Disclosure problem

[karlson]

But in general, I've made it my policy when I'm not sure about our agreement (and I have to alert) to just pick an interpretation quickly and stick with it. I have yet to hear why this is wrong.

Well, I am not a bridge lawyer but to me it seems to be clearly against the spirit of the laws. The laws require full disclosure of your partnership agreements, including implicit ones. If you both know that 1H (x) 2C shows diamonds but sometimes you forget then that is something you know about your partners bidding tendencies and something that you should disclose.

I think that since I am placing myself under the obligation not to use the information that sometimes partner forgets, it's not something I have to disclose. Of course I should be held to the strictest standard for not using this UI. I would perhaps disclose after the auction/hand that this is a common forget, in case they want to call the director.

 

But yes, it's mostly a practical matter, as you mention.

[jdonn]

I would make 3 points based on the recent flurry of posts.

I think you need to disclose your agreements, not what his double means based on information that you possess that he doesn't.

 

Example: If pard doubles a bid to show one of the top 2 honours in a suit, and you hold the K, you don't have to tell opps that your partner's double shows the A. You tell them that his double shows one of the top 2 honours in the suit.

1 - This example is not the same thing, you are mixing up what partner HAS with what his bid SHOWS. Even if you know he has AQ of spades, the bid still shows two of the top three honors. In the actual situation you have to say what his bid SHOWS, not what it might show under different circumstances. Again, apples and oranges, these analogies are just not accurate.

 

Do you think I would say if my partner opens 1♠ and I have eight spades, I must explain the bid as "exactly five spades, no more than that"? That is the same situation as your example.

 

2 - Everyone is assuming RHO is either conniving or clever (depending on your POV) and just asking what your partner's bid means to find out what his own partner's bid means. But can't he just be an innocent soul who needs to know what your partner's bid means so he can play bridge and decide what to do himself? In fact it seems from the original post he pretty much convinced itself it shows majors and doesn't really have doubt any more. Why can't he be thinking of bidding 4♥ if the double showed clubs and 3♥ if the double showed defense against the majors, for example?

 

3 - Keep in mind that telling RHO what our partner's bid means does not explicitely tell him what his partner's bid means. Yes in practice he will be able to figure it out in the actual situation, and that's how it goes (although if you say it shows clubs and you are actually playing penalty doubles then he is screwed!) But say it goes strong 1♣ by you, 1♦ on your left and he can't remember what it means, 2♣ by partner natural game force. He can ask, but it won't help him.

 

If you want to know how I think things "should" be, I think the laws should say you explain partner's bid based on what he thinks his partner's bid means only, none of this either/or stuff. So if he thought it shows majors and it really shows clubs, you explain your agreement if it showed majors, not your agreement over it showing clubs (the actual laws) or the I-still-believe illegal solution proposed by many of giving him a logic problem to solve.

 

Codo you can't be serious. You want me to find a law that says "you have to tell your opponents what your partner's bid means"? Sorry, as much as I like little adventures I am not inclined to waste the time.

 

Karlson and Helene have nailed it. The reason this seems like a problem is we tried to solve the problem ourselves instead of calling the director, and in doing so we allowed LHO to do something illegal and create a bad situation.

[awm]

If I were to write down my agreements completely, they would include a lot of conditional statements. For example we might have:

 

(1NT)-X

 

"If 1NT is strong, then double shows a major-minor two-suiter. If 1NT is weak then double shows 15+ high card points with any shape."

 

There may be even more to this agreement in case 1NT could be artificial, and there probably should be some definition as to what makes a 1NT bid weak or strong, etc.

 

Now as a courtesy to the opponents (and in the interest of a speedy game) usually I don't quote all these conditionals. In fact one could argue that normally, giving the conditionals is unethical. For example, if RHO opens 2♦ unalerted and it says on their card that it's a weak two and partner doubles, I don't say:

 

"If 2♦ is flannery, showing five hearts and four spades, then double is takeout of hearts. If 2♦ is a transfer preempt, showing a weak hand with five or more hearts or possibly some strong options, then double is takeout of hearts. If 2♦ is multi, showing a weak two in either major with possible strong options, then double shows 13-15 balanced or any hand with 19+ hcp. If 2♦ is mini-roman, showing an undisclosed three-suiter, then double shows a strong notrump or better values. If 2♦ is precision, showing a three-suited hand short in diamonds, then double shows either an opening hand with five or more diamonds, or any 16+ hcp balanced hand. If 2♦ is an artificial strong bid of some variety, guaranteeing 16 or more points, then double shows either diamonds or both major suits. If 2♦ is a weak or intermediate two bid, then double is takeout of diamonds."

 

After all, opponents have disclosed that their 2♦ is a weak two.. Why should they care what my double would have meant if 2♦ was something other than a weak two? Explaining in this way seems like an attempt to confuse them and/or delay the game...

 

But if opponents tell me that "2♦ is either a weak two or flannery, I don't remember if we play flannery in this partnership" then it seems like I'm well within my rights to give them both what double would mean if it's a weak two and what double would mean if it's flannery. After all, partner and I have no particular agreement as to what double means over 2♦ showing "weak two in diamonds or flannery." And if we were behind screens it'd be quite possible that partner is receiving a different explanation from me in any case.

[jdonn]

But if opponents tell me that "2♦ is either a weak two or flannery, I don't remember if we play flannery in this partnership" then it seems like I'm well within my rights to give them both what double would mean if it's a weak two and what double would mean if it's flannery.

