No firm agreement

[StevenG]

In case you haven't read my previous posts, my reason for offering this explanation is that: I play simple Benjy Acol with my regular partner and most Acol players employ splinters; StevenG and I are both BBO members where that convention is widely advocated; I think it might be most the common agreement for this bid in the UK. My opponents, however, may unaware all that is the case. I agree that it's hard to know what "General Bridge Knowledge" really is..

I would think that Gerber is far and away the most commonly played meaning for that bid in the UK.

If I played with a stranger, I would expect Gerber if I thought that player weak, and a splinter otherwise. I would not wish to explain my reasoning in public.

[Trinidad]

I gathered from Trinidad's previous post that he deemed inferences from analogous auctions and negative inferences from other agreements to be "General Bridge Knowledge" -- hence not disclosable. I'm glad I'm mistaken.

You were mixing up things in your post. The first item in your list was an obvious case of GBK. The others were partnership related.

A few moths ago, I played with an Englishman, whom I had just met at the table. Other tables had already played their first board but opponents kindly allowed us a couple of minutes to write out an SC with something like 2/1, strong notrump, 5-card Ms, 4 transfers, Smolen, Jacoby, Bergen, Gazzilli, 2-way checkback, Drury 2m, 3rd & 5th, UDCA.

?!? Have you ever heard of the KISS principle? Do you know just how many uncertainties you put in your system because people play these conventions in different ways? They say that it is better to play one bad system than to play two different good systems. This list is disaster waiting to happen.

1♦ - 1♥ - 1N - 2♠ (Responder should be exactly 4-4 in the majors, because of 2-way check-back).

A typical example: Some play that this sequence shows 4-4 and forces to game. Others play that it shows 4-4 and is invitational. Again others play that it shows 4-4 and is forcing for one round (i.e. at least invitational). Then there are, of course, those who play that this sequence shows 4-5 (GF, INV, or INV+), because 4-4 major fits can be found with 2-way checkback. And then we shouldn't forget the pairs who simply don't use this sequence, since 2 way checkback solves all their problems or the players who would never show a 4-4 since opener's 1NT rebid denied four spades.

 

If you explain this as "exactly 4-4 in the majors, because of 2 way checkback" your explanation is certainly wrong. It is either overinterpreting "we play 2 way checkback" and drawing too strong a conclusion or it is underinterpreting since it isn't even explaining what the strength of the bid is. My explanation would be: "We have agreed to play 2 way checkback, but we didn't have time to discuss what hands will go through a checkback variation and what hands will be bid naturally." I will not explain that I am certainly not going to pass 2♠, not even with a dead minimum and 4 spades (even if that would be the correct action if partner intended it as invitational only). The fact that it is a good idea to treat undiscussed bids as forcing is GBK.

 

If, then, the first hand had gone 1♥ - (pass)- 4♣ (undiscussed), and you thought me an unsophisticated duffer, how might you explain the bid if asked?

My pick-up partner was an expert. I'm no expert but try to fit in with partner's preferences. Good example -- in those circumstances, what would you do, StevenG? Assuming we have no explicit agreement about this 4♣ bid, under current EBU regulations, I would still alert. If asked, I would say "No agreement". It may be against the law, but I'd then offer to speculate. If my opponent took up that offer, I'd say "Most likely a splinter -- Short ♣, 4+ ♥, at least game values".

But you did have an agreement about 1♥-4♣! You agreed to play Bergen Raises: 4♣ is a balanced 3 card heart raise with 16-18 HCPs. All splinters would go through 3♠. At least that is what Bergen wrote in his book on the subject. (And I guess he would know.)

 

Summarizing, the only agreements you had were that you played this list of conventions. Any explanation founded on the assumption that your partner would play those conventions in the same way as you do is misinformation, since you never agreed (neither explicitly nor implicitly) to the level of detail you are offering.

 

Rik

[lamford]

I offered the opinion in another thread that "no agreement" should be deemed misinformation. I have changed my view, and I think that "no agreement" over a call which should be announced should be deemed misinformation, as there is an infraction of failing to announce as required by the Blue Book in England, and presumably in other countries. That puts the onus on even a pick-up partnership to agree a basic system, but "no agreement" is acceptable for other calls. The partnership still has an obligation to disclose implicit agreements, of course. The stronger and more regular the partnership, the more that other understandings which should be disclosed will reveal the likely meaning.

