No firm agreement

[helene_t]

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

This is not my impression.

 

What I did encounter sometimes while I lived in the Netherlands was pairs that refused to disclose agreements which they considered to be GBK. There might be a need for tidying up the GBK concept.

 

What I have seen more frequently is the opposite, namely that players get out of their way to explain some agreement when they don't have any. This could be because they think they are obliged to do so - the EBU regulation that you have to alert a call if you don't know what it means but are going to take it as having an alertable meaning may contribute to this. Also, some players pose the question as "how do you take that?" which sounds like they want you to guess.

 

Another reason could be that some pairs want to build the imago as a pair that has sophisticated agreements.

[Trinidad]

Let's be clear about the example: Trinidad's opponent claims no firm agreement but offers to speculate. Trinidad asks him to do so.

Forget it, I would never ask an opponent to speculate.

I fear that Trinidad's lying accusations are an ad hominem attack. Lying implies intent to deceive.

I can understand that you see my lying accusations as an ad hominem attack. They are not meant to be, but, of course, I apologize.

 

Lying implies no intent to deceive. There are tons of reasons why people can be lying. An obvious one is because they care about someone's feelings ("You'll do fine"). Another one is because people want to be helpful. Lying simply means "intentionally saying something that you know to be untrue". It doesn't carry in its meaning anything about why someone is saying something that he knows to be untrue.

 

So when you say that you agreed that 4♣ shows 4+♥, a singleton club and game going values or that you agreed that 2♠ shows 4-4 in the majors, is invitational and non-forcing you are lying because you have never agreed to that and you know it.

 

The reason for your lying is not to deceive but to be more helpful than you can be. That makes the lying still wrong, but the intent is honorable. And the simple fact that the intent is honorable should not mean that we turn this lying into law.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

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

This is not my impression.

Not mine either.

What I did encounter sometimes while I lived in the Netherlands was pairs that refused to disclose agreements which they considered to be GBK. There might be a need for tidying up the GBK concept.

I think that there is something else going on here. The world is still very separated. In one country it is GBK that sequence XYZ shows A, whereas in another country it is GBK that it shows B. The "General" in General Bridge Knowledge is not as general as people think.

 

A simple example: For years, people in the Netherlands were taught Acol by the nationally famous method by Cees Sint and Ton Schipperheyn. For all these people it is "General" Bridge Knowledge that four card suits are opened up the line. If a gentleman or lady who learned to play in the bridge club on Acol Road would walk into these Dutch bridge clubs, they would initially be pleased to see everybody play Acol but end up totally confused.

 

Who is at fault? Nobody really, except that it would be good to realize that what is general "here" is not general "everywhere". But that is not a bridge question. That is a cultural question. It belongs in the school system.

 

Rik

[paulg]

Lying implies no intent to deceive.

It is very clear that this is your understanding and how you use the term. However for most British people (and their dictionaries), the most common use of the term lying absolutely implies an intent to deceive.

 

Perhaps a cultural difference in translation.

[Trinidad]

It is very clear that this is your understanding and how you use the term.

I am glad about that.

However for most British people (and their dictionaries), the most common use of the term lying absolutely implies an intent to deceive.

From the Oxford dictionary (the last time I looked Oxford was British):

Lie: (Noun) An intentionally false statement

 

And the term "white lie" doesn't exist in Britain either?

 

I will not contest that the term "lying" is often used in a context of intentional deception, but I (and the good people of Oxford) will contest that it means or even implies an intent to deceive by itself. In this particular context it should be pretty clear that there is no intent to deceive: Nige1 proposes a law change where he wants people to be helpful, by forcing them to knowingly say something that isn't true. In Oxford that is known as a lie.

 

Rik

[gordontd]

Rik, the quotation you give seens to me to support exactly the opposite position to the one you are arguing.

[blackshoe]

Not mine either.

 

I think that there is something else going on here. The world is still very separated. In one country it is GBK that sequence XYZ shows A, whereas in another country it is GBK that it shows B. The "General" in General Bridge Knowledge is not as general as people think.

 

A simple example: For years, people in the Netherlands were taught Acol by the nationally famous method by Cees Sint and Ton Schipperheyn. For all these people it is "General" Bridge Knowledge that four card suits are opened up the line. If a gentleman or lady who learned to play in the bridge club on Acol Road would walk into these Dutch bridge clubs, they would initially be pleased to see everybody play Acol but end up totally confused.

 

Who is at fault? Nobody really, except that it would be good to realize that what is general "here" is not general "everywhere". But that is not a bridge question. That is a cultural question. It belongs in the school system.

 

Rik

Good point.

[helene_t]

Different dictionaries differ as to whether the "intention to deceive" is part of the definition or not, but I find it a bit hard to see how one could deliberately tell an untruth without wanting to deceive, except in cases in which the target person is assumed to recognize the untruth, such as when joking or when pretenting to be misinformed.

 

If the question is "what does 2♠ mean?" then I don't think it is a lye to say what one thinks partner intends to convey with the 2♠ bid, even if that message is not based on a partnership-specific understanding.

