Misbids are infractions ...

[ralph23]

If you don't actually bid according to your agreements, the purpose of the full disclosure laws is not met.

Of course it's met. (If you NEVER bid according to an "Agreement" or you only do so rarely, then you don't really HAVE an agreement, do you? But an occasional sputter doesn't nullify an agreement.)

 

The purpose of the full disclosure laws is, simply, that the opponents will know what your partnership agreements are.

 

That is the full and complete purpose of them. Period.

 

It is not a purpose of the full disclosure laws, that partners must always bid according to their agreements. Sometimes, they goof; or sometimes, they psych. These "sometimes" incidents are not fouls.

 

And, as you say, the FD purpose is (the same thing in different words) so that they, the opponents, will understand the agreed-upon meaning of your auction and its bids. They are NOT entitled to know anyone's hand; only what the bids mean.

 

If your auction fails to conform to your partnership agreements, but the opponents are properly informed about what those agreements are, then several things could have happened:

 

1. Someone psyched. I.e. he intentionally misbid as a tactical matter. This is a permitted bridge strategy, with a few caveats (i.e. (i) no psyching of artificial 2♣ opening, (ii) if you psych in X situation all the time, or a lot of the time, then that has become a de facto agreement that must be disclosed etc etc.... we're all familiar with these).

 

2. Someone misbid. There is no penalty for a misbid. Of course, the director/powers-that-be must DECIDE whether it was a (i) misbid or (ii) wrong explanation, and presume that it is (ii) unless it's clearly a (i). But that is an evidentiary and procedural rule, which properly casts the risk of non-persuasion (the "burden of proof") upon the erring pair.

 

If it's truly and clearly a misbid, then there is simply no penalty.

 

The opponents have no right to make you bid in accordance with your agreements. (Of course, if you never bid in accordance with your "agreement" then you don't really have an agreement, do you? But an occasional slip-up does not mean the agreement doesn't exist.) They are not "damaged" in a legal sense if you fail to bid in accordance with them, so long as they were informed properly about what the agreements are.

 

And, yes, there is another "party" to a legal contract as well: Society. Social rules ("laws") determine which agreements between private parties are legally enforceable and are thus truly "contracts." Thus, agreements to commit a crime (X agrees to murder Y, and Z agrees to pay X $10,000 in consideration) are not enforceable. Agreements unduly restricting competition may not be enforceable, even if neither the agreement nor the conduct is criminal. Sally's agreement to go on a date with Joe next Friday is probably not legally enforceable; it may just be too trivial (but compare her agreement to marry him).

 

Lawyers don't of course call "Society" a "party" to these contracts, but without the social rules/enforcement mechanism, you don't have a "law of contracts" but only "gentlemen's agreements." B)

 

nb -- If you never bid according to your "agreement" or you often don't, then there is a question of whether you really HAVE that agreement. That may be an evidentiary question, or even one about the meaning of the word "agreement" ... an agreement that no one observes and almost always violates is hardly worthy of the term. But this is a different question !!

Edited September 5, 2007 by ralph23

[TimG]

If you don't actually bid according to your agreements, the purpose of the full disclosure laws is not met.

Of course it's met. (If you NEVER bid according to an "Agreement" or you only do so rarely, then you don't really HAVE an agreement, do you? But an occasional sputter doesn't nullify an agreement.)

I think barmar meant that "you" to be plural. That is, if a partnership does not bid according to their stated agreements, full disclosure has not been met.

 

If my partnership agrees to play transfer preempts, I forget and open 3H with hearts, and my partner also forgets and passes 3H (without a bunch of hearts of his own), then we've done something (lots of somethings) wrong. Even if the net effect is that the opponents think we have had a standard auction and that understanding meets our hands, we have not properly disclosed.

 

(Yes, I'm aware that the fact that both of us forgot would be strong evidence that an agreement does not exist, but assume the agreement is well documented and we simply had highly unlikely coincidental forgets.)

