How would you rule

[mgoetze]

We had not discussed this bidding before but I was dealt that hand and had to find a bid.

 

Personally I would have had no trouble whatsoever finding a description for this hand via "pass", but that is of course immaterial to the legal aspects. ;)

[paulg]

Hm, no, South is definitely NOT an intermediate player!

In my defence, at my club all they ever say is ....

 

We had not discussed this bidding before but I was dealt that hand and had to find a bid.

:)

[barmar]

Personally I would have had no trouble whatsoever finding a description for this hand via "pass", but that is of course immaterial to the legal aspects. ;)

My thoughts as well. If someone held a gun to my head and said I had to bid something other than Pass, I might bid 2NT to show the minors, although with 3 spades I would also consider double. But the latter also implies strength, whereas 2NT is just shape-showing.

[bluejak]

I find the pran approach curious. We have an obvious case of no agreement, no infraction here, and [if I have understood him correctly] he thinks we should rule an infraction because

 

[a] it is bad policy to believe players, and

players are likely to have agreements really in situations where discussion is rare, and

[c] two players having completely different ideas indicates there was an agreement.

 

No, I don't understand.

[aguahombre]

No, I think you do understand :rolleyes:

[mrdct]

When I put down the dummy and West asked, my response was: "We have no agreement but I meant it to show minors"

Makes no difference here, but I think you should've done that at the end of the auction before the opening lead.

 

As for bridgeboy's credentials as a player, refer to recent BBO News item, Singapore goes to the Bermuda Bowl - BridgeBoy and Krobono.

[pran]

I find the pran approach curious. We have an obvious case of no agreement, no infraction here, and [if I have understood him correctly] he thinks we should rule an infraction because

 

[a] it is bad policy to believe players, and

players are likely to have agreements really in situations where discussion is rare, and

[c] two players having completely different ideas indicates there was an agreement.

 

No, I don't understand.

Do you understand Law 75C ?

[gnasher]

Do you understand Law 75C ?

 

Yes, he understands Law 75C.

 

The explanation given was "no agreement". There is evidence that the partnership had no agreement: North's statement to that effect, South's failure to dispute that statement, South's actual hand, and North's action. Therefore there is not an "absence of evidence to the contrary", so there is no legal basis for assuming that the explanation was incorrect.

[Rossoneri]

Yes, he understands Law 75C.

 

The explanation given was "no agreement". There is evidence that the partnership had no agreement: North's statement to that effect, South's failure to dispute that statement, South's actual hand, and North's action. Therefore there is not an "absence of evidence to the contrary", so there is no legal basis for assuming that the explanation was incorrect.

 

Quite right. The ruling was made under the mistaken premise that NS had some agreement on the 2NT bid, but in light of the fact that they did not, that there was no meta-agreement as well, I have overturned my original ruling.

 

(This is more of an FYI to everyone here, the concerned parties are well aware of this already.)

[pran]

Quite right. The ruling was made under the mistaken premise that NS had some agreement on the 2NT bid, but in light of the fact that they did not, that there was no meta-agreement as well, I have overturned my original ruling.

 

(This is more of an FYI to everyone here, the concerned parties are well aware of this already.)

Maybe I have overlooked something, but I still do not see why the evidence is that South was in error assuming that there was an agreement rather than that North was in error assuming that there was no agreement?

 

Was there any documentation to the fact, or was the final ruling just based on (self-serving) statements?

[mgoetze]

Quite right. The ruling was made under the mistaken premise that NS had some agreement on the 2NT bid,

 

And even under that premise I still don't understand how you concluded there was any damage. :(

[campboy]

Was there any documentation to the fact, or was the final ruling just based on (self-serving) statements?

How can there be documentation? They didn't discuss it, and when they didn't discuss it they wrote down the discussion they didn't have?

 

Anyway, you appear to have missed my previous post explaining why 75C is irrelevant. In this case we rule based on the balance of probability (85A1).

[Rossoneri]

And even under that premise I still don't understand how you concluded there was any damage. :(

 

I wasn't entirely convinced there was, but my colleagues thought so. I should also add that East told me yesterday that he thinks that they would have still ended up in 3SX either way.

[PeterAlan]

Maybe I have overlooked something, but I still do not see why the evidence is that South was in error assuming that there was an agreement rather than that North was in error assuming that there was no agreement?

What makes you suppose that South assumed there was an agreement? South has said that he made the bid to show the minors, and inferentially he hoped that that was how N would interpret the bid, but that's not the same thing at all as South assuming that an agreement existed between him and North about it.

