Two Potential Infractions

[blackshoe]

Indeed. The meta-agreement is that 3♦ cannot mean diamonds. And that is included in the explanation that Barmar suggested (I highlighted the corresponding texts for you):

If there is no relevant information available other than "not natural", then fine. But if the pair has any information that would inform the partner of the 3♦ bidder as to what that bidder is doing (what he intends by 3♦) that information should be disclosed without any foot dragging.

 

"I don't have to say anything more" is confrontational and unnecessary. "The only relevant thing I can tell you is that 3♦ is not natural". Or "3♦ is not natural; beyond that we have no agreement."

 

I find it hard to believe that a pair could have an agreement, meta or otherwise, that a bid is not natural, and have no idea what it means. Maybe that's just me. :P

[f0rdy]

If there is no relevant information available other than "not natural", then fine. But if the pair has any information that would inform the partner of the 3♦ bidder as to what that bidder is doing (what he intends by 3♦) that information should be disclosed without any foot dragging.

 

"I don't have to say anything more" is confrontational and unnecessary. "The only relevant thing I can tell you is that 3♦ is not natural". Or "3♦ is not natural; beyond that we have no agreement."

 

I find it hard to believe that a pair could have an agreement, meta or otherwise, that a bid is not natural, and have no idea what it means. Maybe that's just me. :P

 

I can think of at least two variants I've experienced, with near-pickup partners (but friends, so aware of each other's style):

 

A) A cue of opponents suit in a slightly complicated auction "I'm sure it's not natural, but I'm not sure whether it's showing support or asking for a stop."

 

B) A cue of opponents suit in a slightly complicated auction "I'm sure it's not natural, but I'm not sure whether it's showing a stop or asking for one."

 

(And C, I've just been reading a thread where there seems to be a number of views on what 1H P 1S 2C 3C shows, including disagreement within a partnership. I'm sure none of them what ever have considered it to be natural)

[pran]

If there is no relevant information available other than "not natural", then fine. But if the pair has any information that would inform the partner of the 3♦ bidder as to what that bidder is doing (what he intends by 3♦) that information should be disclosed without any foot dragging.

 

"I don't have to say anything more" is confrontational and unnecessary. "The only relevant thing I can tell you is that 3♦ is not natural". Or "3♦ is not natural; beyond that we have no agreement."

 

I find it hard to believe that a pair could have an agreement, meta or otherwise, that a bid is not natural, and have no idea what it means. Maybe that's just me. :P

I am extremely uncomfortable with the tendency to consider "No agreement" as an acceptable disclosure during the auction.

 

First of all, on a technicality, this is a plain wrong disclosure because players are not supposed to disclose their agreements, they are required to disclose their partnership understandings.

 

Now, before I accept "not discussed" or similar I shall want to be convinced that they indeed have no understanding, and then in particular why at all the player made the call in question. How did he expect his partner to understand the call?

 

My experience is that most players have the expectation, or at least hope that their partners will understand their intention with a call, or they simply refrain from trying that call until they have discussed it for later use.

 

Now then, which principle will best serve bridge: The player's partner who seriously did not understand a call saying so and that being the end of story, or the player making the call subsequently (at the proper time) disclosing his intention with the call?

 

The first alternative will just protect the offending side and often lead directly to an unfair disadvantage for the non-offending side.

The second alternative is consistent with treating "no understanding" as equivalent to "misinformation" and will thus protect the non-offending side.

[gnasher]

Now then, which principle will best serve bridge: The player's partner who seriously did not understand a call saying so and that being the end of story, or the player making the call subsequently (at the proper time) disclosing his intention with the call?

 

The first alternative will just protect the offending side and often lead directly to an unfair disadvantage for the non-offending side.

The second alternative is consistent with treating "no understanding" as equivalent to "misinformation" and will thus protect the non-offending side.

Why do you call them the "offending side"? If they genuinely have no partnership understanding, they have committed no offence.

[pran]

Why do you call them the "offending side"? If they genuinely have no partnership understanding, they have committed no offence.

Because I consider them failing to give the required disclosure unless they convince me that they really have no partnership understanding.

 

And I am very difficult to convince unless they also give a good reason why they use a particular call for which they allegedly have no partnership understanding.

[bluejak]

The problem, though, is that North said answered yes to "was everything natural?". Should the opponents understand this to mean "except the bids that obviously couldn't be natural", so that South doesn't have to offer a correction?