[nige1]

?!? Have you ever heard of the KISS principle? Do you know just how many uncertainties you put in your system because people play these conventions in different ways? They say that it is better to play one bad system than to play two different good systems. This list is disaster waiting to happen. A typical example: Some play that this sequence shows 4-4 and forces to game. Others play that it shows 4-4 and is invitational. Again others play that it shows 4-4 and is forcing for one round (i.e. at least invitational). Then there are, of course, those who play that this sequence shows 4-5 (GF, INV, or INV+), because 4-4 major fits can be found with 2-way checkback. And then we shouldn't forget the pairs who simply don't use this sequence, since 2 way checkback solves all their problems or the players who would never show a 4-4 since opener's 1NT rebid denied four spades. If you explain this as "exactly 4-4 in the majors, because of 2 way checkback" your explanation is certainly wrong. It is either overinterpreting "we play 2 way checkback" and drawing too strong a conclusion or it is underinterpreting since it isn't even explaining what the strength of the bid is.

I bow to Trinidad's superior expertise but in the popular version of 2-way check-back, that i've been taught, after

1♦ - 1♥

1N -

• With 4-4 in the majors and an invitational hand, you bid 2♠ non-forcing.
• With 4-4 in the majors and game vales, you bid 2♣ to puppet 2♦ and follow with 3N (the impossible puppet).

If I felt partner was likely to play similar primitive methods, then that is the way I would explain such bids, when asked to speculate.

My explanation would be: "We have agreed to play 2 way checkback, but we didn't have time to discuss what hands will go through a checkback variation and what hands will be bid naturally." I will not explain that I am certainly not going to pass 2♠, not even with a dead minimum and 4 spades (even if that would be the correct action if partner intended it as invitational only). The fact that it is a good idea to treat undiscussed bids as forcing is GBK.

I would treat this 2♠ bid as nonforcing. IMO, this is a good illustration that what is GBK to one person can come as a surprise to another. StevenG makes a similar point.

But you did have an agreement about 1♥-4♣! You agreed to play Bergen Raises: 4♣ is a balanced 3 card heart raise with 16-18 HCPs. All splinters would go through 3♠. At least that is what Bergen wrote in his book on the subject. (And I guess he would know.)

StevenG was talking about simple Benjaminised Acol. Bergen raises.were not mentioned.

Summarizing, the only agreements you had were that you played this list of conventions. Any explanation founded on the assumption that your partner would play those conventions in the same way as you do is misinformation, since you never agreed (neither explicitly nor implicitly) to the level of detail you are offering.

• Under current laws, I would simply offer to speculate about likely inferences. I flatter myself that I would guess right, almost all the time. Hence, when opponents acquiesce, they would probably benefit from correct information.
• Under the suggested change in the law I would be obliged to state a meaning, again to opponents' likely benefit.

[nige1]

I would think that Gerber is far and away the most commonly played meaning for that bid in the UK.

You might be right.

If I played with a stranger, I would expect Gerber if I thought that player weak, and a splinter otherwise. I would not wish to explain my reasoning in public.

Fair enough. StevenG asked how I'd explain 4♣ when playing with him. I think his (undiscussed) 4♣ would be likely to be intended as a splinter -- for the nebulous reasons that I mentioned. If opponents asked me to speculate, that's what I'd say..

[Trinidad]

I bow to Trinidad's superior expertise but in the popular version of 2-way check-back, that i've been taught, after

1♦ - 1♥

1N -

• With 4-4 in the majors and an invitational hand, you bid 2♠ non-forcing.
• With 4-4 in the majors and game vales, you bid 2♣ to puppet 2♦ and follow with 3N (the impossible puppet).

If I felt partner was likely to play similar primitive methods, then that is the way I would explain such bids, when asked to speculate. I would treat this 2♠ bid as nonforcing.

