Do opponents have the right to know our bids or just our agreements?

[axman]

Splitting hairs, are we?

 

Fair enough that cards are evidence (not proof) of agreements.

And according to Law 75C: This evidence from the cards decides the agreement unless TD is given more convincing evidence to the contrary.

 

The cards <sic>, if you will, are evidence of judgment, or lack thereof.

[pran]

The cards <sic>, if you will, are evidence of judgment, or lack thereof.

Unless there is (convincing) evidence to the contrary the cards are evidence of what the player expected to be understood by his partner as partnership understanding.

 

The judgmenmt is about how partner would understand the call. Thus the cards are evidence of partnership understanding, and absent other (convincing) evidence TD should rule accordingly.

[StevenG]

The cards are evidence that the player's bidding is consistent with his holding, and what he thinks his methods are. But surely that's true for anyone who isn't psyching, down to the dumbest palooka.

 

The cards are not evidence that the player's partner has any reason to understand the bid.

[axman]

Unless there is (convincing) evidence to the contrary the cards are evidence of what the player expected to be understood by his partner as partnership understanding.

 

The judgmenmt is about how partner would understand the call. Thus the cards are evidence of partnership understanding, and absent other (convincing) evidence TD should rule accordingly.

 

I am reminded of a recent article by Paul Cronin recounting a story about a player that responded to 1C- he bypassed two 5 card pointy suits to raise to 2C on a stiff Q. The consequence of which being some intriguing declarer play when the opponents won the contract.

 

Certainly he bid it due to his judgment that partner and opponents [raised to 3C] would believe he held 4+ pieces rather than one

 

His cards reflect his judgment given his agreements [and table presence].

[jh51]

This whole discussion reminds me of something that occurred at a club game several months ago. After the bidding had concluded, partner made her lead face down, and I asked dummy about what one of his partner's bids. In giving his explanation, he remarked that he was not sure but he thought .... I then turned to declarer to ask if his partner's explanation did in fact reflect the partnership's agreements. He got all indignent that I was only entitled to their agreements and not what he held in his hand. And that I would have to ask his partner about their agreements. I pointed out that I was not asking what he had in his hand and his partner was unsure of their agreement on the bid in question. When he refused to answer my question, I called the director.

 

I seem to recall that the director supported my position. After all, I was simply trying to confirm whether I had received a mistaken explanation, which seemed likely based upon dummy's uncertainty.

[pran]

This whole discussion reminds me of something that occurred at a club game several months ago. After the bidding had concluded, partner made her lead face down, and I asked dummy about what one of his partner's bids. In giving his explanation, he remarked that he was not sure but he thought .... I then turned to declarer to ask if his partner's explanation did in fact reflect the partnership's agreements. He got all indignent that I was only entitled to their agreements and not what he held in his hand. And that I would have to ask his partner about their agreements. I pointed out that I was not asking what he had in his hand and his partner was unsure of their agreement on the bid in question. When he refused to answer my question, I called the director.

 

I seem to recall that the director supported my position. After all, I was simply trying to confirm whether I had received a mistaken explanation, which seemed likely based upon dummy's uncertainty.

After the closing pass both presumed dummy and presumed declarer has an unconditional duty to immediately, without being asked by opponents, call the Director and inform opponents if in their opinion partner has given any incorrect explanation so far. This includes incorrect explanation given during the clarification period as well. (Law 20F5{b}).

 

The Director should indeed support your position, and he should also consider a PP on declarer.

[pran]

The cards are evidence that the player's bidding is consistent with his holding, and what he thinks his methods are. But surely that's true for anyone who isn't psyching, down to the dumbest palooka.

 

The cards are not evidence that the player's partner has any reason to understand the bid.

Why would a player use a particular call (except when psyching) unless he has some expectation that his partner will understand the call as it is intended? Such expectation is evidence of a partnership understanding, and this makes the actual card holding itself evidence of a partnership understanding. (Not neccessarily discussed, but still an understanding.)

[pran]

I am reminded of a recent article by Paul Cronin recounting a story about a player that responded to 1C- he bypassed two 5 card pointy suits to raise to 2C on a stiff Q. The consequence of which being some intriguing declarer play when the opponents won the contract.

 

Certainly he bid it due to his judgment that partner and opponents [raised to 3C] would believe he held 4+ pieces rather than one

 

His cards reflect his judgment given his agreements [and table presence].

That sounds to me like a perfect example of a psyche? (Provided of course that partner was unaware of the possibilty that he would bid like that with his stiff Q.)

 

A sound psyche is (I believe) always the result of some judgment.

[blackshoe]

Why would a player use a particular call (except when psyching) unless he has some expectation that his partner will understand the call as it is intended? Such expectation is evidence of a partnership understanding, and this makes the actual card holding itself evidence of a partnership understanding. (Not neccessarily discussed, but still an understanding.)

 

Because he's confused? Because he's been playing for three weeks and doesn't know his system? Because he's been playing for forty years and still doesn't know his system?