 

How much of this is GBK, which players aren't required to explain?

It is not GBK that saying a bid is natural means that it is not natural because the person saying so thinks it is obvious that it is not natural.

 

I think it "obvious" that 1♣ P 1♠ 2♠ is never natural. I am finding more people over time who disagree with this. "Obvious" agreements need to be disclosed unless they are universally obvious.

 

Why do you call them the "offending side"? If they genuinely have no partnership understanding, they have committed no offence.

It is an unfortunate fact [unfortunate for pedants, anyway :)] that the Laws have long referred to the side that creates a situation whether through an infraction or not as the offending side, and we might as well accept it.

[Trinidad]

Because I consider them failing to give the required disclosure unless they convince me that they really have no partnership understanding.

 

And I am very difficult to convince unless they also give a good reason why they use a particular call for which they allegedly have no partnership understanding.

Come on, Sven. You and I have never played togther before. Suppose that we would play together. We agree something simple, let's say SAYC, something on leads and signals and nothing more. (This does happen a lot.) Now, on the first board, we are faced with this auction.

 

I might well bid 3♦, hoping that you will figure out that it cannot possibly be natural and that I don't have a better bid available.

 

While this may be my intention with the 3♦ bid, we do not have an explicit or implicit agreement about the precise meaning of 3♦, nor do we have any partnership understanding. I am merely hoping that you can figure out from GBK that:

- 3♦ is not natural

- It denies holding a hand that could have made a more descriptive call. (After all, my goal in life is not to torture partner.)

 

There is no partnership understanding, but a good player will be able to figure out a meaning of 3♦ based on GBK. So, it is perfectly possible that you and I would be on the exact same wavelength about the 3♦ bid, without basing this on a partnership understanding, but only basing it on GBK and logic. This means that there is nothing to alert or explain.

If you still would figure out what I intended with 3♦, the opponents don't have any reason to complain: The whole thing was based on GBK, which is specifically exempted from disclosure. Also, using the same GBK, they could have reached the same conclusion.

 

Now suppose that you were a little absent minded. You didn't apply GBK and you didn't come to the easy conclusion that 3♦ cannot be natural. You would still know that we didn't have a partnership understanding about 3♦. And it is very easy to confuse "no partnership understanding" with "it must be natural". So, unfortunately, you explain 3♦ as natural ("what else?").

 

In that case, I will have to correct that you were wrong and that 3♦ was not natural, adding that there was no specific partnership understanding, and maybe adding that from GBK it is easy to derive that 3♦ cannot be natural. But I cannot possibly explain more, since we don't have any more agreements. If I would explain more, I would be lying.

 

Rik

[pran]

Come on, Sven. You and I have never played togther before. Suppose that we would play together. We agree something simple, let's say SAYC, something on leads and signals and nothing more. (This does happen a lot.) Now, on the first board, we are faced with this auction.

 

I might well bid 3♦, hoping that you will figure out that it cannot possibly be natural and that I don't have a better bid available.

 

While this may be my intention with the 3♦ bid, we do not have an explicit or implicit agreement about the precise meaning of 3♦, nor do we have any partnership understanding. I am merely hoping that you can figure out from GBK that:

- 3♦ is not natural

- It denies holding a hand that could have made a more descriptive call. (After all, my goal in life is not to torture partner.)

 

There is no partnership understanding, but a good player will be able to figure out a meaning of 3♦ based on GBK. So, it is perfectly possible that you and I would be on the exact same wavelength about the 3♦ bid, without basing this on a partnership understanding, but only basing it on GBK and logic. This means that there is nothing to alert or explain.

If you still would figure out what I intended with 3♦, the opponents don't have any reason to complain: The whole thing was based on GBK, which is specifically exempted from disclosure. Also, using the same GBK, they could have reached the same conclusion.

 

Now suppose that you were a little absent minded. You didn't apply GBK and you didn't come to the easy conclusion that 3♦ cannot be natural. You would still know that we didn't have a partnership understanding about 3♦. And it is very easy to confuse "no partnership understanding" with "it must be natural". So, unfortunately, you explain 3♦ as natural ("what else?").

 

In that case, I will have to correct that you were wrong and that 3♦ was not natural, adding that there was no specific partnership understanding, and maybe adding that from GBK it is easy to derive that 3♦ cannot be natural. But I cannot possibly explain more, since we don't have any more agreements. If I would explain more, I would be lying.

 

Rik

 

1: The exceptions for GBK presuppose that it is GBK (also) for the opponents!

