Disclosure

[Finch]

You and your partner have agreed to play the Widget convention. You haven't discussed it any further than to say you are playing 'widget' and write 'widget' on your convention card in the appropriate place. You haven't discussed what the possible calls actually mean nor any continuations.

 

Widget is not as universally played as Stayman (another convention where people don't discuss continuations) nor as obscure as the Allerton multi-way 2D rebid. It's been written up in a couple of magazines and covered in one book; a google search finds 7 write-ups and it's in the ACBL defensive database.

 

It comes up at the table, and you make a Widget bid. It is absolutely clear that Widget applies here.

Subsequent investigation by the TD reveals that you think this bid has meaning A, your partner thinks it has meaning B and the write-ups of Widget unanimously say it has meaning C.

 

Your opponents are certainly entitled to know that you have agreed to play Widget and have had no further discussion.

 

Which, if any, of meanings A, B and C are your opponents (theoretically) also entitled to be told?

 

Gordontd and I don't agree on this, which is unusual and worries me.

[MickyB]

C

[MickyB]

P.S. I googled 'Widget' and can't find any of the write-ups :(

[paulg]

C

If both players knew that C was the only method written up anywhere, then I'd expect they would be playing it so it might be hard to disclose.

 

I'd expect to say that we have not discussed continuations, that options A,B, and C are often used and in our circles I'd expect method X to be more popular. I don't have a problem with telling the opponents effectively how I'm taking the bid because my partner understands the UI laws.

[fromageGB]

Theoretically C, but as you would be playing it as meaning C if you knew (ie without discussion you certainly wouldn't be playing it as A if you thought partner would take it as C), in practice none of A, B or C.

[Finch]

"Theoretically" is relevant, because this is an MI ruling

[Finch]

If both players knew that C was the only method written up anywhere, then I'd expect they would be playing it so it might be hard to disclose.

 

I'd expect to say that we have not discussed continuations, that options A,B, and C are often used and in our circles I'd expect method X to be more popular. I don't have a problem with telling the opponents effectively how I'm taking the bid because my partner understands the UI laws.

 

Unfortunately, you are not aware of options B or C, and your partner is not aware of options A or C.

[broze]

You should disclose what your actual agreement is, surely?

 

The only agreement here is that a convention called Widget applies in this situation and that you play it. There is no 'agreement' about what the bid means, just that it is conventional.

[VixTD]

I think C is the one they certainly shouldn't be told, as it makes up no part of your agreement. If you and your partner want to depart from the standard approved version of Widget, then evidently you're playing "modified Widget", and should probably describe it as such, but then you should describe the convention anyway rather than name it.

 

Whether they should be told A or B depends on the basis you and your partner have for thinking that makes up part of your agreement. If neither of us had given it any thought until it came up at the table the only explanation they are entitled to is "no agreement". If each of us assumed there was only one way to play Widget and trusted partner to believe the same it's more difficult. If there is doubt as to what we are playing the TD should presume there has been a mistaken explanation rather than a mistaken bid (law 75C) so they are entitled to an explanation of A.

 

If my partner and I agree to play the Landy defence to 1NT where a 2♣ overcall shows the majors, and we agree that partner will keep the auction alive with 2♦ if they have nothing useful to contribute (no preference or no suit of their own worth mentioning), then the following auction comes up that we haven't discussed:

 

1NT - 2♣(1) - X(2) - P(3)

 

(1) both majors

(2) values, looking for a penalty

(3) ???

 

A = nothing useful to say

B = bid your better major

C = willingness to play in clubs doubled

 

I could see myself as TD requiring overcaller to explain what he thinks the pass means (but not passer what he thinks it means, nor what the textbooks say it should mean).

[Aardv]

You have to tell opponents what you think you've agreed, without relying on convention names.

 

Therefore an explanation "Widget" is insufficient.

 

So you have to tell them A. You may express any uncertainty you may feel (that's often unhelpful to your opponents, but the truth is what they're entitled to).

 

Your partner has to correct that to B (but he may say that having heard your explanation he's in some doubt about it).

 

The TD may have to sort out what misinformation has occurred. The true explanation was "we agreed without realising it to play A from my side and B from partner's", so if opponents have been damaged by not knowing that they're entitled to redress.

 

C is irrelevant. Opponents are not entitled to have you tell them the contents of some online document you've never read.

[wank]

C - you agreed to play the convention and you didn't bother to discuss it further so you implicity agreed to play the standard version thereof. publications define what the standard version is.

[helene_t]

Strongly disagree with C. You agreed to play whatever you understand as widget. So you agreed to A and p agreed to B. Neither of you agreed to C.

[campboy]

I think it has to be C. The laws talk about partnership understandings. Your partnership understanding cannot be A, because one partner has no way of knowing that A is even a possibility. Equally it cannot be B. Meaning C is the only one that both partners could have seen.

 

We aren't told whether the players involved haven't read any write-up of widget (although if that is the case, how do they know anything about it at all?) or they have read one (not necessarily the same one) and both forgotten. I don't think it should make much difference which is the case.