I feel like a broken record, but that's another inaccurate analogy. That isn't what happened here! He said the bid is majors, but you know what he said is wrong. That isn't the same as him not knowing which it is. I really think the solution that the laws should allow for here (but don't) is we explain partner's double as if 3♣ was majors, regardless of what it actually means. Of course the problem in the given situation is LHO might need to know what it means over his side's actual agreement of clubs. But as said before, that is our fault for not calling the director sooner. Instead of sending the player away from the table for an illegal explanation from his partner, he should just instruct the auction to continue with whatever explanation RHO gives you, and if that turns out to be wrong you will get an adjustment due to the misinformation.

 

If he said "I have no idea whether it is majors or clubs" I might agree with everyone, tell him what the double would mean in either case. But it's as though people don't notice that he in fact settled on an explanation of majors, which we frankly shouldn't even know at this point is the wrong one. That is a whole different ball of wax.

[blackshoe]

But in general, I've made it my policy when I'm not sure about our agreement (and I have to alert) to just pick an interpretation quickly and stick with it. I have yet to hear why this is wrong.

Well, I am not a bridge lawyer but to me it seems to be clearly against the spirit of the laws. The laws require full disclosure of your partnership agreements, including implicit ones. If you both know that 1H (x) 2C shows diamonds but sometimes you forget then that is something you know about your partners bidding tendencies and something that you should disclose.

I think that since I am placing myself under the obligation not to use the information that sometimes partner forgets, it's not something I have to disclose. Of course I should be held to the strictest standard for not using this UI. I would perhaps disclose after the auction/hand that this is a common forget, in case they want to call the director.

 

But yes, it's mostly a practical matter, as you mention.

You are obligated to explain your partnership agreements. Failure to do so is misinforming the opponents. If you think a call is alertable, but you aren't sure what it means, alert it, and if asked, simply say "I don't know" or "I've forgotten" or some such. If you think it's on your system card, refer them to that. (I have had players tell me they don't look at system cards. Solution: call the director).

 

If you know that sometimes partner forgets the meaning of certain of your calls, you are obligated, if asked, to explain that to your opponents (you may be obligated to alert as well, depends on the regulations and the situation).

[glen]

I've been trying to figure out why I missed Josh's point of "But it's as though people don't notice that he in fact settled on an explanation of majors"

 

I think I focused on:

1) RHO "eventually decides in all honesty he cant remember."

2) "At this point RHO leaves the table and his partner conveys that it is natural preemptive with clubs"

3) We now know what the bid means

4) RHO rejoins the table

5) "Partner now doubles 3♣, you don't alert"

6) "RHO now asks what the double was."

 

However while 1 to 3 are okay, we actually have:

 

4) "RHO now returns to the table and believes that he was initially correct it is the majors."

 

That is RHO, who was sent away from the table so his partner could explain the actual meaning of the bid, has now returned, and somehow decided to give the rest of the table the benefit of his updated view on the bid, even though he knows his partner just informed us of the real meaning.

[Codo]

He said the bid is majors, but you know what he said is wrong. That isn't the same as him not knowing which it is. I really think the solution that the laws should allow for here (but don't) is we explain partner's double as if 3♣ was majors, regardless of what it actually means. Of course the problem in the given situation is LHO might need to know what it means over his side's actual agreement of clubs. But as said before, that is our fault for not calling the director sooner. Instead of sending the player away from the table for an illegal explanation from his partner, he should just instruct the auction to continue with whatever explanation RHO gives you, and if that turns out to be wrong you will get an adjustment due to the misinformation.

 

If he said "I have no idea whether it is majors or clubs" I might agree with everyone, tell him what the double would mean in either case. But it's as though people don't notice that he in fact settled on an explanation of majors, which we frankly shouldn't even know at this point is the wrong one. That is a whole different ball of wax.

I think the laws do not need an update. You are in more or less lawfree territory after your failure to call the director or after it is impossible to get a director.

 

And your solution for this update is to tell him what double would mean if 3 Clubs shows the majors. You have two possibilities to do this:

 

1. "Double shows clubs". This is a lie, because you know that 3 Club from your opponent did in fact show clubs, so your double is in fact take out. Besides this, how can your other opponent handle this situation correct. He has no clue what your double had meant after a real 3 Club overcall. How should he handle the situation? Should he ask what a double of a natural 3 Club bid had been? Giving UI to his partner?

 

2." After 3 Club for the majors, double show clubs." At least this is no lie. But the second part of the problem is still there. What should his partner do with this information? You failed to explain your agreements to him. You are surely not allowed to let him not into the secret.

 

So your solution does not work.

And for the rest of your statements: For some reasons I don`t understand, you think that you must help your rho. Okay fine, do so, be a nice guy.

I won´t and I wait still for a reference in the law where my solution is forbidden.

I fullfill my duties, this is all what they are entitled too.

[hrothgar]

The following just popped up in my in box...

 

This doesn't specifically deal with the case at hand, but the broad principles seem applicable.

 

WBF Laws Committee Minutes, 1st September 1998

 

Item 8:

If a player knows that his partner's call is conventional but says he cannot recall what was actually agreed the Director may in his discretion send the player away from the table and allow the partner to tell opponents in his absence what the agreement is. The Director must be called and no action may be taken before he arrives.  The partner continues in the auction on the basis that the player has understood his call, and does not use the unauthorized information that his partner is uncertain of the meaning.

 

The Director is strongly urged to remain at the table whilst the hand is completed.

This procedure is only for the exact circumstances described; it does not apply when the player says that the position is undiscussed or there is no agreement.

 

Item 14:

 

The Committee's attention was drawn to an internet discussion as to whether it is legitimate for a player to address a question to the player who has made the call asked about. This abnormal procedure can only be followed with the consent of the Director, who must be called, and at an appropriate time in the absence of the player's partner.  Furthermore the Director must be persuaded that the circumstances require it: it is to be avoided absolutely that a player should be allowed to verify from player A (who made the bid) whether the explanation of his partner B was correct.

 

Players must correct their partner's explanations voluntarily at the due time specified in the Laws.