You can draw all these conclusions from agreeing to play 2-way checkback?

 

In the Netherlands TDs have an expression for this type of explanations: They say that you have an agreement with yourself (but not with your partner).

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

StevenG was talking about simple Benjaminised Acol. Bergen raises.were not mentioned.

Fine, and what would you have explained if your English stranger would have jumped this auction (1♥-Pass-4♣) on you?

 

You know, of course, that -according to Bergen- it shows the 16-18 balanced 3 card raise. But you also know that few players have read Bergen's book and many think that Bergen raises are only about the responses of 3m.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

As I learned it, two way checkback stayman is one of four ways to ask opener about his 1NT rebid, and is completely analogous to two way stayman over a 1NT opening. This business of using 2♣ as a relay is not two way checkback. Max Hardy called it "modified two way stayman".

 

Regarding "no agreement for calls which should be announced" presumably if you have no agreement you have no agreement that should be announced, so calling "no agreement" MI in this case is a non-starter. Also, I think that if you have no agreement but think the call could have one of several possible meanings, not all of which require an announcement, you should alert, not announce. Announcements are a specific modification to the alert procedure intended to save a few seconds of time in very specific situations. When you don't know what partner's bid means, you're not in any of those situations.

[nige1]

Fine, and what would you have explained if your English stranger would have jumped this auction (1♥-Pass-4♣) on you?

We had such an auction and when opponents asked I said "splinter, ♣ shortage, 4+ ♥s, game+ values". Miraculously, that turned out to be what partner meant :) On another occasion, exclusion key-card came up, undiscussed, but we both guessed correctly :)

You know, of course, that -according to Bergen- it shows the 16-18 balanced 3 card raise. But you also know that few players have read Bergen's book and think that Bergen raises are only about the responses of 3m.

Thank you Trinidad for the information. No, I didn't know. I haven't read Bergen's books. I don't like his convention. Luckily, the players, with whom I play what they call "Bergen", are equally ignorant. I suppose that this is another reason to explain what you understand by partner's bid, rather than to rely on the name of a convention.

[nige1]

I offered the opinion in another thread that "no agreement" should be deemed misinformation. I have changed my view, and I think that "no agreement" over a call which should be announced should be deemed misinformation, as there is an infraction of failing to announce as required by the Blue Book in England, and presumably in other countries. That puts the onus on even a pick-up partnership to agree a basic system, but "no agreement" is acceptable for other calls. The partnership still has an obligation to disclose implicit agreements, of course. The stronger and more regular the partnership, the more that other understandings which should be disclosed will reveal the likely meaning.

With the possible exception of undiscussed calls that should be announced, would Lamford advocate any changes to disclosure rules?

[barmar]

Fair enough, Blackshoe. In my (seemingly atypical) experience, shared understandings vary from time to time, from country to country, from club to club, and even from clique to clique. Hence I'm unsure what bidding understandings are matters generally known to bridge-players. I accept that others have a different perception.

What about the combined strength needed to bid game? Does that vary? (Hmm, Meckwell routinely bid 3NT with 23 HCP, most of us prefer to have at least 25.)

 

Sometimes we describe a bid as "invitational", and opponents will press for a point range. Assuming they already understand what strength range you've shown, we shouldn't have to give a bridge or math lesson to explain what it takes for partner to invite game.

[nige1]

What about the combined strength needed to bid game? Does that vary? (Hmm, Meckwell routinely bid 3NT with 23 HCP, most of us prefer to have at least 25.)

 

Sometimes we describe a bid as "invitational", and opponents will press for a point range. Assuming they already understand what strength range you've shown, we shouldn't have to give a bridge or math lesson to explain what it takes for partner to invite game.

From previous discussions, it seems that many share Barmar's views of GBK.. Paradoxically, however, I feel that Barmar's example reinforces rather than undermines the argument that, as far as matters of bidding-understanding are concerned, there's little common ground. e.g. If Rodwell opens 1N showing a balanced 14-16, and an opponent asks about Meckstroth's response, then "invitational" might be an inadequate explanation, for an opponent who was unaware how different their idea of game values were from his. Perhaps, they should condescend to give opponents what Barmar calls a "bridge lesson" but I deem to be information, to which opponents are legally entitled.