[ralph23]

If my partnership agrees to play transfer preempts, I forget and open 3H with hearts, and my partner also forgets and passes 3H (without a bunch of hearts of his own), then we've done something (lots of somethings) wrong.  Even if the net effect is that the opponents think we have had a standard auction and that understanding meets our hands, we have not properly disclosed.

I don't see anything legally problematic about this auction. You misbid and opened 3♥ when you actually had ♥. That was a misbid.

 

Your partner failed to alert your artificial opening. That was a foul. An unintentional one, certainly; he would never intentionally pass your artificial bid. But his failure to alert your opening bid is a foul nonetheless.

 

Your partner then misbid (or mis-called). He should not have passed 3♥ unless he held about a zillion ♥. But he did pass. That was a mistake, an error, a bidding mishap. It was not a foul.

 

You failed to alert his pass as showing a bunch of ♥. (Maybe that's not alertable.... I don't know. What else could his passing an artificial 3♥ bid mean, except, "WOW you hit my long suit!" But let's assume it was alertable.)

 

Are the opponents entitled to redress for your failures to disclose? Not sure. But there certainly was at least one, and maybe two, fouls in the auction. They have a right to bring those fouls up, and let an independent party decide if redress is in order.

 

BUT I do know this: that the auction you describe is entirely different than one in which North simply misbids, and South then CORRECTLY alerts and explains the meaning of the North's bid.

 

That is not a foul. North simply made an error. He is under an obligation not to use the UI he obtained from South's alert, which has awakened him, of course; and if he fails to adhere to this new obligation, that may be a foul. But no foul has occurred simply because of his initial misbid.

 

And the same in your case. Your opening 3♥ was not a foul. Partner's failure to alert it as an artificial bid was a foul. If harm was caused, there should be redress.

 

But unless there is a foul to start with, there is simply nothing to redress.

 

And a mere misbid is simply not a foul.

 

Mere failure to bid by and according to partnership agreements, on sporadic occasions, is not, without more, wrongful.

 

Failure to disclose or explain the agreements upon inquiry, or failure to alert them when alerting is required, is wrongful.

 

Any governing authority which believes that an agreement between X and Y is either nullified or doesn't exist (temporarily or permanently), simply because on one occasion X forgets about it, then later says "Oh crap, I forgot!", just doesn't know how the word "agreement" works in ordinary language, or chooses to ignore it..... That's just Humpty-Dumptyism at its worst.

[Trinidad]

If you don't actually bid according to your agreements, the purpose of the full disclosure laws is not met.

Of course it's met. (If you NEVER bid according to an "Agreement" or you only do so rarely, then you don't really HAVE an agreement, do you? But an occasional sputter doesn't nullify an agreement.)

I think barmar meant that "you" to be plural. That is, if a partnership does not bid according to their stated agreements, full disclosure has not been met.

 

If my partnership agrees to play transfer preempts, I forget and open 3H with hearts, and my partner also forgets and passes 3H (without a bunch of hearts of his own), then we've done something (lots of somethings) wrong. Even if the net effect is that the opponents think we have had a standard auction and that understanding meets our hands, we have not properly disclosed.

 

(Yes, I'm aware that the fact that both of us forgot would be strong evidence that an agreement does not exist, but assume the agreement is well documented and we simply had highly unlikely coincidental forgets.)

I recall one occasion where both my partner and I made the same error. We had just changed from a SAYC like system to 2/1 GF (alertable at the time) and the auction started:

 

Pass-1♠; 2♣

 

I opened 1♠ and alerted 2♣. Before the opening lead we were asked and I explained 2♣ as GF. And indeed my partner did have a hand that was worth a game force because of the nice club suit as well as the support for my spades.

 

After the opening lead, RHO came in and said that our convention card said that we played (Reverse) Drury. We both had forgotten a convention that we had played for ages. Obviously, this could be taken as evidence that we didn't have the agreement that we were playing Drury. If a director would have ruled so and adjusted the score, neither me nor my partner would have objected or protested. We would have taken our loss on the board. (In this case, the misinformation didn't damage the opponents. So nothing happened, other than that four players were laughing.)