[blackshoe]

Theoretically, opponents are entitled to know your partnership's understandings. The only understanding you have here is that you play "Widget". So the answer to the original question is "none of A, B, or C". Practically, opponents will be told B by your partner, and later you will call the director and explain in his presence that you thought it to be A. C will not be brought up by either you or partner (because neither of you knows it exists) and if brought up by opponents or the director both of you should respond that you never heard of that meaning.

 

There may be a disclosure problem involving what is written on the system card, if the RA's regulation requires more than just the name of the convention on the card. IAC, the "fix" to the problem, from your partnership's viewpoint, is to discuss A, B, and C, decide explicitly which meaning you're going to play, and write that on your system card, or in supplementary notes. As for the instant case, you're going to get an adverse MI ruling.

[fromageGB]

> Which, if any, of meanings A, B and C are your opponents (theoretically) also entitled to be told?

 

New answer, None.

 

You bid widget, thinking A. Partner is asked and explains it as "widget but we have not discussed what it means, and it hasn't come up before." He cannot say how he interprets it, which is B.

 

If you end the bidding as declarer or dummy you cannot clarify it, because partner has not given a wrong explanation.

 

Opponents, on hearing the explanation, are likely to call the director, and he may ask each of you, in the absence of the other, to give your respective interpretations of A and/or B, but this is only if required by the director.

[blackshoe]

> Which, if any, of meanings A, B and C are your opponents (theoretically) also entitled to be told?

 

New answer, None.

 

You bid widget, thinking A. Partner is asked and explains it as "widget but we have not discussed what it means, and it hasn't come up before." He cannot say how he interprets it, which is B.

 

If you end the bidding as declarer or dummy you cannot clarify it, because partner has not given a wrong explanation.

 

Opponents, on hearing the explanation, are likely to call the director, and he may ask each of you, in the absence of the other, to give your respective interpretations of A and/or B, but this is only if required by the director.

Interesting, Theoretically, I suppose you're right about what partner should say. Practically, he's going to explain it as B (okay, if he's read this thread maybe not).

[Trinidad]

There is a big difference between what the opponents ar entitled to and what you are supposed to tell them. It sounds mysterious, but it isn't.

 

They are entitled to your agreement.

You agreed to play Widget and nothing more. You haven't agreed to what "Widget" means. The opponents are only entitled to know your agreements. The meaning of "Widget" is not something you agree on, so the opponents are not entitled to that. So, they are entitled to "We agreed to play Widget (and perhaps when it applies), but that is all we agreed on."

 

You are supposed to tell what you know about your partner's bid. In this case, the partner of the Widget bidder "knows" that the Widget bid shows B (at least he thinks so). He doesn'tknow any better than that this is the agreement. So, he is supposed to explain: "That is the Widget convention, partner is showing B."

 

Now, the Widget bidder thinks that his partner has misexplained. At the appropriate time, the Widget bidder is supposed to call the TD and tell him: "We agreed to play Widget, but my partner got confused and he thought it showed B, but -quite obviously- it shows A."

 

At this point, it becomes clear that the widget bidder and his partner have completely different ideas about Widget. It also becomes clear that there is effectively no agreement.

 

Concrete, this means:

If the Widget pair ends up declaring, the defenders will know how the Widget bidder intended his bid. They will also know that there was a misunderstanding and can interpret the subsequent bidding with this information.

If an AS needs to be assigned, we assume that the opponents received the explanation: "We play Widget, but don't agree on what it means.", because that is the explanation of the agreement.

 

Rik

[paulg]

If both players knew that C was the only method written up anywhere, then I'd expect they would be playing it so it might be hard to disclose.

 

I'd expect to say that we have not discussed continuations, that options A,B, and C are often used and in our circles I'd expect method X to be more popular. I don't have a problem with telling the opponents effectively how I'm taking the bid because my partner understands the UI laws.

Unfortunately, you are not aware of options B or C, and your partner is not aware of options A or C.

In such circumstances one of us is going to explain our singular understanding of Widget and this is going to be misinformation. I don't think, theoretically, I can expect players to disclose what they don't know and, therefore, option C is irrelevant.

[StevenG]

I think it has to be C. The laws talk about partnership understandings. Your partnership understanding cannot be A, because one partner has no way of knowing that A is even a possibility. Equally it cannot be B. Meaning C is the only one that both partners could have seen.

On that basis, neither partner seems to be aware that C is a possibility, so it cannot possibly be right. I know that saying "widget" is frowned upon, but in reality "widget", and nothing more, is the partnerhip (mis)understanding.

[mikeh]

My view is similar to what some others have said: we are obliged to proffer our agreement, as we understand it to be.

 

It seems to me that, at the point of the question, what I know is that we have agreed that the previous call was widget and carried an agreed-upon meaning, but that I am aware that we have not discussed what the last call meant. I may have a strong view that logically it should mean A (or B), but the fact is that we have no agreement, beyond what I think is implied by bridge logic.

 

I therefore think that all I ought to be saying is: 'we have not discussed this sequence, and it has never arisen before', and even the last part of that is probably surplus to requirements.

 

We definitely should not, in my view, volunteer how we think it ought to be played.