 

Therefore, I sometimes ask it this way: "Do you have any agreement about this 2♠ bid?". To this, the answer is often "no", and I am sure that usually I would have gotten an answer like "I am not sure but probably it means that ..." if I had asked what the bid means.

 

But maybe this is not good since it is a bit rude to imply that I suspect that they haven't discussed it.

[barmar]

Just because partner is able to figure out your intent in a bid or play, it doesn't necessarily mean you have an agreement about it, explicit or implicit.

 

Bridge books and magazine columns on defense sometimes pose a problem where you need to prevent partner from end-playing you, so you discard an ace. He's supposed to figure out that you have a tenace in the other suit, so he should lead that.

 

Would you ever think to explain to opponents that you have an "agreement" that the discard of an ace is a signal to switch to another suit? What you have is an agreement that partner should try to work out why you did something unusual.

 

When you're defending a suit contract, and you open lead a suit that RHO bid, it's likely to be a singleton. Is that an agreement? No, it's more GBK -- in bridge columns, the author often refers to it as "an obvious singleton".

[nige1]

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.

IMO, the law as blackshoe describes it, is hard to understand, impossible to implement in real-time, and in dire need of change. Although I speak for myself, I feel that most people, who are unsure of their agreements, are also unsure of the evidence on which their agreements are based, which necessarily includes related agreements and vague memories, of which they're also unsure. Hence an attempt to "disclose mutual experience and other relevant agreements" presents us with the same problem, only worse :( Furthermore, any such explanation would be hard to put into words and even harder to understand :(

 

It would be more efficient to cut straight to your speculative conclusions. And that is the suggested law-change.

[Trinidad]

Rik, the quotation you give ["An intentionally false statement"] seens to me to support exactly the opposite position to the one you are arguing.

Which of these four words says that there has to be an intent to deceive? It says that the statement is false, and it says it is intentionally false (i.e. not a mistake). It does not say -in any way- with what intent the intentionally false statement is made.

 

When someone asks you how you are doing, do you than answer "fine, thank you" even if you are doing horrible? Is that a lie? Yes. Is the intent to deceive? No. The intent is to follow a social convention.

 

Christmas eve: You get an awful sweater.

You: "Thank you!"

-"Do you like it?"

You: "Oh yes!"

Is that a lie? Yes. Is the intent to deceive? No. The intent is to spare somebody's feelings.

 

Other famous example: Two colleagues had together authored a patent filed by their company. The patent was challenged in court by a competitor. In court, the judge asks one of the inventors how he came up with the idea. The answer: "Well, I had this problem and it was really bothering me. So, in bed my wife asked me what my problem was. I sketched the problem for my wife and I told her that I couldn't find the solution. Then my wife suggested that I should look at it from the other side because then it would be much easier to understand. And she was right." End of Patent.

Was it a lie to put these two authors as the inventors on the patent? Yes. Was there any intent to deceive? Certainly not. (The inventor and his wife would together have made more money if they would have included the wife.) They probably never thought of putting the wife on the patent, since she was not a professional in the field.

 

I think that you can come up with more examples of lies, without intent to deceive.

 

Rik

[GreenMan]

Which of these four words says that there has to be an intent to deceive? It says that the statement is false, and it says it is intentionally false (i.e. not a mistake). It does not say -in any way- with what intent the intentionally false statement is made.

 

This is the sort of lawyering that makes the game intolerable when it happens. "Sure, I deliberately gave you false information, but it doesn't say in this dictionary here that I was trying to deceive you." That's BS and you know it.

 

When someone asks you how you are doing, do you than answer "fine, thank you" even if you are doing horrible? Is that a lie? Yes. Is the intent to deceive? No. The intent is to follow a social convention.

 

So you're saying that providing false information about one's bridge agreements is following a social convention? That's BS and you know it. If you're not saying that, why bring it up?

 

Christmas eve: You get an awful sweater.

You: "Thank you!"

-"Do you like it?"

You: "Oh yes!"

Is that a lie? Yes. Is the intent to deceive? No. The intent is to spare somebody's feelings.

 

Through deception.

 

Other famous example: Two colleagues had together authored a patent filed by their company. The patent was challenged in court by a competitor. In court, the judge asks one of the inventors how he came up with the idea. The answer: "Well, I had this problem and it was really bothering me. So, in bed my wife asked me what my problem was. I sketched the problem for my wife and I told her that I couldn't find the solution. Then my wife suggested that I should look at it from the other side because then it would be much easier to understand. And she was right." End of Patent.

 

Citation please? Or is this a "just so story" that lawyers pull out to con non-lawyers in arguments? And again, what's the relevance?

 

Anyone who would seriously argue that "deliberately providing false information" does not imply intent to deceive need not be taken seriously. There's honesty and there's trying to win debating points, and I think we can see which is going on here.

[campboy]

Christmas eve: You get an awful sweater.

You: "Thank you!"

-"Do you like it?"

You: "Oh yes!"

