Disclosure

[barmar]

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

IMO they don't actually have an agreement. They think they do, but they're wrong. The fact that it would mean C to some other pairs doesn't mean that they have agreed to it.

[Trinidad]

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.

That is short of your agreement (which was: "We will play Widget")

And it is even further short of what you, in all likelihood, think you have agreed at the time that you are asked the question. Supposedly, you will only find out later that you and partner are not on the same page (actually not even in the same document). You can only explain what you think you have agreed on. (And "Widget" is unfortunately not good enough an explanation, since the name of the convention is not sufficcient.)

 

Rik

[nige1]

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. The partnership agreement" assumes that the players actually agree.

I agree. Opponents are entitled to your agreement -- here "Widget, undiscussed". A partnership should know their agreements and hence be able to describe them. Here, when an opponent asks you what "Widget" means, if you believe you know its meaning and imagine partner shares the same understanding, then you should disclose it. Arguably, I agree, you should divulge this, without prompting -- although you might be wary of volunteering speculation.

[MickyB]

I could imagine a scenario where the oppo were also entitled to be told A or B. That would be true if both players play the same bastardised version of Widget with a mutual partner, and one had merely forgotten what applied here.

 

If both players have their own, unusual ideas of what the sequence means, and no reason to know what the other thinks, then by agreeing widget they have agreed 'C', whether they realise it or not.

[MickyB]

For those that rule that oppo should be told 'A', how would you rule if B = C?

[mikeh]

I think I misunderstood the OP. I had thought that we were concerned with the followup to widget, a situation analogous to a 3-level response to a Jacoby 2N forcing raise of a major opening bid.

 

IOW, we had announced 'widget' the previous call and one of us had made a subsequent call, and the confusion set in then.

 

However, it seems to me that what Frances was describing is that we have misunderstood what widget is. We think we have agreed to play widget, but neither of us actually knows what widget shows, and we each have our own, mistaken, belief.

 

It's as if we have agreed to play Suction over their 1N, where a suit bid shows either the suit immediately above or the other two suits. However, our discussion was: let's play Suction over their 1N.

 

Then one of us bids 2♠, thinking that it shows spades and a lower, and partner thinks it shows just the minors.

 

I am a lawyer by training and while I appreciate that rules from one sphere don't always translate well into another, what springs to my mind is that what we have here is a case of mutual mistake. The two players thought they had an agreement, but in fact they never did...there was a fundamental misunderstanding as to what 'widget' meant.

 

They had no agreement.

 

I stand by my earlier post to the effect that this sort of screwup is the rub of the green, and the opps can be upset but not entitled to redress. However, if the conditions of contest so allow, I would strongly support a penalty against the widgeteers.

 

I have played in events in which this sort of error will get the TD telling the widget-players that widget is now struck from their convention card, and they cannot substitute any other convention in its place. In the notrump defence analogy, they are now playing natural overcalls. This would be in addition to any matchpoint, imp or VP penalty.

[nige1]

Previous topic on agreements

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?

This topic

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't know any better than that this is the agreement. So, he is supposed to explain: "That is the Widget convention, partner is showing B."

While I have sympathy with both the above Trinidad views, superficially, they appear to be contradictory :)

[blackshoe]

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.

ACBL General Conditions of Contest, item 2 under 'Conventions and Convention Cards: A partnership is responsible for knowing its methods.

While this is a very poorly worded regulation, I think it does provide for some penalty, if only implicitly. That said, I confess I would be very surprised if any ACBL TD ever invoked this provision as a basis for one. At most, I'd expect "you're supposed to know your agreements" and no further action on that point.

[mikeh]

I had an analogous situation many years ago, in the round-robin of what was then the Rosenblum WC. I was playing a very complicated relay method. I don't remember the hand, but I held KQ10xx in spades, the heart K and a good hand.

 

Partner opened a natural 1♣ and I started the relay sequence with an artificial 1♦ response.

 

A very large number of calls followed, all alerted. My screenmate asked no questions until his last turn, when he asked for an explanation.

 

I told him that my partner had shown 3=3=1=6, with a specified number of controls, and either both the AK of clubs or neither of them, and so on. However, at one of his last calls he had shown me the heart K, a card at which I was looking, so I knew something had gone wrong.

 

As for my hand, I had shown nothing beyond the ability to keep relaying and, ultimately, the desire to play 6♠ opposite the hand shown by partner.

 

I volunteered, probably inappropriately, that I had reason to suspect that partner and I were not on the same page, but I refused to say which bit of information had alerted me to that, and he didn't push it.

 

In any event, partner put down 0=3=3=7, which left me with some problems in the trump suit....and we were missing a side Ace as well. Down 5, fortunately nv.

 

Why is this analogous?

 

Because neither my explanations nor my partner's bids (which he accurately described to his screenmate) were 'wrong'.

 

This was in 1998, before smartphones and so on. I had gone to Europe the week before the tournament, on business. He had changed the system notes the day after I left and, as was his wont, had simply emailed me replacement pages, the changes being to this one relay sequence of 1♣ 1♦.

