they had that very special beer, and you think: "BEER!" then you will want to drink some beer. How will that tell declarer whether you have the ace or queen? On the other hand, if you are thinking "I hope he plays the king, becfause O have the queen." You might end up whistling "God save the Queen". That would indeed give away something. But beer?!? What would you conclude from an opponent taking a drink if you were declarer? Rik

The news is not really representative of what is happening in the world. (This morning I, and many other people, went grocery shopping. I don't think it was mentioned.) All joking aside (and keeping in mind that nobody will ever admit to trusting a politician): At the elections we turn up in large numbers to vote for the same people over and over again. In many European countries, new parties pop up continuously. They get air time on national TV and radio. They get exposure in newspapers and talk shows. And yet, over and over again, the same old politicians win the elections, and very few new parties have any success. (Remember that in most European countries, there are no candidates tied to districts and elections are decided by popular vote. So, the fraction of seats you get is essentially equal to the fraction of the votes you get. That means that, other than in e.g. the USA, it is relatively easy to get a seat in parlement. In the Netherlands, getting a mere 0.67% of the votes gives you a seat.) I can see two possible explanations why we keep voting for the established parties and new parties don't make it: - The electorate is reasonably happy with the ruling politicians. Something like: "Nobody is perfect, they manage all right." and "I reserve the right to complain about politicians because it is our national hobby." - The electorate is scared to death of the new parties and we turn out in large numbers to prevent "these morons that are even worse than the incumbent politicians" from being elected. I would think the first explanation is correct. Rik

I assumed we were talking about an imaginative lead, consciously deviating from our lead convention, because we think that a low spade is technically better in this situation. Rik

I agree only partially with you. It will certainly be time to retire from (pseudo-) serious bridge. But I also would like them to keep playing bridge, up to the moment that they have forgotten that it is a card game. And I think that should be facilitated. Simply put: They do need to play with 52 cards, but they don't need to play with a full deck. ;) Rik

That is a strange attitude towards tax. Few people like to pay tax. But to consider tax "abuse" is going over board. In many countries, gifts to charity are tax deductible. I told my children that the tax office is probably one of the best charities that you can donate your money to if you consider what they do with our "donations": Education Social security Infrastructure Health care Justice and security Defense Stimulate innovation, trade, sports, culture, etc. Development aid ... Rik

Blocking the suit might not be bad at all, which -I admit- is unusual. Partner will probably have the entries to set up spades, anyway. But it could well be an advantage if, later in the play, we get to to lead through dummy's strength in one of the other suits. Rik

;) :o Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Rik

I would bid 3NT without the BIT. And I would think that 3♦ is an LA. What partner's BIT suggests obviously depends on the system. But it will typically suggest one of these 3 types of hands: a penalty pass (not very likely given our heart holding, but certainly possible, depending on West's "overcall style") a hand that is not good enough to bid 2♣ a hand that wants to bid 1NT, but lacks a heart stop In all three cases, we will normally get to 3NT whether I will bid 3NT or 3♦. If partner has a penalty pass, he will bid 3NT over my 3♦. If partner has one of the other two hands, he will ask whether I have a heart stop and I will bid 3NT. So, the difference between bidding 3♦ and 3NT is that after 3♦ partner will be declarer if he has a penalty pass. So, the question is reduced to: If partner has a penalty pass, is it better to play 3NT from my hand (I bid 3NT) then from partner's hand (I bid 3♦)? Usually, it is better to put the overcaller on lead. That means that 3NT is demonstrably suggested over 3♦. So, without the BIT I will bid 3NT and with the BIT I will bid 3♦. Rik

Say now that South would have had 7 HCPs instead of 3. Would we all have agreed that the question didn't give (significant) UI? Or woould some of us have said that the question indicated that South wanted to bid something? Just curious... Rik

Rubbish. At that point in time the 1NT card may or may not have been the intended card to pull, but 1NT has never been the intended call. I am thinking of that children's joke: "Do you know the difference between a kilogram of sugar and a crocodile?" - "No." "Then I shouldn't send you to the grocery store for a kilogram of sugar." If you don't know the difference between a card and a call then I shouldn't send you to the bridge club. Rik