2: The way I understand the laws I have an obligation to make sure opponents receive the same knowledge as I have on my understanding of (in this case) your 3♦ bid whether this understanding is the result of discussions, agreements or my deductions on what you can possibly have meant.

 

Now, if I give an (in your opinion) incorrect description of your call then you have the duty to correct my description at the proper time, and it is my honest opinion that you may not get away with a statement to the effect that we have no understanding unless you give a convincing explanation for why you in that case made that call.

 

I can only imagine one such explanation: "I believed we had an understanding, but eventually realized that I was wrong."

[mycroft]

I have made "not natural, but no meaning" bids before, and I am sure I shall again. "I have no other way to force" is a good one. "I have no other way to force that doesn't lie horribly" is another. "I know what I want to bid, but I also know that this partner isn't going to understand, so I'm making a bid partner can't pass" is a third, especially if I'm playing standby in a club. "I'm going to cue and bid 3NT, and hope partner will figure out: 1) the cue is not natural, but we have no agreement about it and 2) If I hand [other potential hand] I would have bid 3NT right away" and maybe I'll survive.

 

There's also "we haven't agreed anything, but everyone in the club plays either X or Y, and I'm hoping he'll guess X". That isn't "not natural but no meaning", however.

 

I think in this case, however, the argument wasn't "he should have said no agreement", but "it's clear they have no agreement. If that was made clear to E/W (as opposed to knowing what South meant the bid as, which isn't their right by Law), then what would they have likely (ACBL) done/ thought reasonable to do, and how likely (ROW)?" In other words, the TD should consult and should rule as if they said they had no agreement with whatever relevant meta-agreements the TD has found out that they do have; the players are out of the picture at this point.

[barmar]

I think it "obvious" that 1♣ P 1♠ 2♠ is never natural. I am finding more people over time who disagree with this. "Obvious" agreements need to be disclosed unless they are universally obvious.

Mike Lawrence mentions that it should be natural in his recently updated book on balancing (I know this is not a balancing bid, it was an aside in the section about bidding responder's suit after partner has balanced).

[barmar]

1: The exceptions for GBK presuppose that it is GBK (also) for the opponents!

If it's not, then it isn't GBK.

general |ˈjenərəl|

adjective

1 affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread

[Trinidad]

1: The exceptions for GBK presuppose that it is GBK (also) for the opponents!

That is simply not true. The relevant Law is 40B6a (emphasis mine):

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

GBK means General Bridge Knowledge. That is not the same as Universal Bridge Knowledge. Now we can debate how general this 'general' should be. But I would think that the box principle ("You cannot show a hand that you have denied previously.") is well beyond general and close to universal. I think that if you would ask each of the opponents individually if anyone can show a hand that he has denied in the previous round of the auction, you would get two clear no's. So, the box principle is GBK.

 

The fact that I can draw the inference "3♦ cannot be natural" from "matters generally known to bridge players" (i.e. the box principle), is entirely due to my knowledge and experience. I do not need to disclose this to anybody.

 

And I do not need to care whether the opponents have "the knowledge or the experience" to draw that same inference, as long as my inference is based on "matters generally known to bridge players".

 

I don't know who South is. It is highly likely that I have never met him in my life let alone have played with him. Nevertheless, I can deduce that 3♦ is not natural from the simple fact that NS play natural in this auction. Since I don't know who South is, I have only my GBK to guide me. If that is not proof that the meaning of 3♦ can be inferred by GBK, then what is?

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

I can only imagine one such explanation: "I believed we had an understanding, but eventually realized that I was wrong."

Imagine greater. :P

 

If you require all players, at all levels, to have agreements understandings about all possible calls, you will, sooner or later, kill the game. Probably sooner.

[Finch]

Is it AI to the EW players that neither N or S ever asked about the meaning of the (alerted) 2D bid?

Should that affect the ruling about opening leader's LAs?

[ArtK78]

I don't know if this will add anything to the discussion, but this happened to me yesterday.

 

I was playing in the first round of a Sectional Swiss Teams in Wilmington Delaware with a partner who I have not played with in about 10 years.

 

On the first board, with my partner as dealer (no one vul) we had the following auction:

 

1♣ - (2♣)* - 2♦ - (2♥)

3♦ - (P) - P - (3♥)

P - (P) - 3♠ - (P)

3NT - All Pass

 

*Michaels

 

My RHO put the lead face down and then my LHO asked my partner about the meaning of the 3♠ bid. Both I and my partner broke out laughing. Our explanation was essentially that this was the first board we have played together in about 10 years and our pregame discussion did not include how to invite a game after we pass a hand out in partscore.