 

Under the old notes, the only ones I had, he had indeed shown the hand I described, but under his notes, he had shown the 0=3=3=7. We'd not discussed the fact that he had made changes....he assumed I knew, and I was blissfully ignorant.

 

What would the ruling have been, had they sought redress? After all, they could have doubled, tho we might then have run to 6N, the contract at the other table (yes, in WC play they reached 6N off 2 Aces....but that was better than our result :P )

[Vampyr]

I find it rather weird that some people say that the correct information is C. Who cares what the write-ups say? The name "Widget" is not an appropriate explanation anyway, and as was seemingly agreed in a recent thread about Michaels, calling a convention by a specific name does not mean you are necessarily playing the convention that other people understand by that name.

 

The case will be ruled as MI, "corrected" at the appropriate time.

[sfi]

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?

 

I choose 'none of the above'. Your opponents are entitled to your actual agreement, which is 'Widget, but we have not discussed it any further and in fact have different understandings of the convention'. This is, in effect, 'no agreement'. If this explanation was actually given, I don't believe the other side would be entitled to either person's private understanding of the convention.

 

Of course you'll never give that explanation - you will say what you believe it to mean and your partner will correct it at the appropriate time. So anything you say is likely to lead to both UI to your side and MI to their side. Good luck landing on your feet :).

[gordontd]

The case will be ruled as MI, "corrected" at the appropriate time.

Well yes, but the question is how will it be "corrected" by the TD when it comes to light? What information will be assumed to be the correct information for the purpose of adjusting the score?

 

Unfortunately several posts have been made telling us how they think the players should explain their (dis)agreement at the table, but that isn't the question that was asked.

[Trinidad]

Previous topic on agreements This topic While I have sympathy with both the above Trinidad views, superficially, they appear to be contradictory :)

They are superficially contradictory.

 

The difference is in the boundary conditions.

In the Widget case, you agreed to play Widget, thinking that partner plays it the same as you, because you don't know any other version.

In the Bergen case, you agreed to play Bergen, but at the point where you need to do the explaining, you must realize that there are x different versions of Bergen ("everybody knows that"), and you never discussed which one to play.

 

And to be more precise, the Bergen case was about a bid that you thought was undiscussed (but wasn't if you played Bergen raises according to Bergen) where you guessed an explanation anyway (not the Bergen one).

 

In the Widget case, nobody is guessing an explanation. They know the explanation... They just know it wrong.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

Well yes, but the question is how will it be "corrected" by the TD when it comes to light? What information will be assumed to be the correct information for the purpose of adjusting the score?

They don't have an agreement.

 

We can agree to play that 2♣ is Stayman after 1NT. But if one of us is sure that Stayman asks for a four card minor and the other that it asks for the point count of the 1NT bidder, we have no agreement.

 

Rik

[Aardv]

Well yes, but the question is how will it be "corrected" by the TD when it comes to light? What information will be assumed to be the correct information for the purpose of adjusting the score?

 

Unfortunately several posts have been made telling us how they think the players should explain their (dis)agreement at the table, but that isn't the question that was asked.

OK, the correct information. The partners have agreed to play Widget, as defined by their shared knowledge and experience. And they plainly haven't agreed to play what's written in a document somewhere neither of them has seen.

 

Their opponents are therefore entitled to know that they've agreed to play Widget (there's no requirement to give the name), and to have the shared knowledge and experience of the convention revealed to them.

 

In this case the shared knowledge and experience would presumably include the motivating considerations behind the convention, and any points of agreement between A and B, and the fact that there is expected to be agreement about any points on which they in fact disagree. It does not include information as to which partner believes what.

 

eg.

Explanation: "we use 2NT in this sequence to distinguish between forcing and competitive bids at the three level, with one range going through 2NT and the other bidding directly"

Follow-up question: "which is which?"

Answer: "no agreement"

[Vampyr]

Well yes, but the question is how will it be "corrected" by the TD when it comes to light? What information will be assumed to be the correct information for the purpose of adjusting the score?

 

It seems to me that the correct information should be the understanding of the person who made the bid (A?), because without this information the opponents were bidding in possession of MI; also this is the information they will need for the play of the hand.

 

For those who say the pair had "no agreement", well, whatever, but the player was showing a hand with a bid, and the opponents are entitled to know what hand he was showing.

[gordontd]

They don't have an agreement.

 

We can agree to play that 2♣ is Stayman after 1NT. But if one of us is sure that Stayman asks for a four card minor and the other that it asks for the point count of the 1NT bidder, we have no agreement.

Yes, but this doesn't answer the question. When their opponents ask for a ruling based on mis-information because they were told that 2♣ was Stayman, what correct information will you assume they were entitled to when you consider what would have happened without the mis-information?

[paulg]

They don't have an agreement.

 

We can agree to play that 2♣ is Stayman after 1NT. But if one of us is sure that Stayman asks for a four card minor and the other that it asks for the point count of the 1NT bidder, we have no agreement.