 

I'd be wanting to know what the basis of this implicit understanding might be. If it turns out to be something like "well, I know he plays it that way with others" or "we read it in The Bridge World, and while we didn't agree to use it, we both thought it was pretty cool" or something similar, well and good. If it turns out to be "I don't know, I just pulled it out of the air" well, that's evidence, too.

[bluejak]

Why would a player use a particular call (except when psyching) unless he has some expectation that his partner will understand the call as it is intended? Such expectation is evidence of a partnership understanding, and this makes the actual card holding itself evidence of a partnership understanding. (Not neccessarily discussed, but still an understanding.)

I sometimes wonder whether you actually ever play this game, pran.

 

Of course a person who makes a call will usually do so with a belief partner will understand it, but only usually, and your suggestions that it proves an understanding are beyond belief. Of course it does not. He might have got the understanding wrong: there might be no understanding whatever: he might be deliberately misleading.

 

No, I am not splitting hairs: your statement that the cards prove an agreement is just absolutely and completely wrong.

[mjj29]

Why would a player use a particular call (except when psyching) unless he has some expectation that his partner will understand the call as it is intended? Such expectation is evidence of a partnership understanding, and this makes the actual card holding itself evidence of a partnership understanding. (Not neccessarily discussed, but still an understanding.)

Because of General Bridge Knowledge he hopes his partner has? Because it's an undicussed cue bid of the opponents suit and while his partner might not understand what he meant, it's surely forcing and hopefully partner will use his next bid to show something useful? Because he's realised that none of the discussed bids show his hand and he has to pick one of the undiscussed bids and hope it works - because of the the discussed bids will be bad scores anyway? Because he's just sat down against me and I've opened 2H showing a weak hand with spades or a weak hand with the minors or a game forcing hand with the minors and it's two board rounds so they didn't bother agreeing a defence to our system? (list not necessarily exhaustive)

[pran]

I sometimes wonder whether you actually ever play this game, pran.

 

Of course a person who makes a call will usually do so with a belief partner will understand it, but only usually, and your suggestions that it proves an understanding are beyond belief. Of course it does not. He might have got the understanding wrong: there might be no understanding whatever: he might be deliberately misleading.

 

No, I am not splitting hairs: your statement that the cards prove an agreement is just absolutely and completely wrong.

I do wonder why you so often include personalities (sometimes directly insulting) instead of concentrating on the matter.

 

A player's cards held are evidence as much as anything else: They prove what the player had in view when selecting his call.

 

Why isn't that evidence on his (assumed) agreements?

 

Of course this evidence must be weighted with other available evidence, but one thing is sure: I shall never give much weight to any self-serving statement like "no agreement" when a player has selected a call that turns out to be fortunate. To me such statements are "evidence" of an attempt to hide a CPU.

 

(If he considers his call to be part of "general bridge knowledge" then opponent's question obviously reveals that it is not GBK to him, in which case the only polite attitude is to explain this "knowledge")

[blackshoe]

They prove may suggest what the player had in view when selecting his call.

 

FYP. B-)

 

Seriously, Sven. Yes, the hand is evidence. However, your adamant insistence that it proves something is just flat wrong. Give it up.

[pran]

FYP. B-)

 

Seriously, Sven. Yes, the hand is evidence. However, your adamant insistence that it proves something is just flat wrong. Give it up.

I don't care (in this forum), but are you seriouosly implying that the player had not seen his cards when he selected his call, and coonsequently that the actual cards he held do not prove what he had seen?

[aguahombre]

Hey, guys. You can't even agree on what "prove" means. Maybe it is time to just give up the whole thread.

[blackshoe]

I don't care (in this forum), but are you seriouosly implying that the player had not seen his cards when he selected his call, and coonsequently that the actual cards he held do not prove what he had seen?

 

No.

[barmar]

Why isn't that evidence on his (assumed) agreements?

Because sometimes you improvise.

 

Today my partner had an auction that started 1♥ 1♠ 2♣. Partner's clubs were just AK. We do NOT have an agreement to rebid 2♣ on hands like this. His hand was 3=5=3=2 with 17 HCP, but he felt it had too many flaws to open 1NT or rebid 2NT (he didn't have diamonds stopped), and he also didn't think it appropriate for a 3-card raise. So he made up this rebid.

 

We ended up in a horrible 4♠ on a Moysian because when he showed delayed support for my suit I took him to be 3=5=1=4.

[pran]

Because sometimes you improvise.

 

Today my partner had an auction that started 1♥ 1♠ 2♣. Partner's clubs were just AK. We do NOT have an agreement to rebid 2♣ on hands like this. His hand was 3=5=3=2 with 17 HCP, but he felt it had too many flaws to open 1NT or rebid 2NT (he didn't have diamonds stopped), and he also didn't think it appropriate for a 3-card raise. So he made up this rebid.

 

We ended up in a horrible 4♠ on a Moysian because when he showed delayed support for my suit I took him to be 3=5=1=4.

So I take it that NOS was not in any way "damaged"? Then what was the problem?

 

Recently in a teams match I had a case of misinformation which was revealed when dummy faced his cards. I told them to play it out and call me again if NOS felt damaged. They never called me so I just asked later about the outcome: "We cashed in 4000"!

