Appeal from today

[TimG]

How about: "We have no special partnership understanding. . .but I can speculate if you'd like."

[gnasher]

Saying "We haven't discussed this, but in some related auctions it means X" is not stating that you have an agreement, so it's not MI.

I didn't say it was.

[gnasher]

How about: "We have no special partnership understanding. . .but I can speculate if you'd like."

Do you think that's an improvement on doing what the rules say you should do?

[aguahombre]

How about: "We have no special partnership understanding. . .but I can speculate if you'd like."

Do you think that's an improvement on doing what the rules say you should do?

I do. But, I won't use TimG's phrasing until I believe it is within the rules to do so ---or someone convinces me that it is within the current rules.

[bluejak]

I do. But, I won't use TimG's phrasing until I believe it is within the rules to do so ---or someone convinces me that it is within the current rules.

A. Players’ Systemic Agreements

1. (a) Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players.

 

F. Explanation of Calls

1. During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question. The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until his turn to call or play. Law 16 may apply and the Regulating Authority may establish regulations for written explanations.

2. After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing auction. At his turn to play from his hand or from dummy declarer may request an explanation of a defender’s call or card play understandings. Explanations should be given on a like basis to 1 and by the partner of the player whose action is explained.

It is clear from these three Laws that implicit understandings and understandings based on other agreements are part of the disclosable agreements. Thus, a player who speculates based on his comparable experience, so long as he says so, is following these Laws.

[aguahombre]

Wow. Agreeing with Tim and being right at the same time. Then to discover it is also legal...a trifecta. :rolleyes:

[Vampyr]

I'm not saying that this particular pair made any of these agreements. I'm saying that you can't conclude much from the CC, because it doesn't cover all these details. Even among pairs that DO have detailed agreements, they're not likely to be mentioned on the CC because there's no place to check them off.

 

Is it normal for agreements that don't have their own check box not to be mentioned at all on the CC? Is it considered proper disclosure?

[blackshoe]

I don't know about "normal". It happens. No, it's not proper disclosure.

 

One of the problems with the whole "checkbox" thing, IMO, is that the checkboxes are set up under the assumption that you're playing SA or something reasonably close to it. If you're playing something significantly different (Precision, say, or even Romex), the checkboxes often don't work well. That's why I prefer the design of the WBF system card, or the EBU one, to the ACBL's. That and the ACBL's ridiculous insistence on putting a private score on the back of the system card.

[barmar]

There are a few places on the ACBL CC where you can write arbitrary notes. But not a lot of room if you have lots of extra gadgets.

[Vampyr]

There are a few places on the ACBL CC where you can write arbitrary notes. But not a lot of room if you have lots of extra gadgets.

 

When I played in the ACBL I used to prepare a CC on the computer, so I could eliminate the check boxes and text that were not applicable; this made more room for agreements that I did have, though it was often difficult to find room in the sections where I needed it. In general the card is just too small and cluttered.

 

Another problem with the check-boxes is that they give people ideas. Loads of players who are not ready play lots of conventions without knowing why; the boxes serve as "suggestions".

[barmar]

In practice, the ACBL CC is used much more as a template to help new partnerships figure out their agreements (i.e. each section serves as a suggestion of what to discuss with the new partner), and a reminder to the players themselves when getting together with an occasional partner, and not so much as a method of disclosure to opponents or officials.

[TimG]

Wow. Agreeing with Tim and being right at the same time. Then to discover it is also legal...a trifecta. :rolleyes:

 

I may have to reconsider my position! :-)

[gnasher]

It is clear from these three Laws that implicit understandings and understandings based on other agreements are part of the disclosable agreements. Thus, a player who speculates based on his comparable experience, so long as he says so, is following these Laws.

If Tim says "I can speculate if you like", do you think he will always be understood to mean "I can, if you like, tell you about our relevant implicit agreements, and disclose all special information conveyed to me through partnership agreement or partnership experience"?

 

Even if this will always be understood, I think it's better to answer the question properly the first time, rather than to give half an answer and then ask whether they want the other half.

Edited November 1, 2012 by gnasher

[bluejak]

Sure. I was talking about the principle, not the actual perfect wording.

[mycroft]

I would prefer "We have no agreement about this auction. We have agreements about related auctions, however, if you wish to hear them."

 

Not what is required, but if you're concerned opponents will hear "it has to be Bergen" out of "no agreement, but without the double it would be Bergen" - and that is a legitimate worry, I've seen people do it frequently - that might be a better way of making it clear that you're about to give some potential options that will weight high in your guessing.