Yes, but this doesn't answer the question. When their opponents ask for a ruling based on mis-information because they were told that 2♣ was Stayman, what correct information will you assume they were entitled to when you consider what would have happened without the mis-information?

I believe that they are entitled to know that the Widget call was conventional, but there is no agreement what it means.

[helene_t]

Surely the two players will have some vague idea about what "widget" means. It may be that one of them think that it means that a 2♣ response to a 1NT opening is a GF relay while the other think it is a INV+ relay. But I don't think it is likely that one of them think it is a GF relay while the other think it is psychosuction.

 

So they should tell the opponent that they have agreed to play widget which means that a 2♣ response to a 1NT opening is some kind of asking bid (but it is not standardized exactly which hands would use that bid), or that it is a puppet to 2♦ (but again, it is not standardized....) or whatever the range of possible meanings it might have.

 

I don't believe that just about any conceivable convention might be called "widget". In that case they wouldn't have agree to play "widget".

 

Of course if this takes place in a club where everybody knows what "widget" means then the propper disclosure is effectively the same as just saying "widget, full stop".

[sfi]

A concrete example might be that Widget is a set of agreements about overcalling the opponents' NT. Overcaller bids 2D believing it to show the majors. Partner believes 2D is a transfer to hearts in Widget. The actual write-up, which neither of them has ever read, is that 2D shows spades or both red suits. To complicate matters, Widget is not played by anyone else in the area, so there is no local assumed knowledge.

[chrism]

I would extend the presumption of "misexplanation rather than misbid" to "misexplanation [only] rather than both" in this case, and for that the "correct" information to which the opponents are entitled is A, the explanation including the hand of the bidder. If the player who believed A had chosen this moment to psych with a hand corresponding to none of A, B and C then I would probably still have to say A if there were any way to determine reliably what A actually is.

 

I wouldn't argue with other interpretations, though.

[chrism]

On reflection, and thinking about the earlier Michaels case, I would say that "no agreement" is the correct explanation.

 

In the Michaels case, bidder believed A, explainer explained B, and all the world would have understood "Michaels" as B.

[Trinidad]

Yes, but this doesn't answer the question. When their opponents ask for a ruling based on mis-information because they were told that 2♣ was Stayman, what correct information will you assume they were entitled to when you consider what would have happened without the mis-information?

Sure it answers the question:

 

The information they were entitled to is that player A has just made a bid and that A and B don't have an agreement what it means. So, if you need to adjust the score, you need to use your judgement (i.e. a panel) to figure out what the opponents would have bid had they heard the explanation: "We don't have an agreement."

 

I could imagine that a more accurate description of the agreement might, e.g., be: "We don't have an agreement, but it isn't natural." because there may be some context. But for the purpose of an AS the opponents are not entitled to A, B or C, since neither of them reflects their disagreement.

 

Rik

[VixTD]

Well yes, but the question is how will it be "corrected" by the TD when it comes to light? What information will be assumed to be the correct information for the purpose of adjusting the score?

 

Unfortunately several posts have been made telling us how they think the players should explain their (dis)agreement at the table, but that isn't the question that was asked.

I think this is the wrong approach:

 

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't know 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."

I hope I'm not misunderstanding Trinidad's reply, but I can understand how some people might reach the conclusion that the director should rule as if the opponents asked about the bid, were given answer "B" by responder and that this was then corrected to "A" by the Widget bidder at the appropriate time. This would not happen if playing with screens, nor if playing online, and in any case the opponents aren't entitled to misexplanations by anyone, even if they might sometimes get them and be able to profit from them in encounters at the bridge table.

 

I still think that the opponents are entitled either to "no agreement", or possibly to "A" (based on the none-too-solid foundation of law 75C, rule MI rather than misbid unless there is evidence to the contrary).

[nige1]

They are superficially contradictory.

 

The difference is in the boundary conditions.

In the Widget case, you agreed to play Widget, thinking that partner plays it the same as you, because you don't know any other version.

In the Bergen case, you agreed to play Bergen, but at the point where you need to do the explaining, you must realize that there are x different versions of Bergen ("everybody knows that"), and you never discussed which one to play.

 

And to be more precise, the Bergen case was about a bid that you thought was undiscussed (but wasn't if you played Bergen raises according to Bergen) where you guessed an explanation anyway (not the Bergen one).

 

In the Widget case, nobody is guessing an explanation. They know the explanation... They just know it wrong.

I accept that Trinidad knows what he meant and for him, his two statements aren't contradictory. I brought up the old case because it closely resembles the OP case:

 

The auction starts 1♥ - 4♣ (alerted). Undiscussed but you've agreed to play "Bergen". SteveG asked: how would you explain the 4♣ bid? In fact, this very auction had come up in a first-time partnership where we'd agreed "Bergen". I explained that we had no precise agreement but offered to speculate. When my opponent took up that offer I went on: Most likely a splinter -- Short ♣, 4+ ♥, at least game values.

 

Trinidad pointed out: Bergen defines 4♣ as something quite different. I was unaware of this. Luckily, partner suffered from the same misconception that I did, so my explanation correctly described his hand.