Is that a lie? Yes. Is the intent to deceive? No. The intent is to spare somebody's feelings.

Of course there is intent to deceive. You want to deceive them into thinking you like it. You have a reason for trying to deceive them, but that is the case with almost any lie; it's not particularly relevant what that reason is.

 

FWIW the (British) dictionary I have to hand is Collins, which says

vb.

1. (intr.) to speak untruthfully with intent to mislead or deceive.

2. (intr.) to convey a false impression or practice deception: the camera does not lie.

~n.

3. an untrue or deceptive statement deliberately used to mislead.

4. something that is deliberately intended to deceive.

[lamford]

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

Not really. Law 40 seems detailed enough, provided players make an effort to be as helpful about their agreements as possible.

[nige1]

Even when there's no explicit agreement about his call, the bidder hoped that his partner could deduce its likely meaning from general principles, common experience, analogy with similar auctions, and negative inferences from other agreements -- i.e. he believes that they have, at least, an implicit agreement.

What you describe is not an implicit agreement (which would indeed need to be disclosed). It is general bridge knowledge (this doesn't need to be disclosed).

OK this is where we disagree. IMO, General Bridge Knowledge is a myth invented by prevaricators. Whenever a director has managed to extract the information as to what opponents agree to be relevant "General Bridge Knowledge", it has almost always come as a surprise to me.

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

I think that there is something else going on here. The world is still very separated. In one country it is GBK that sequence XYZ shows A, whereas in another country it is GBK that it shows B. The "General" in General Bridge Knowledge is not as general as people think.

 

A simple example: For years, people in the Netherlands were taught Acol by the nationally famous method by Cees Sint and Ton Schipperheyn. For all these people it is "General" Bridge Knowledge that four card suits are opened up the line. If a gentleman or lady who learned to play in the bridge club on Acol Road would walk into these Dutch bridge clubs, they would initially be pleased to see everybody play Acol but end up totally confused.

 

Who is at fault? Nobody really, except that it would be good to realize that what is general "here" is not general "everywhere". But that is not a bridge question. That is a cultural question. It belongs in the school system.

A glimmer of light at the end of a long tunnel?

[Trinidad]

All right. Let's just say that lying means "to make an intentionally false statement with the intent to deceive". This is obviously not what I meant to say (as I mentioned in post #52). So, please read "to make an intentionally false statement" wherever I wrote "lying".

 

Then the original question remains: Should we change the laws in such a way that players are forced to make intentionally false statements? I think that would be a bad idea.

 

Rik

[gordontd]

Which of these four words says that there has to be an intent to deceive? It says that the statement is false, and it says it is intentionally false (i.e. not a mistake). It does not say -in any way- with what intent the intentionally false statement is made.

It seems so self-evident that I find it hard to explain further.

[nige1]

Then the original question remains: Should we change the laws in such a way that players are forced to make intentionally false statements? I think that would be a bad idea.

Agree - that's a stupid idea. It isn't what I suggested. I suggested that the law be changed so that you had to make your best guess.

[RMB1]

...

You can see the problem(s).

 

I think we see the problems. I don't see any solutions.

[blackshoe]

I suggested that the law be changed so that you had to make your best guess.

In effect, you're suggesting requiring a player to tell everyone at the table, including his partner, how he's decided to interpret that partner's bid. Thus the player is forced to give massive UI to partner, who is now constrained (unless he has no LA) to drive the auction off the road and into the weeds. I don't know what this is, but it's not bridge. :(

[barmar]

Through deception.

Not necessarily. Often the other person knows full well that you're telling a white lie.

 

Imagine you've just been on a bad first date, and you're saying goodnight. Most likely, both of you know it didn't go well. But you'll end with pleasantries, saying you had a nice time, but thinking about how you're glad it's over.

[GreenMan]

Not necessarily. Often the other person knows full well that you're telling a white lie.

 

And often not.

[nige1]

In effect, you're suggesting requiring a player to tell everyone at the table, including his partner, how he's decided to interpret that partner's bid. Thus the player is forced to give massive UI to partner, who is now constrained (unless he has no LA) to drive the auction off the road and into the weeds. I don't know what this is, but it's not bridge. :(

I upvoted Blackshoe's post by mistake :) As Lambert and Vampyr have pointed out, opponents who claim "no agreement" make it hard for their opponents. As the law currently stands,unfortunately, that is Bridge. :( (Bridge is its rules)

 

IMO, if forced to guess, most would guess right. All explanations give UI to partner. The suggestion would give AI to opponents on which they could base their auction.

[Trinidad]

Agree - that's a stupid idea. It isn't what I suggested. I suggested that the law be changed so that you had to make your best guess.

But intentionally presenting a best guess as the truth is... I don't dare to say it.

 

And telling your opponents that it is only your best guess is silly. That is non-information. How can your opponents build on that? So, then we will rule MI anyway, though the original explanation ("no agreement") was 100% correct.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Somebody who, forced to guess, gets it wrong, will blame the law. If it happens enough (I would say probably twice) those folks will quit the game. Not a desirable outcome, IMO.