[TimG]

If Tim says "I can speculate if you like", do you think he will always be understood to mean "I can, if you like, tell you about our relevant implicit agreements, and disclose all special information conveyed to me through partnership agreement or partnership experience"?

I do not think that playing Bergen raises in a non-competitive auction equates to an implicit agreement to play them over doubles. Partnership experience is two minutes to review a CC (that did not have Bergen raises in the "vs takeout doubles" section) and whatever hands they've played in this event. Upon which of these is North supposed to base his alert of 3C and two-way explanation?

[gnasher]

I do not think that playing Bergen raises in a non-competitive auction equates to an implicit agreement to play them over doubles.

No, of course it doesn't. It does, however, constitute special information conveyed to you through partnership agreement. I'm not suggesting that you should state an agreement that you don't have. All you have to do is give the opponents the same information as you have. Something like "We don't have any agreement about this sequence. We did agree to play Bergen raises in an uncontested auction, but we didn't discuss whether that applies here."

[TimG]

Contrary to the way it may seem, I don't think I am advocating non-disclosure. I think there ought to be a certain likelihood that the "speculation" is true before it enters the picture. At some small likelihood, the extra information has more potential to mislead than to be helpful. When this is the case, it doesn't seem right to me to include the speculation. Perhaps an offer to speculate is in order, but I don't think the speculation should just be given.

 

I wouldn't think an alert of 3C in the given auction is appropriate (unless natural and NF is alertable). But, if you think it is right to automatically give the information about the non-competitive treatment, doesn't that mean you should also alert 3C?

[gnasher]

I think you're making this seem harder than it actually is. If you find yourself wondering whether partner might think that the agreement applies, and not dismissing the idea, that makes the agreement relevant. If you don't find yourself wondering that, presumably you don't think the agreement relevant, so you won't have any reason to mention it.

 

Having decided which agreements are relevant, that gives you a set of possible meanings for the call. If one of the possible meanings would require an alert, you alert.

[TimG]

I wouldn't be wondering whether Bergen applies in the competitive auction. I might think about it after an opponent questioned me. I guess that difference explains most of our disagreement about this.

[sailoranch]

This reminds me of a time I was playing with a new partner. The auction was something like 1♣-(2♣ majors) and I bid 2♠ with diamonds, believing we had agreed Unusual vs. Unusual, lower for lower. Partner did not alert, and when prompted by LHO, he claimed "no agreement." UvU was, in fact, not listed on our otherwise detailed card.

 

LHO passed, partner raised diamonds, and opps called the director, who looks at our card, shrugs, and says, "Well, if they have no agreement, then they have no agreement," and walks away.

[gnasher]

I wouldn't be wondering whether Bergen applies in the competitive auction. I might think about it after an opponent questioned me. I guess that difference explains most of our disagreement about this.

I don't think our disagreement is about the specifics of the case. I think our disagreement is over how to present an agreement whose relevance is uncertain.

 

In the situation you describe, if, in the first instance, I thought we had no relevant agreements I would say "No agreement". If an opponent's subsequent question caused me to wonder if partner meant it as Bergen, I would then say "We did agree to play Bergen in an uncontested auction, but so far as I know it doesn't apply here." That is, I'd tell the opponents exactly what I knew, without either inventing or concealing an agreement.

[barmar]

In the situation you describe, if, in the first instance, I thought we had no relevant agreements I would say "No agreement". If an opponent's subsequent question caused me to wonder if partner meant it as Bergen, I would then say "We did agree to play Bergen in an uncontested auction, but so far as I know it doesn't apply here." That is, I'd tell the opponents exactly what I knew, without either inventing or concealing an agreement.

That form of the answer seems to suffer from the same problem, in suggesting a level of certainty that doesn't really exist. If it doesn't apply here, why even mention it?

 

The point of this whole thread is that whether the convention does or doesn't apply is unclear. The players in the partnership are both guessing, and the opponents should be given enough information that they know they should try to guess as well. Any answer that implies more certainty than this could be considered MI. So you have to find a way to answer the question that doesn't bias it one way or the other.

 

In regular partnerships this is where the dreaded "I'm taking it as ..." comes up. While we don't like this formulation, it's often used in cases where there is no specific discussion, but experience with similar auctions strongly suggests a meaning.

[gnasher]

That form of the answer seems to suffer from the same problem, in suggesting a level of certainty that doesn't really exist. If it doesn't apply here, why even mention it?

I wasn't suggesting a particular form of words. If I had less certainty, I would express less certainty. For example, "We did agree to play Bergen in an uncontested auction, but I'm not sure if it applies apply here."