The semantics of the word "intention" have little to do with it. Law 25A says an unintended call can be corrected and replaced by the intended call. Lamford says the exact opposite using the same words that are used in law 25A: an unintended call can not be corrected and replaced by an intended call. Now if Lamford wants to run his games ignoring law 25A then that is fine with me. But then he shouldn't claim that he follows law 25A when he so literally ("word for word", nothing about semantics) does the opposite. Rik

You are confusing things. The old Law 25B2(b)(2) was about changing an intended call. Law 25A is about changing an unintended call. You splintered with 4♥ in response to partner's 1♠ opening. You did so consciously and decided for 4♥ since you valued your singleton and then you made the bid. Once you had made the bid, you figured out that 4♥ wasn't a splinter but natural. That is not a "slip of the brain" that is a bidding error. Under the old Law 25B2(b)(2) you were allowed to change that intended call and play for Ave-. Law 25A has nothing to do with it, since you consciously bid 4♥. 4♥ was your intended call. Law 25A is not about correcting intended calls. It is about calls that one never intended to make. Law 25A is not for the system mistakes or regrets in hand evaluation, like the old Law 25B2(b)(2). It is for when one never intended to bid 4♥, but somehow the 4♥ card is lying on the table. And it doesn't matter whether the 4♥ card landed on the table because of a coffee stain or because "a voice made me pull the 4♥ card". In both cases one never intended to call 4♥ and law 25A applies. And that is very different from deciding to splinter and then regretting it (old Law 25B2(b)(2)). Rik

If that would be true, the EBU county director course is wrong. The criterion is not which card he intended to select. The criterion is which call he intended to select. Read the lawbook. What rules is bridge played under? I thought it was under the 2007 laws of bridge. There is no other way to read the 2007 laws (and the intent of the lawmakers is clear from the 2000 WBFLC minutes) then that a call that was not intended can be corrected. But if you don't want bridge to be played under the 2007 laws, then just say so. I don't have a problem with that. And then we are back where UDCADenny started: with a TD who doesn't want to follow the laws. But don't claim that the lawbook says something else then it does. Rik

Ah!! The good old wedding cake chart! Rik

The fact that partner skipped over the spade suit makes it likely that partner has three hearts. All my honors are in our long suits. At IMPs I would be temptedm to simply bid 4♥, at MPs I will invite. Signing off in 2♥ doesn't occur to me. Rik

That is a possibility too, but either way he is not telling the truth. Rik

Indeed, nobody cares why his mind made his hand bid 1NT. That is not relevant. But neither does anybody care what he contemplated. The bridge laws only care about what he intended. South claims (and we are talking about the situation where we believe him) that he intended to pass, because he didn't want to call 1NT. Then pass was his intended call. And according to law 25A he can pick up the 1NT card and replace it with pass, the call he intended. Rik

Nobody says so. If you have three aces when you respond to Blackwood, but you miscount and found only 2 and hence replied 5♥ instead of 5♠, then you are not allowed to correct that. At the time when you called 5♥, you did so consciously. You intended to call 5♥ and nothing else. Law 25A does not apply. If you have three aces, count correctly, but somehow think that 5♥ shows 3 aces and you bid 5♥ then you are not allowed to correct that. At the time when you called 5♥, you did so consciously. You intended to call 5♥ and nothing else. Law 25A does not apply. But now say that you know how to count to three, and you know that the correct response is 5♠, and you decide to bid 5♠. You want to bid 5♠. You intend to bid 5♠. But for some reason, the 5♥ card ends up on the table. Then you can correct that under law 25A since you never intended to call 5♥. And as long as you didn't intend to call 5♥, it doesn't matter why the 5♥ card landed on the table: coffee stain, thick fingers, (mechanical errors) or because you remembered that you needed to buy 5 Valentine's day cards ("brain fart"). Rik