 

(To my best knowledge) this has been the only occasion in 13 years where my partner and I both forgot our system. If it would happen again, I would consider it so rare an event that I would happily take the adjusted score for "misinformation on the convention card", even if the information on the CC actually was correct.

 

Rik

[ralph23]

[i recall one occasion where both my partner and I made the same error. We had just changed from a SAYC like system to 2/1 GF (alertable at the time) and the auction started:

 

Pass-1♠; 2♣

 

I opened 1♠ and alerted 2♣. Before the opening lead we were asked and I explained 2♣ as GF. And indeed my partner did have a hand that was worth a game force because of the nice club suit as well as the support for my spades.

 

After the opening lead, RHO came in and said that our convention card said that we played (Reverse) Drury. We both had forgotten a convention that we had played for ages. Obviously, this could be taken as evidence that we didn't have the agreement that we were playing Drury. If a director would have ruled so and adjusted the score, neither me nor my partner would have objected or protested. We would have taken our loss on the board. (In this case, the misinformation didn't damage the opponents. So nothing happened, other than that four players were laughing.)

 

(To my best knowledge) this has been the only occasion in 13 years where my partner and I both forgot our system. If it would happen again, I would consider it so rare an event that I would happily take the adjusted score for "misinformation on the convention card", even if the information on the CC actually was correct.

 

Rik

That's funny. As you note, there are several sources for determining

 

(1) whether NS have an agreement regarding X; or

(2) if they do, what the terms of the agreement are.

 

These sources include the CC, NS's testimony, their actual bids and alerts at the table, the testimony of their peers and NS's behavior in other hands.

 

Sometimes, the sources conflict. But just because (2) is uncertain or subject to dispute, this doesn't mean that there is no agreement.

[jtfanclub]

It is not a purpose of the full disclosure laws, that partners must always bid according to their agreements. Sometimes, they goof; or sometimes, they psych. These "sometimes" incidents are not fouls.

Yet. That may change.

 

I say if a person opens 1NT with 15-17 labeled on their sheet, but occassionally psyches, and that psych always has 6 spades and 8-10 hcp, I'm entitled to know that information.

 

And I further say that any time that you can legally do something by saying "Oh! I didn't psyche, I misbid" is just asking for more trouble than it's worth.

 

Here's looking forward to 2017.

[ralph23]

I say if a person opens 1NT with 15-17 labeled on their sheet, but occassionally psyches, and that psych always has 6 spades and 8-10 hcp, I'm entitled to know that information.

Of course you are. That's a near textbook description of a disguised tacit agreement (well, assuming that he plays with the same partner(s), so that the partner(s) tend(s) to get the drift of his bidding after a while and figure out that indeed "1nt" has multiple meanings. The opps are entitled to this information.

 

If, on the other hand, he never does it with any partner more than once, and the ex-partners don't discuss him with each other so as to convey information to his soon-to-be-future-partners, then there's no disguised agreement, tacit or otherwise, but just a weird guy, which isn't a foul).

[jtfanclub]

I say if a person opens 1NT with 15-17 labeled on their sheet, but occassionally psyches, and that psych always has 6 spades and 8-10 hcp, I'm entitled to know that information.

Of course you are. That's a near textbook description of a disguised tacit agreement (well, assuming that he plays with the same partner(s), so that the partner(s) tend(s) to get the drift of his bidding after a while and figure out that indeed "1nt" has multiple meanings. The opps are entitled to this information.

Righto. Let's assume same partners here.

 

Now let's say that these partners used to play DONT, but have now switched to Capp. 2 hearts used to mean hearts and spades, and now means hearts and a minor. So whenever the player overcalls 1NT with 2 hearts, it usually shows the majors, but sometimes he psyches, er, misbids it with hearts and a minor.

 

How is this not a tacit agreement? Because he calls it a misbid instead of a psych?

[ralph23]

And I further say that any time that you can legally do something by saying "Oh! I didn't psyche, I misbid" is just asking for more trouble than it's worth.

Psyches and misbids are both legal, so I'm not sure what the reference is to, or what sanction this hypothetical person is trying to escape from...

