Uncertain agreements and the law

[blackshoe]

So you would not allow a player, finding himself in unfamiliar territory, to take a call in the hopes his partner might get it right? What then is he to do? Refuse to call at all?

[peachy]

If partner is likely to work out the intended constructive meaning of my call then I don't think I'm making a random disruptive call (as I define the term).

If partner is likely to get it, so are the opponents! Best not to pass on a guess as the agreement, just say there is no agreeement if that is the truth. Presenting a guess (and not saying it is a guess) is MI and deprives opponents the chance to figure out what the bid means, or might mean, absent agreement.

[nige1]

If partner is likely to get it, so are the opponents!  Best not to pass on a guess as the agreement, just say there is no agreeement if that is the truth.  Presenting a guess (and not saying it is a guess) is MI and deprives opponents the chance to figure out what the bid means, or might mean, absent agreement.

Even in a new partnership, after a few boards, a player is usually better at interpreting the meaning of partner's call than an opponent.

 

Some of the posts, here, are discussing the interpretation of current disclosure rules but this is the forum for proposing and constructively criticising suggested rule Changes.

 

I am never certain about anything, in Bridge -- or in life. For example, I've sometimes been wrong even when I was pretty sure what partner's call meant. IMO, the range between near certanty and total uncertainty is an open interval.

 

Hence, I feel it is wrong to frame disclosure laws that require players and directors to cut-off explanations at some ill-defined level of confidence. Subjective judgement is frail and fickle and encourages players to rationalise.

[blackshoe]

Even in a new partnership, after a few boards, a player is usually better at interpreting the meaning of partner's call than an opponent.

Interesting assertion. Is it true?

[peachy]

If partner is likely to get it, so are the opponents!  Best not to pass on a guess as the agreement, just say there is no agreeement if that is the truth.  Presenting a guess (and not saying it is a guess) is MI and deprives opponents the chance to figure out what the bid means, or might mean, absent agreement.

Even in a new partnership, after a few boards, a player is usually better at interpreting the meaning of partner's call than an opponent.

 

Some of the posts, here, are discussing the interpretation of current disclosure rules but this is the forum for proposing and constructively criticising suggested rule Changes.

 

I am never certain about anything, in Bridge -- or in life. For example, I've sometimes been wrong even when I was pretty sure what partner's call meant. IMO, the range between near certanty and total uncertainty is an open interval.

 

Hence, I feel it is wrong to frame disclosure laws that require players and directors to cut-off explanations at some ill-defined level of confidence. Subjective judgement is frail and fickle and encourages players to rationalise.

If my comment was not clear to you, let me say it more clearly: I am strongly opposed changing the laws so that one must pass on a Guess as "an Agreement".

 

A guess is not an agreement, unless it is an implicit agreement by prior experience; but if so, then it would not be a guess any more.

 

You also said:

"Even in a new partnership, after a few boards, a player is usually better at interpreting the meaning of partner's call than an opponent."

 

I doubt that. Opponents are equally well equipped if they know your relevant agreements and basic system. But as said before, the opponents are left bouncing in the wind with no chance if they are given false answer [a Guess] instead of Agreement, or No Agreement, as an answer.

[nige1]

Even in a new partnership, after a few boards, a player is usually better at interpreting the meaning of partner's call than an opponent.

Interesting assertion. Is it true?

Yes, I believe so. Anyway, I've argued for a way of coping with with uncertain agreements (the topic of this thread and, IMO, the most common kind of agreement).

 

For example, the undiscussed auction (2♥) 2♠, where the 2♠ overcall may be conventional -- based on system discussion and limited experience.

 

Above what confidence level, should the overcaller's partner alert? 20%? 50%? 80%? Or what alternative protocol would Blackshoe (or peachy) recommend?

[blackshoe]

I think a lot depends on how much discussion has gone on, how good the player is at reading people, and probably several other factors. I suspect that your assertion, Nigel, is true a lot less often than you think it is. Hell, half the time I'm not even sure what I'm thinking, much less what my partner is! :P

 

I think when you're not sure what partner's call means, but think that it may be alertable, you should alert. In fact, the ACBL alert regulation says specifically "when in doubt, alert", which is probably closer to 1% confidence than 50% — although I wouldn't want to try to put a number on it (I think people rely too much on numbers for things like this, as if putting a number on it ropes and ties it — it doesn't).

 

Then there's the problem with the actual explanation. "I'm taking it as..." doesn't cut it. At the other end "undiscussed" doesn't cut it either when there is relevant experience or other information. The problem, as has been demonstrated somewhere here recently (maybe even in this thread) is knowing what's relevant, or perhaps more importantly what your opponents, the director and maybe the AC will consider relevant.

 

The worst thing we could do for the game though would be to treat "forgets" as harshly as Bobby Wolfe seems to want to do, at least at most levels. Maybe in world championships "convention disruption" should be dealt with harshly, but if you do that at club level, or even local tournament level, you'll just drive people away from the game — or else end up with a game where everyone plays the same vanilla system, there is no innovation, no differences. I don't know about anyone else, but that would bore the hell out of me. Might as well just play Whist.