[barmar]

So I take it that NOS was not in any way "damaged"? Then what was the problem?

No problem, I was giving an example of a player making a bid that doesn't match the partnership agreement.

 

I guess it was technically a psyche, since he did it intentionally.

[bluejak]

I don't care (in this forum), but are you seriouosly implying that the player had not seen his cards when he selected his call, and coonsequently that the actual cards he held do not prove what he had seen?

Of course they do not prove he has an agreement or that he believes he has. Give it up.

[pran]

Of course they do not prove he has an agreement or that he believes he has. Give it up.

Yes, indeed I have to give up when you do not accept his cards as evidence, and even as proof of which cards he could see when he decided on his call.

 

If you had bothered to digest what I wrote earlier you would have realized that I didn't claim his cards to be evidence of agreements but proof on the hand on which he made a call.

 

So the question I ask in the relevant situations is "why did he select the call he actually made on these cards?"

 

Did he believe that he had an agreement according to which his call fits his cards?

Did he deliberately deviate from his agreements AKA psyche?

Or what?

 

IMHO such questions must be part of TD considerations when judging a situation.

 

And I am very reluctant to accept a player's self-serving statement that he has no agreement without other supporting evidence.

[mjj29]

Yes, indeed I have to give up when you do not accept his cards as evidence, and even as proof of which cards he could see when he decided on his call.

 

If you had bothered to digest what I wrote earlier you would have realized that I didn't claim his cards to be evidence of agreements but proof on the hand on which he made a call.

 

So the question I ask in the relevant situations is "why did he select the call he actually made on these cards?"

 

Did he believe that he had an agreement according to which his call fits his cards?

Did he deliberately deviate from his agreements AKA psyche?

Or what?

Or, he discovered that his agreements didn't cover this situation and had to make something up and hope. This happens surprisingly often.

IMHO such questions must be part of TD considerations when judging a situation.

 

And I am very reluctant to accept a player's self-serving statement that he has no agreement without other supporting evidence.

I'm unclear how you can have evidence of the _lack_ of an agreement?

[aguahombre]

I'm unclear how you can have evidence of the _lack_ of an agreement?

Really? I guess we define evidence and proof our own ways. To me, proof is derived from weighing evidence; but evidence is not proof. Any time we have a misunderstanding, or an explanation not consistent with the actual hand, there is evidence of the lack of agreement. This can be outweighed by other evidence (CC marked, statement that one person forgot, etc.) to arrive at a conclusion.

[pran]

Or, he discovered that his agreements didn't cover this situation and had to make something up and hope. This happens surprisingly often.

Sure, that is certainly an important possibility.

 

I'm unclear how you can have evidence of the _lack_ of an agreement?

The most obvious "evidence" of "no agreement" is of course the (self-serving) statement(s) from the partnership.

 

Partner's further calls can be evidence, conflicting or corroborating depending on whether or not he appears to having understood the disputed call the way it seems to having been intended.

 

Convention cards, system descriptions etc. are evidence from which TD may judge whether or not the particular situation is covered by agreements.

 

The actual cards held by the player making the disputed call is evidence that can be compared with documented agreements to see how well they fit such agreements.

 

TD should consider all such pieces of evidence to form his opinion on whether "no agreement" is a disclosure that satisfies Laws 20F and 75. He should be particularly alert on the possibility that the players within the partnership intuitively will understand each other in spite of lacking formal agreements. Remember that "implied understanding" is also "agreement" in this connection!

[blackshoe]

Yes, indeed I have to give up when you do not accept his cards as evidence, and even as proof of which cards he could see when he decided on his call.

 

If you had bothered to digest what I wrote earlier you would have realized that I didn't claim his cards to be evidence of agreements but proof on the hand on which he made a call.

 

Sorry, Sven, but that isn't what you said. You said

the agreement is according to the cards held by the player in question unless proven otherwise.

The emphasis was yours. So you did not in fact claim that his cards are evidence of what he could see in his hand, you claimed that they are evidence of an agreement. And perhaps they are. What they are not is "proof".

 

So the question I ask in the relevant situations is "why did he select the call he actually made on these cards?"

 

Did he believe that he had an agreement according to which his call fits his cards?

Did he deliberately deviate from his agreements AKA psyche?

Or what?

 

IMHO such questions must be part of TD considerations when judging a situation.

 

Fair enough, but...

 

And I am very reluctant to accept a player's self-serving statement that he has no agreement without other supporting evidence.

 

You might discount it somewhat, but you can't just toss it out with the trash.

 

It is extremely likely that any statement a player makes to the director will be self-serving. Will you toss them all? If so, then why bother to let him speak?

 

Perhaps we've gotten twisted around semantics here. I agree with pretty much everything you say in your last post, but I do not agree that a) self-serving statements should be disregarded unless corroborated* or b) that evidence gathered by the TD necessarily proves anything.

 

*I gather from things you've said in this thread and elsewhere that you do not consider agreement with a self-serving statement by the player's partner to be corroboration.