[Trinidad]

Thank you Trinidad for the information. No, I didn't know. I haven't read Bergen's books. I don't like his convention. Luckily, the players, with whom I play what they call "Bergen", are equally ignorant. I suppose that this is another reason to explain what you understand by partner's bid, rather than to rely on the name of a convention.

?!? You have an agreement to play the name of the convention. You have no agreement about what you understand by partner's bid.

 

Why are you lying about your agreements?

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Rik, if you asked that question at the table, I would give you a zero tolerance penalty. :o

[Cthulhu D]

He's got a good point though - I mean I regularly have auctions where undiscussed bids are made with a partner I've played with for 3 years. I always try and disclose where there is an analogous situation we have discussed, but in heavily contested/preempted auctions, particularly when a multi meaning or artificial bid was made at some point, it can often be really hard to know for sure. We perpetrated this horrible auction 2C-(2D)-X-3H-3S-4C-4NT-7H and neither of us were sure what trumps were (2C was weak diamonds or weak spades or strong) because we'd never discussed if the jump to 3H set trumps in a comptetive auction after partners action double.

 

When asked I disclosed that in an uncontested auction that it did, but the specific auction at hand was undiscussed.

 

Its just not possible to discuss the many and multitudinous possible contested auctions so often you are not going to have a specific agreement, but will infer from analogous situations. It seems ridiculous that you want to ding me for MI when I say 'This exact situation is undiscussed, but in this related situation the bid means X'

[Trinidad]

Rik, if you asked that question at the table, I would give you a zero tolerance penalty. :o

Most certainly. But we are not at the table, we are in a discussion forum. And we are dealing with someone who is not merely lying about his agreements, but advocates that everybody should do that and we should incorporate it in the Laws.

 

And in this case it couldn't be easier to explain the actual agreements, since there are only explicit partnership agreements ("We play Bergen Raises" or "We play two way checkback Stayman") and zero implicit partnership agreements.

 

Why would you tell the opponents the conclusion of a whole pile of interpretations and guesses when you can (and should) simply tell them your agreements?

 

And to be absolutely clear: If at the table I would know that my opponents have only agreed to "We play two-way checkback Stayman" and I get the explanation about the auction 1♦-1♥; 1NT-2♠ as showing 4-4 in the majors and invitational, I would call the TD for MI, even in the unlikely event that the explanation describes the hand correctly. And I expect the TD to warn my opponents and stick to explaining their agreements.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

I think you're being a bit too contentious. If you find out when 2♠ is bid that it means 4-4 majors invitational, you have not been misinformed, even if all that's on their card is "two way checkback". Okay, if they don't tell you about 2♠ it's MI, but is that what's happening?

 

In the first instance, I'm not sure whether this meaning of 2♠ is an explcit agreement or a logical inference from the fact of two way checkback. Certainly if the pair have discussed it it's an explicit agreement, but if they haven't?

[barmar]

Its just not possible to discuss the many and multitudinous possible contested auctions so often you are not going to have a specific agreement, but will infer from analogous situations. It seems ridiculous that you want to ding me for MI when I say 'This exact situation is undiscussed, but in this related situation the bid means X'

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

If you give this type of explanation, and it turns out not to describe the actual meaning, but you somehow get a good result, they'll cry MI.

 

If you just say "undiscussed", but you manage to guess right and get a good result, they'll also cry MI.

 

The only way the opponents will let you off the hook is if your lack of a firm agreement results in them getting a good board.

[Trinidad]

I think you're being a bit too contentious.

Of course, I am contentious. After all, this is a discussion about principles, not about a real case.

If you find out when 2♠ is bid that it means 4-4 majors invitational, you have not been misinformed, even if all that's on their card is "two way checkback".

Of course, I have been misinformed because they don't have an agreement that 2♠ means 4-4 majors invitational.

In the first instance, I'm not sure whether this meaning of 2♠ is an explcit agreement or a logical inference from the fact of two way checkback. Certainly if the pair have discussed it it's an explicit agreement, but if they haven't?