 

....of course, some psyches are fouls (most aren't)..... maybe if you accidentally opened 2♣ when you claimed you meant to open a weak-2♦ and got your hand on the wrong card in the bid box? But you were sneakily psyching 2♣??

 

This seems very far-fetched.

 

If players want to cheat, there are much much better methods than these.

[ralph23]

Now let's say that these partners used to play DONT, but have now switched to Capp. 2 hearts used to mean hearts and spades, and now means hearts and a minor. So whenever the player overcalls 1NT with 2 hearts, it usually shows the majors, but sometimes he psyches, er, misbids it with hearts and a minor.

 

How is this not a tacit agreement? Because he calls it a misbid instead of a psych?

It may be a tacit agreement, which should be disclosed. (I think you meant they used to play Capp and now they play DONT, but I got your drift.)

 

Alert! Yes? "We play DONT now, but sometimes we still play Capp, due to our aging brains which don't always absorb everything right away.... God only knows which one is in effect this time. I just do my best...."

 

Or it may be a misbid. Depends on how often it's happened. And on what's on the CC. And on how often they get it right. And on what they discuss between themselves and with others. The evidence is varied.

 

Misbids aren't fouls.

 

Or it may be indeed a psych. An odd time for one. But those aren't fouls either.

 

It's the director's job to put the infelicity into the right category. He uses presumptions and burdens-of-proof, as noted above in earlier posts, for both procedural clarity/ease and for substantive justice. The law's full of these things ... shifting around burdens-of-proof for all sorts of reasons.

 

But saying misbid is a disfavored interpretation (True), and saying misbids are fouls (False), -- these are different things indeed.

 

My impression is you must play with a bunch of cheaters or aspiring cheaters. I guess I just don't have that same experience.

[jtfanclub]

Yeah, sorry. Anyhow, if a possible misbid is alerted, then it isn't a misbid.

 

Alert! Yes? "Shows the majors, but we used to play it as hearts and a minor, and partner has forgotten twice in the past week."

 

Now it doesn't even qualify as a misbid- it's a perfectly legal dual meaning bid, and I'm happy, whether he used the old meaning or the new one.

 

Misbids aren't fouls.

 

Misbids commonly end up being tacit agreements. I'm not talking about mechanical failures, but repeatedly 'forgetting' your system.

 

My impression is you must play with a bunch of cheaters or aspiring cheaters. I guess I just don't have that same experience.

 

These are people who don't understand that you can't slam a bid down on the table when you really mean it, or take a few extra seconds before you double to show uncertainty. A lot of them seem to feel that anything unusual in a pairs game is cheating, and do all sorts of unscrupulous things. It's nothing formal, but coffeehousers can usually figure out when their partner is psyching, and while I honestly don't care (after all, I can usually figure it out too), it burns me when they know what their partner really has and I don't.

[ralph23]

Anyhow, if a possible misbid is alerted, then it isn't a misbid.

Sure it is. If Sam and I have agreed to play strong 2 opening bids, and I (of course) forget and open 2♠ having a six-bagger in ♠ with ♠AKJxxx and nothing else, then I've misbid.

 

Sam might even alert it, and he will if asked say "Our agreement is that this bid is both very strong and natural." He has properly recited our agreement; I've just screwed up.

 

We'll get in a terrible contract of course, and I still misbid.... his alerting it and properly explaining our agreement does not change that fact. I have misbid. Whoops.

Edited September 5, 2007 by ralph23

[ralph23]

Misbids aren't fouls.

 

Misbids commonly end up being tacit agreements. I'm not talking about mechanical failures, but repeatedly 'forgetting' your system.

It's true, of course, that a series of misbids may lead to a tacit agreement.

 

When it does so lead, as in your DONT/Capp example, then at that point the bid is no longer a misbid, but it has become one in conformity with the (somewhat screwed up wacky dual) agreement.

 

When it's in conformity with the SSUWD agreement, by definition, it is not a misbid. That's what the "mis" means, in effect.

 

The tacit agreement may indeed be all SNAFU, and may even be an illegal convention or illegal agreement under ACBL rules, but that's neither here nor there for purposes of determining if the bid's a "mis" bid.