[pran]

Maybe I have overlooked something, but I still do not see why the evidence is that South was in error assuming that there was an agreement rather than that North was in error assuming that there was no agreement?

 

Was there any documentation to the fact, or was the final ruling just based on (self-serving) statements?

What makes you suppose that South assumed there was an agreement? South has said that he made the bid to show the minors, and inferentially he hoped that that was how N would interpret the bid, but that's not the same thing at all as South assuming that an agreement existed between him and North about it.

The very fact that South made his call is evidence that he must have had some reason for believing, or at least hoping that North would understand the bid the way South intended.

 

Such reason can hardly be anything else than a partnership understanding (at least implicit if not explicit).

 

So to counter this evidence we need some evidence better than just (self serving) statements to the effect that there was no understanding.

[bluejak]

"can hardly be anththing else"? Of course it can be something else. If I go into an English club and sit down with a partner with no discussion and he opens 1NT then I would guess that this shows 12 to 14 if it is outside London and 15 to 17 within London. That does not mean I have an agreement, explicit or implicit.

 

When playing bridge, especially in partnerships that are not scientific or very long-term [or both], you will often reach a position where there is no satisfactory bid in your agreements. At such time you will often rely on general bridge knowledge, which tends to be geographical, ie you tend to guess that partner may guess the same as you because other people in the area play something.

 

Speaking as someone who has played bridge constantly in medium clubs for 45 years this is not rare. You often find a guess is best.

[pran]

"can hardly be anththing else"? Of course it can be something else. If I go into an English club and sit down with a partner with no discussion and he opens 1NT then I would guess that this shows 12 to 14 if it is outside London and 15 to 17 within London. That does not mean I have an agreement, explicit or implicit.

 

When playing bridge, especially in partnerships that are not scientific or very long-term [or both], you will often reach a position where there is no satisfactory bid in your agreements. At such time you will often rely on general bridge knowledge, which tends to be geographical, ie you tend to guess that partner may guess the same as you because other people in the area play something.

 

Speaking as someone who has played bridge constantly in medium clubs for 45 years this is not rare. You often find a guess is best.

And implicit partnership understanding will often exist between two players who share a common background knowledge or experience even if they have not discussed agreements.

 

Such implicit partnership understanding forms part of their disclosable understandings.

 

So when you "assume" (or "guess" which in this case is just another word for the same) that 1NT shows 12-14 outside London and 15-17 within London then that is not part of your general bridge knowledge, it is part of your implicit (and disclosable) partnership understanding.

 

As I have far more important matters to attend to I shall not waste my time looking up the precise lecture where the above was tought. And I am quite confident that you too have seen or heard this about what constitutes implicit partnership understanding.

[bluejak]

That is just wrong. You do not have an implicit agreement with a player because you can make certain guesses based on his country of origin. For a start they may be wrong, so they are not agreements.

[pran]

That is just wrong. You do not have an implicit agreement with a player because you can make certain guesses based on his country of origin. For a start they may be wrong, so they are not agreements.

Then when do you have an implicit understanding, thank you?

[mgoetze]

Then when do you have an implicit understanding, thank you?

 

When for instance you know how your partner plays with other partners, or vice versa, or you can make an analogy to another situation which you have discussed, or when something else you have discussed almost always implies another treatment which you didn't explicitly mention. You're welcome.

[blackshoe]

Such reason can hardly be anything else than a partnership understanding (at least implicit if not explicit).

 

Nonsense.

[wank]

by your logic, pran, saying 'no agreement' in any circumstance would be a straight red card.

[barmar]

His reasoning could be something like "I know we haven't discussed it, but I've seen this bid often in Vugraphs or MSC, hopefully partner will figure it out."

[pran]

So the general attitude here is that when you use some convention trusting/expecting/hoping that your partner will understand it as intended although you have not explicitly discussed it with him then it is perfectly legal for you to conceal the meaning from opponents hiding behind "no agreement"?

 

Sorry, that is not my understanding of Bridge as a game for Gentlemen and Ladies. Neither is it my understanding of WBFLC intentions. Players in general are not lunatic, they hardly use conventions without any expectation that partner will understand, agreement or no agreement.

 

I despise "no agreement" as a means to conceal information from opponents. A player may be guessing, fair enough. But his guess is obviously based on some confidence. Why should it be legal to conceal this?

[pran]

by your logic, pran, saying 'no agreement' in any circumstance would be a straight red card.

Do you often make calls for which you have no agreement unless you feel some confidence that they will be correctly understood by your partner?