If they have discussed it, it is an explicit agreement. But they didn't discuss it and there are no implicit agreements. And there is no logical inference either. The system was 2/1 GF, the auction started 1♦-1♥; 1NT. What would be logical about responder introducing a four card spade suit?

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

"There are no implicit agreements" is just wrong. I gave the logic by which 2♠ indicates responder is 4-4 in the majors upthread. Or rather I gave Rosenkranz's logic — or his character Godfrey's. You may disagree with it, but of both members of this pair come up with "responder is 4-4 majors" based on it, they have an implicit agreement, whether you like it or not.

[nige1]

?!? You have an agreement to play the name of the convention. You have no agreement about what you understand by partner's bid. Why are you lying about your agreements?

Rik, if you asked that question at the table, I would give you a zero tolerance penalty. :o

Most certainly. But we are not at the table, we are in a discussion forum. And we are dealing with someone who is not merely lying about his agreements, but advocates that everybody should do that and we should incorporate it in the Laws. And in this case it couldn't be easier to explain the actual agreements, since there are only explicit partnership agreements ("We play Bergen Raises" or "We play two way checkback Stayman") and zero implicit partnership agreements. Why would you tell the opponents the conclusion of a whole pile of interpretations and guesses when you can (and should) simply tell them your agreements? And to be absolutely clear: If at the table I would know that my opponents have only agreed to "We play two-way checkback Stayman" and I get the explanation about the auction 1♦-1♥; 1NT-2♠ as showing 4-4 in the majors and invitational, I would call the TD for MI, even in the unlikely event that the explanation describes the hand correctly. And I expect the TD to warn my opponents and stick to explaining their agreements.

Let's be clear about the example: Trinidad's opponent claims no firm agreement but offers to speculate. Trinidad asks him to do so. By following what he considers to be valid inferences, the opponent starts a correct explanation of what his partner meant. Trinidad calls the director to complain? .. Well, that's Trinidad's prerogative :(

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you give this type of explanation, and it turns out not to describe the actual meaning, but you somehow get a good result, they'll cry MI. If you just say "undiscussed", but you manage to guess right and get a good result, they'll also cry MI. The only way the opponents will let you off the hook is if your lack of a firm agreement results in them getting a good board.

In practice, under current law, claiming no agreement seems to have few repercussions. An amusing example: In a Welsh national competition, we played against a married couple. LHO discarded the ten of spades. The carding agreement section of opponent's system-card was blank. I asked RHO about discards and she said "No agreement". At the end of the round, I went back to the table to retrieve something, The husband was berating his wife for failing to comply with his spade signal. I called the director. not to claim damage but to suggest that the couple might change their system-cards. The man protested that I was accusing him of cheating and, anyway, he couldn't change the cards because they were in plastic wrappers.. The director said he'd go away to decide on a ruling. The couple didn't change their cards.

 

Previously, I was trying to show that even a first-time partnership can have more implicit agreements than they might think. Now my contention is that an experienced partnership, like that Welsh couple, develop even more rapport over time. When they take an undiscussed action, in a novel context, their "guess" at what it means will normally be better than yours.

Of course, I am contentious. After all, this is a discussion about principles, not about a real case. Of course, I have been misinformed because they don't have an agreement that 2♠ means 4-4 majors invitational. If they have discussed it, it is an explicit agreement. But they didn't discuss it and there are no implicit agreements. And there is no logical inference either. The system was 2/1 GF, the auction started 1♦-1♥; 1NT. What would be logical about responder introducing a four card spade suit?

"There are no implicit agreements" is just wrong. I gave the logic by which 2♠ indicates responder is 4-4 in the majors upthread. Or rather I gave Rosenkranz's logic — or his character Godfrey's. You may disagree with it, but of both members of this pair come up with "responder is 4-4 majors" based on it, they have an implicit agreement, whether you like it or not.

I fear that Trinidad's lying accusations are an ad hominem attack. Lying implies intent to deceive. Offering to speculate isn't lying. When you're more likely lhan opponents to surmise partner's meaning, and you accede to opponent's request to speculate, then you're not lying, especially If you rarely get it wrong. If what you say, in good faith, turns out to be untrue, then you're still not lying.