[ralph23]

These are people who don't understand that you can't slam a bid down on the table when you really mean it, or take a few extra seconds before you double to show uncertainty. A lot of them seem to feel that anything unusual in a pairs game is cheating, and do all sorts of unscrupulous things. It's nothing formal, but coffeehousers can usually figure out when their partner is psyching, and while I honestly don't care (after all, I can usually figure it out too), it burns me when they know what their partner really has and I don't.

A. If they're doing these things consciously and intentionally, they're cheating.

 

For those in Category A: If they don't know the rules and proprieties of bridge, they're probably beginners and should be instructed that it's not like poker. If they do know, they should be ejected without further ado.

 

B. If unconsciously, they should be warned about it.

 

We call the Director on this where I come from. But again, we don't have a lot of violations; most people don't come to play in order to cheat.

[SoTired]

I don't think we are discussing the extra-ordinary situation, like the player who confused Capp & DONT several times in one week or some of the other obvious cheating/unethical situations mentioned.

 

I think that we are trying to determine the validity of an appeals committee that routinely considers a misbid to automatically abrogate an agreement thus turning an explanation into a mis-explanation and subject to penalty.

[awm]

A lot of the rules about psychs were made a long time ago. The principle is that as long as partner is as much in the dark as opponents, it is perfectly legal to misrepresent your hand.

 

This is all fine as far as it goes, and applies to psychs and forgets and misbids. The issue is that in the modern game dominated by established partnerships with hundreds of pages of notes and thousands of boards played as a pair, it is very rarely the case that partner will be as much in the dark as opponents.

 

Often it's the case that some conventional bid is made, but something about bidder's partner's hand or just the nature of the subsequent auction makes the agreed conventional meaning seem unlikely. If bidder's partner will ever make allowances for this, it seems to call the agreement into question.

 

For example, say partner opens 2♦ flannery. I bid 2♥ (to play). Now partner bids 3♦. This is not a discussed sequence, and seems a very weird action. I suppose (in principle) partner could have some very maximum 4-5-4-0 hand trying for game over my signoff.... but most of the time when I see this auction what's really happened is that partner has a weak two in diamonds. If I play partner for the weak two in diamonds, I'm effectively acknowledging that I know partner might "forget" about 2♦ flannery. Once I do this, I think the director is right to rule that our agreement wasn't really flannery (even if it says flannery on our convention cards and in our notes) -- our agreement was that 2♦ is "either flannery or a weak two in diamonds" and if I didn't disclose this initially (or if such an agreement isn't legal) then opponents are deserving of redress.

[blackshoe]

People keep referring to "the full disclosure laws". What laws are those, pray tell? :)

[ralph23]

For example, say partner opens 2♦ flannery. I bid 2♥ (to play). Now partner bids 3♦. This is not a discussed sequence, and seems a very weird action. I suppose (in principle) partner could have some very maximum 4-5-4-0 hand trying for game over my signoff.... but most of the time when I see this auction what's really happened is that partner has a weak two in diamonds. If I play partner for the weak two in diamonds, I'm effectively acknowledging that I know partner might "forget" about 2♦ flannery. Once I do this, I think the director is right to rule that our agreement wasn't really flannery (even if it says flannery on our convention cards and in our notes) -- our agreement was that 2♦ is "either flannery or a weak two in diamonds" and if I didn't disclose this initially (or if such an agreement isn't legal) then opponents are deserving of redress.

If partner's "misbid" 2♦ a few times and he had a weak 2♦ on those occasions, and not a Flannery hand, then there is a basis for finding that your partnership has a "tacit" agreement on the meaning of 2♦ opening, which may be a "multi" purpose usage.

 

If you and partner have sworn in blood to forego weak 2♦ and have both written up in bridge articles in your local club how virtuous Flannery is, and how dumb weak 2♦ is, and you gain a reputation in your club for being the "Flannery boys" and then, lo and behold, partner forgets it one time when he's had one too many at the pub... :) ..., :D -- well, then it's a misbid.