 

Nevertheless, he understood, through general bridge knowledge, that I had something of value in spades (I had QTxx), and we made 3NT on a heart lead into his AQ.

 

Would anyone argue that we need to come up with a better explanation for my 3♠ bid?

[Trinidad]

Is it AI to the EW players that neither N or S ever asked about the meaning of the (alerted) 2D bid?

Should that affect the ruling about opening leader's LAs?

That would be AI to EW.

 

This also changes my view on the case. I had assumed that NS knew that 2♦ showed the pointed suits.

 

Now it starts to remind me of a case that happened when I was playing against two LOLs: LHO opened 1NT and my partner overcalled 2♥, alerted because it was DONT. Nothing was asked and RHO bid 2♠. I passed, LHO bid something, partner passed and now suddenly RHO asks me what 2♥ meant. I told her it showed both majors. RHO rebids her spades with 3♠, promptly alerted by LHO: It asks for a spade stopper. LHO bids 3NT, partner leads and indeed, dummy hits with five spades to the 9. :)

 

Rik

[nige1]

When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to opponent's enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

The law-makers may have intended to exempt players from explaining facts obvious to almost all bridge players. e.g. "spades outrank hearts". Unfortunately some Bridge-players seem to interpret this more liberally and use it as an excuse for nondisclosure. I often find that I don't know things that other players say are generally known. But I don't see the relevance of GBK here. At the end of the auction, if I ask and and both opponents confirm that their calls are natural, I'm naive enough to believe them.

Is it AI to the EW players that neither N or S ever asked about the meaning of the (alerted) 2D bid?

Should that affect the ruling about opening leader's LAs?

This is too deep tor me :(

1. What is the answer to Frances' first question?
2. But even if it is AI, assuming that the EW system-card explains the 2♦ bid, then it might be dangerous to read much into the lack of a question.

[barmar]

My RHO put the lead face down and then my LHO asked my partner about the meaning of the 3♠ bid. Both I and my partner broke out laughing. Our explanation was essentially that this was the first board we have played together in about 10 years and our pregame discussion did not include how to invite a game after we pass a hand out in partscore.

 

Nevertheless, he understood, through general bridge knowledge, that I had something of value in spades (I had QTxx), and we made 3NT on a heart lead into his AQ.

 

Would anyone argue that we need to come up with a better explanation for my 3♠ bid?

It's pretty common that when the opponents have shown one suit, a cue bid asks if partner can stop the suit, while when they've shown two suits the cue bid tells that you can stop that suit, and asks if partner can stop the other one (this assumes that there's room in the auction for you to bid both suits). I would consider this to be GBK among reasonably advanced players, but not all players in general. If I felt my partner were of the same experience level as myself, I would consider it an implicit agreement and disclose it to the opponents if asked.

 

In fact, even in less complicated auctions I've occasionally had opponents ask about a cue bid "was he asking or showing?"

[Trinidad]

The law-makers may have intended to exempt players from explaining facts obvious to almost all bridge players. e.g. "spades outrank hearts". Unfortunately some Bridge-players seem to interpret this more liberally and use it as an excuse for nondisclosure.

I think the law makers intended the term "general bridge knowledge" as an opposite to "pair specific bridge knowledge" (the agreements and understandings that you have as a pair, whether explicit or implicit through partnership experience).

 

This means that "general bridge knowledge" includes all knowledge, experience and skills that an individual player has which is not related to his partnership with this particular partner.

 

If I am paired to a mr. Hong Wang from Beijing, without time to discuss anything, we both will only have our own GBK to fall back on. On the first board, the opponents are not entitled to any information about our bidding. I think that Mr. Wang and I would get by reasonably well, which means that GBK plays a significant role in bridge.

 

But I don't see the relevance of GBK here. At the end of the auction, if I ask and and both opponents confirm that their calls are natural, I'm naive enough to believe them.

 

Sure. But there is a subtle difference between saying that the individual calls are natural (promising length/strength) and saying that the auction was natural.

 

If I play an entirely natural system am I not allowed to open 1♠, rebid 2♥, followed by 3♦ and finally bid 4♣ unless I have 16 cards in my hand? And if my partner bids like that am I not allowed to think that he probably doesn't have four clubs? And now the more delicate question: Do I need to tell my opponents that my partner doesn't hold 3 clubs, despite the fact that the auction was natural?