 

Of course, Trinidad might be right that this speculation is against current law. If so, that's a pity but this thread is about a suggested law-change. My examples are part of the argument for that change. The rules of a game can legitimate certain lies (e.g. Liar dice). The rules of Bridge already allow some lies (e.g. psychs, false-cards). Anyway, If the law were changed so that you had to state your guess, then stating your guess would not be a lie.

 

Sto pro veritate

[Cthulhu D]

I fear that Trinidad's lying accusations are an ad hominem attack. Lying implies intent to deceive. Offering to speculate is not lying. When you're more likely lhan opponents to surmise partner's meaning, and you accede to opponent's request to speculate, then you are not lying, especially If you rarely get it wrong. If what you say, in good faith, turns out to be untrue, then you are still not lying.

 

 

Of course, Trinidad might be right that this speculation is against current law. If so, that's a pity but this thread is about a suggested law-change. My examples are part of the argument for that change. The rules of a game can legitimate certain lies (e.g. Liar dice). The rules of Bridge already allow some lies (e.g. psychs, false-cards). Anyway, If the law were changed so that you had to state your guess, then stating your guess would not be a lie.

 

Sto pro veritate

 

He's not actually accusing you of lying - he's pointing out the problem with the proposed disclosure threshold for scratch partnerships. It is entirely possible that after the discussion 'Bergen Raises' 'OK' Partner means 1H-4C to be the 16-18 3 card raise (as is commonly played playing Bergen Raises), and you have in theory discussed it (because, as he notes, the actual book on the topic calls for that).

 

You're in a real spot for the same reason you should never *disclose* these agreements by saying 'Bergen raises' or whatever and should specify the hand type. There are so many variations of 'Bergen Raises' that it's hard to know exactly what one is intended. Appropriate disclosure might be:

 

"4C could be an ace ask, a 16-18 HCP raise with 3 card support or a splinter singleton club, typically with 4 card spade support, but may have different ranges in a good hand. Based on the shared experiences I have with this partner, I would rate the singleton club as most likely and the ace ask as least likely."

 

You can see the problem(s).

[nige1]

Why are you lying about your agreements?

And we are dealing with someone who is not merely lying about his agreements, but advocates that everybody should do that and we should incorporate it in the Laws.

He's not actually accusing you of lying - he's pointing out the problem with the proposed disclosure threshold for scratch partnerships.

Are you sure? :)

It is entirely possible that after the discussion 'Bergen Raises' 'OK' Partner means 1H-4C to be the 16-18 3 card raise (as is commonly played playing Bergen Raises), and you have in theory discussed it (because, as he notes, the actual book on the topic calls for that). You're in a real spot for the same reason you should never *disclose* these agreements by saying 'Bergen raises' or whatever and should specify the hand type. There are so many variations of 'Bergen Raises' that it's hard to know exactly what one is intended.

I agree with Cthulhu, I mentioned the pitfall of using convention-names, like Bergen, in explanations, earlier in this thread :) Stayman is another case in point. Few players use his convention as he originally defined it. Some don't even use his 2N response.

Appropriate disclosure might be: "4C could be an ace ask, a 16-18 HCP raise with 3 card support or a splinter singleton club, typically with 4 card spade support, but may have different ranges in a good hand. Based on the shared experiences I have with this partner, I would rate the singleton club as most likely and the ace ask as least likely."

Fair enough :) Although, under current law, it might be better to say "No firm agreement but I'll speculate, if you like". That's what I try to do but I'm not even sure if it's legal. :(

[blackshoe]

According to the law, you should not speculate, but you should disclose any mutual experience you might have with this partner, or any other agreements you have with him, that might be germane. Frankly I don't see why that's so hard to understand, or why people think it needs changing.

[pran]

According to the law, you should not speculate, but you should disclose any mutual experience you might have with this partner, or any other agreements you have with him, that might be germane. Frankly I don't see why that's so hard to understand, or why people think it needs changing.

As far as I have understood there are players who want every reason they can claim for avoiding giving information to their opponents.