 

You don't have a tacit agreement on "multi purpose 2♦" in this case --- you both hate weak 2♦s and that's clear beyond cavil--, and it doesn't matter WHAT you do in response to his 2♦ bid or to his further bidding. Those actions don't retroactively create an agreement when none existed.

 

You either had or didn't have a multi-purpose agreement before you sat down. Nothing in the midst of the bidding can change that! All your later action constitutes is simply your acknowledgement that partner is human, gets snockered sometimes, and can forget. So, you guess that he forgot. You guessed well.

 

Are your opps entitled to redress? I don't know. I'm not a director. I don't want to be one.

 

All I do know for sure, simply because I speak English as my mother tongue and know how to use the word "agreement" in that language, is that you are not liable for failure to disclose a "multi purpose 2♦" agreement, because you didn't have such an agreement and therefore you cannot possibly be liable for failing to disclose something that did not exist.

 

Whether you have violated some other rule or propriety or should "in justice" be liable for Convention Disruption or whatever, I truly don't know. I just know you didn't have the multi-purpose agreement and can't be liable for failure to disclose something that didn't exist.

[ralph23]

People keep referring to "the full disclosure laws". What laws are those, pray tell? :)

Actually, that's slang for a type of the Securities Laws in the US and securities lawyers talk about "FD".

 

I just used it informally in response to barman's use of the term. I take it loosely to mean the principle that opps are entitled to full disclosure of our system. But I generally call this type of thing a "principle" rather than a "law" because it's really at a higher level of abstration than a law.

[blackshoe]

Well, I dunno about "higher level of abstraction" - I'm an engineer, not a philosopher - but the principle of full disclosure is certainly not a law. Nor is it, in those jurisdictions of which I'm aware, a regulation.

 

"Convention disruption" is a silly idea put forth by Bobby Wolff. It has no force in law or regulation.

[ralph23]

Well, I dunno about "higher level of abstraction" - I'm an engineer, not a philosopher - but the principle of full disclosure is certainly not a law. Nor is it, in those jurisdictions of which I'm aware, a regulation.

 

"Convention disruption" is a silly idea put forth by Bobby Wolff. It has no force in law or regulation.

Well, in the Netherlands, apparently they don't think it's so silly, as I can't imagine the real basis for their alleged "rulings" in this area other than CD -- can you??

 

Helene notes in her original post that "Berry Westra . . . thinks that there is a need to protect the game against the growing convention madness ("steeds verder oprukkende conventiegekte")." Madness, indeed!

 

The underlying basis for the policy is not articulated as such, of course, because CD clearly isn't "the law." Therefore, the makeshift rationale of the "failure to disclose your agreement" has to be sophistically warped to serve the desired end.

 

Lawyers call this giving the judge "someplace to hang his hat" -- fashioning a somewhat spurious rationale that allows him to make the "right" or "just" decision while still facially adhering to "the law".

[cherdano]

Well, I dunno about "higher level of abstraction" - I'm an engineer, not a philosopher - but the principle of full disclosure is certainly not a law.

75C.  Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements
When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s inquiry (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 general knowledge and experience.

Isn't this exactly full disclosure?

[han]

I think this is the same Berry Westra that used to play a 2C opening showing a weak hand with a 5-card suit (any) and then opened it without a 5-card suit. :-)

 

And of course full disclosure is a law. I'd say it is one of the fundamental laws of the game.

[blackshoe]

It's easy to say "full disclosure is a law". It's not so easy to be sure that what people who say that mean by "full disclosure" is precisely what the law requires and no more.

 

If we're going to point at law 75C as "full disclosure is a law" then we must consider that law 75C comes into effect only after an opponent has asked a question. OTOH, the main thrust of this thread has been whether one must disclose things even without such a question.

[cherdano]

It's easy to say "full disclosure is a law". It's not so easy to be sure that what people who say that mean by "full disclosure" is precisely what the law requires and no more.

 

If we're going to point at law 75C as "full disclosure is a law" then we must consider that law 75C comes into effect only after an opponent has asked a question. OTOH, the main thrust of this thread has been whether one must disclose things even without such a question.

Yeah I guess I should have quoted 40B.