 

So at the table, subject to the conditions of contest, we say only that we have no agreement, and the opps are now fully informed and cannot conceivably claim that they have been misinformed.

 

There may be scope, if the conditions of contest or the rules in effect so provide, for some disciplinary penalty for playing an incompletely discussed gadget. However, in most events, at least in ACBLand, any harm done to the opps is the rub of the green. After all, unless widget is a destructive device, the odds are that a major misunderstanding will harm the users of the gadget more than the opps.

[campboy]

On that basis, neither partner seems to be aware that C is a possibility, so it cannot possibly be right. I know that saying "widget" is frowned upon, but in reality "widget", and nothing more, is the partnerhip (mis)understanding.

It doesn't matter what they are currently aware of. After all, if a player misexplains a bid because he has forgotten the agreement we rule MI, even though he was not aware of the correct explanation at the time. And for all we know both partners have read write-ups which specified that C is the correct meaning, but they have subsequently forgotten -- there is nothing in OP which says they haven't.

 

The one thing which I think is clearly wrong is the suggestion that opponents are not entitled to know what Widget is, simply because your discussion went no further than the name. They are entitled not just to a description of your understanding, but to one which uses terms they understand.

[nige1]

You and your partner have agreed to play the Widget convention. You haven't discussed it any further than to say you are playing 'widget' and write 'widget' on your convention card in the appropriate place. You haven't discussed what the possible calls actually mean nor any continuations. Widget is not as universally played as Stayman (another convention where people don't discuss continuations) nor as obscure as the Allerton multi-way 2D rebid. It's been written up in a couple of magazines and covered in one book; a google search finds 7 write-ups and it's in the ACBL defensive database. It comes up at the table, and you make a Widget bid. It is absolutely clear that Widget applies here.

Subsequent investigation by the TD reveals that you think this bid has meaning A, your partner thinks it has meaning B and the write-ups of Widget unanimously say it has meaning C. Your opponents are certainly entitled to know that you have agreed to play Widget and have had no further discussion. Which, if any, of meanings A, B and C are your opponents (theoretically) also entitled to be told? Gordontd and I don't agree on this, which is unusual and worries me.

Directors need a simple agreed way of dealing with the scenario that happens everyday at every club: Partnerships agree a list of conventions by name e.g. "2/1, Short club, 4 transfers, Stayman, Smolen, Jacoby, Bergen, Splinters, 4SFG, UCB, 2-way check-back, Support and maximal doubles, Drury, 4031 RKCB, UNT, Michaels, 3/5, UDCA, and -- of course -- Widget" :)

 

IMO, opponents are entitled to know that your call is "Widget (undiscussed)" not what you actually hold (presumably "A"). If they go an to ask partner what "Widget" means, partner should divulge his belief ("B"). If partner is sure he knows what "Widget" means and imagines you share that knowledge then "No agreement" would be "economical with the truth" (at best).

 

Not bothering to learn the "Widget" convention properly is equivalent to misremembering it (unless the director is a mind-reader). In either case, the director should rule MI, so the director's task is easy.

 

IMO, your actual agreement is "C" -- as if you signed a legal contractual agreement, without reading it.

[barmar]

IMO, opponents are entitled to know that your call is "Widget (undiscussed)" not what you actually hold (presumably "A"). If they go an to ask partner what "Widget" means, he should divulge his belief ("B").

But most RAs have decreed that just giving a convention name is not a proper answer. You must volunteer the explanation of what the call means. The answerer describes what he understands the meaning to be. If his partner thinks this is wrong, he corrects it at the appropriate later time.

 

C would only be relevant if the explanation were just "Widget" (because the opponents, who have read the official description of Widget, would assume this meaning). But if the players correctly describe the meanings as they each understand them, the official writeup is out of the loop. Once the misunderstanding comes to light, the partnership might be inclined to read the official writeup for future benefit, but it doesn't matter during this hand.

 

This is all a very grey area in the Laws. The use of the term "partnership agreement" assumes that the players actually agree.

[Finch]

Opponents are not entitled to have you tell them the contents of some online document you've never read.

 

 

C - you agreed to play the convention and you didn't bother to discuss it further so you implicity agreed to play the standard version thereof. publications define what the standard version is.

 

 

I think these two quotes nicely sum up the two points of view.

 

After all, unless widget is a destructive device, the odds are that a major misunderstanding will harm the users of the gadget more than the opps.

 

Those may be the odds, but as you will guess at the table the opponents were (arguably, hence the need for a ruling) harmed

 

In either case, the director should rule MI, so the director's task is easy.

 

Not really. Yes, you can rule that there has been MI. But the question (which started this thread) is what 'I' should the opponents have been given?

[nige1]

Not really. Yes, you can rule that there has been MI. But the question (which started this thread) is what 'I' should the opponents have been given?

Clarifying my view:

 

The correct information is "C", a proper description of the "Widget" convention that both agreed to play.

 

In practice, the best that partner can do is "Widget undiscussed" and if pressed divulge his understanding "B". He thinks that is what "Widget" means and imagines you share that belief.

 

That is MI, however. IMO their actual agreement is still "C".