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

Rik has, IMO, nailed the difference between GBK in general and GBK which must be disclosed when a question is asked. At risk of restating the obvious, just in case it isn't really obvious to everyone, here is what we do and what we believe is right to do:

 

When asked, we disclose anything which we consider GBK if it is also part of our partnership experience...either discussed, or having occurred previously at the table; we believe it is our obligation to do so. We do not believe we should disclose what we consider to be GBK otherwise, but since we have been playing together since Christ was a corporal, nearly every situation is part of our partnership experience. "I take her call to mean..." should never be used.

 

The bidding by South in the OP would not be part of our partnership experience :rolleyes:

[pran]

I think the law makers intended the term "general bridge knowledge" as an opposite to "pair specific bridge knowledge" (the agreements and understandings that you have as a pair, whether explicit or implicit through partnership experience).

 

This means that "general bridge knowledge" includes all knowledge, experience and skills that an individual player has which is not related to his partnership with this particular partner.

 

[...]

 

I have always understood the clause about "general bridge knowledge" to allow when explaining an auction not wasting time by including information that opponentes should be expected to know already.

 

It doesn't make sense to me if this clause is meant to allow a partnership avoiding disclosure of information "generally known to themselves" while not also obviously known to their opponents.

[aguahombre]

I have always understood the clause about "general bridge knowledge" to allow when explaining an auction not wasting time by including information that opponentes should be expected to know already.

 

It doesn't make sense to me if this clause is meant to allow a partnership avoiding disclosure of information "generally known to themselves" while not also obviously known to their opponents.

I do not like the idea of expecting the opponents to know something, or of judging what is or should be "obviously" known by them. The criterion should be whether WE are using GBK to try something new on partner (not disclosable), or whether we are using a call which we understand from our partnership's experience (disclosable).

 

Wasting time should not be a concern, if a question is asked. I would probably waste more time trying to decide whether the opponents should already know something than just explaining the call.

[pran]

I do not like the idea of expecting the opponents to know something, or of judging what is or should be "obviously" known by them. The criterion should be whether WE are using GBK to try something new on partner (not disclosable), or whether we are using a call which we understand from our partnership's experience (disclosable).

[...]

 

So you want to legally conceal your implicit partnership understandings from your opponents by claiming that this is General Bridge Knowledge to you and your partner, not worrying about whether it may be known or unknown to your opponents?

 

I don't care to express what I think.

[Trinidad]

So you want to legally conceal your implicit partnership understandings from your opponents by claiming that this is General Bridge Knowledge to you and your partner, not worrying about whether it may be known or unknown to your opponents?

 

I don't care to express what I think.

I think you misunderstand what aguahombre is writing. Perhaps because you mistakenly think that when he writes 'we' it refers to him and his partner. It doesn't. 'We' refers to aguahombre and 'us': the people that "look over aguahombre's shoulder" at the situation that he describes.

 

He was very clear that all implicit partnership understandings should be disclosed, because they relate to the partnership. What in his (and my) opinion does not need to be disclosed is individual bridge knowledge, i.e. all things that have nothing to do with the partnership.

 

Rik

[nige1]

I think the law makers intended the term "general bridge knowledge" as an opposite to "pair specific bridge knowledge" (the agreements and understandings that you have as a pair, whether explicit or implicit through partnership experience). This means that "general bridge knowledge" includes all knowledge, experience and skills that an individual player has which is not related to his partnership with this particular partner.

Rik has, IMO, nailed the difference between GBK in general and GBK which must be disclosed when a question is asked. At risk of restating the obvious, just in case it isn't really obvious to everyone, here is what we do and what we believe is right to do: When asked, we disclose anything which we consider GBK if it is also part of our partnership experience...either discussed, or having occurred previously at the table; we believe it is our obligation to do so. :rolleyes:

I have always understood the clause about "general bridge knowledge" to allow when explaining an auction not wasting time by including information that opponents should be expected to know already. It doesn't make sense to me if this clause is meant to allow a partnership avoiding disclosure of information "generally known to themselves" while not also obviously known to their opponents.

I prefer Sven's interpretation i.e. you should disclose your relevant "general" bridge knowledge unless you're confident that opponents already share it. I fear, however, that most Bridge-players agree with Trinidad and Aquahombre.