Disclosure

[Vampyr]

"That" was meant to refer to "vampyr's" argument, corrected above :( I mean the attribution not the argument :).

 

My (and most other people's) argument that C does not come into the picture? No one at the table knows C. No one thinks that they, or their opponents, are playing it. C is a distraction.

 

What if C is not actually correct (wrong information posted on the internet often finds its way to other sites) and the truly "correct" explanation of Widget appears only in an article written by its inventors. In a Polish-language bridge magazine. Is this D now the information to which the opponents are entitled?

[blackshoe]

Is this D now the information to which the opponents are entitled?

Yes, but only in Polish. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[nige1]

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.

My (and most other people's) argument that C does not come into the picture? No one at the table knows C. No one thinks that they, or their opponents, are playing it. C is a distraction. What if C is not actually correct (wrong information posted on the internet often finds its way to other sites) and the truly "correct" explanation of Widget appears only in an article written by its inventors. In a Polish-language bridge magazine. Is this D now the information to which the opponents are entitled?

The Frances scenario differs from the Vampyr example. If the correct version of Widget is known to few people or there are many "Widget" varieties, then it may be hard to determine which version we agreed to play. IMO, we still made an agreement. Hence "no agreement" is untrue. If "D" is the likely definition, then it is more accurate than manifestly incorrect descriptions like "A" or "B".

[blackshoe]

I suppose one theoretical question is whether "incomplete agreement" is equivalent to "no agreement". Practically speaking though, where one player believes the agreement is A, and the other believes it is B, if questions are asked then eventually the misunderstanding will come to light, because one player will explain it as A and the other will at the correct time (one hopes) call the director (again, one hopes) and explain that it's B. Or perhaps that they agreed to play Widget (or whatever) but never discussed what that means — but here by implication at least it seems that the second player doesn't believe that A is correct. So now, does he have to explain that he thought it is B? I don't think he does. I don't think the argument "well, he bid on the basis that it was B" means that he does. He will, of course, if at the time he's explaining he does not yet realize that they never actually agreed a meaning, but if he does come to that realization before explaining it, his explanation should be, as I said, that they agreed to play the convention, but never discussed what it actually means. B is, at this point, out of the picture because he knows that's not their agreement. So he knows he misbid. Opponents are not entitled to be told he misbid, and they're not entitled to be told why he misbid.

[mikeh]

So, Frances....out of a possibly morbid sense of curiosity....what was the ruling, and (if it can be said) what was the rationale?

[barmar]

TIMO, we still made an agreement. Hence "no agreement" is untrue.

We had a conversation. In that conversation, Widget was mentioned. We didn't agree on what Widget means, so we didn't actually make an agreement.

[blackshoe]

We had a conversation. In that conversation, Widget was mentioned. We didn't agree on what Widget means, so we didn't actually make an agreement.

Yes you did. However, the extent of your agreement was "we play Widget". That you failed to ensure you were both on the same page as to what that means does not change the fact that you made an agreement.

[PeterAlan]

The question isn't about alerting, nor is it about what explanation should be given at the table, but it is about the information that the pair are theoretically entitled to.

I think that the answer to this specific question is straightforward (though it can never be given at the time): "We have agreed to play Widget, but I think it means B whilst partner thinks it means A".

 

Expand "it means" to "we have agreed that it means" if it leaves you feeling more comfortable. I don't agree with the notion that there is no effective agreement; there is an agreement, albeit one involving a misunderstanding, and this is the full explanation ("disclosure" if you prefer) of the agreement that has been reached.

[blackshoe]

Theory is all well and good, but in practice when two players have a different understanding of what they agreed, you are not going to get "we agreed to play 'Widget' but partner thinks that means A while I think it means B". You're going to get "it means B", and then hopefully at the proper time you'll get from partner "no, it means A". IOW when there is a misunderstanding between partners, there will almost always be MI, and UI as well.

 

What do we do about the player who, hearing partner say "it means B" thinks "oh, that must be right; I though it was A, but partner knows better than I do, so I've misbid. No problem, I don't have to tell opponents that, so I'll just keep mum"? Im not talking about "oh, that's right, we did agree B," I'm talking about willful failure to disclose that he thought it was A when he made his call. I think we need to educate players about this, but the reality is that we may never know that they've done this, and it is "a serious matter indeed".

[nige1]

My partner and I agreed that after a 1♣ or 1♦ opener, we would transpose 1♥ and 1♠ replies. Partner opened 1♣. I replied 1♠ with ♠s not ♥s. Partner didn't alert. We had both forgotten our agreement. An opponent called the director when he examined our convention card.

 

IMO, It's irrelevant whether we understood our agreement, learnt it, or remembered it. We had an unambiguous agreement. Other legal interpretations might be possible but they're complex, penalize those truth-tellers who regard them as prevarication, and encourage those prone to rationalization.

[blackshoe]

My partner and I agreed that after a 1♣ or 1♦ opener, we would transpose 1♥ and 1♠ replies. Partner opened 1♣ and I replied 1♠ with ♠s not ♥s. Partner did not alert. We had both completely forgotten our agreement. An opponent called the director, at the end of the auction, when he examined our convention card.

 

IMO, It's irrelevant whether we understood our agreement, learnt it, or remembered it. We had an anambiguous agreement. Other legal interpretations might be possible but they're complex and penalize those truth-tellers who regard them as prevarication.

The fact that one or both of you forgot your agreement does not change the fact that you made it. I don't understand why you think there's a problem here, and I don't understand where "privarication" comes into it.

[nige1]

The fact that one or both of you forgot your agreement does not change the fact that you made it. I don't understand why you think there's a problem here, and I don't understand where "privarication" comes into it.

I was trying to reinforce the argument of blackshoe's previous post :( If we agree something on our card, IMO -- whether or not we actually learn it or remember it -- it's still our agreement.

[mikeh]

The answer to the question of whether we made an agreement depends on what is meant by 'agreement'

 

IMO in bridge terms the question is whether the two players agreed on the bridge meaning of a call. Yes, they each thought they were playing widget, but that is irrelevant, if only because if asked what the widget bid meant, it would be improper to reply 'widget'

 

What the player has to say is what hand is shown by the bid, and here they disagree....why? Because they had NO agreement as to what widget meant

[Vampyr]

What the player has to say is what hand is shown by the bid, and here they disagree....why? Because they had NO agreement as to what widget meant

 

This does not matter. You mentioned yourself that the name of a convention is immaterial.

[blackshoe]

I was trying to reinforce the argument of blackshoe's previous post :( If we agree something on our card, IMO -- whether or not we actually learn it or remember it -- it's still our agreement.

Ah. Sorry, guess I misunderstood you. B-)

[campboy]

Here's what might actually happen at the table, if the agreement is descried accurately. Opponents ask about the bid and are told "we agreed to play Widget, but didn't have any further discussion and this sequence hasn't come up before". Now if opponents are familiar with Widget, they will assume C. If not, they will ask "What is Widget?" It seems clear from OP that any answer which doesn't say "Widget means C in this situation" would be incorrect.

 

Now opponents must be entitled to ask this supplementary question -- you cannot get around the requirement to disclose agreements by having discussions in terms they don't understand. And if they are entitled to ask, they are entitled to a correct answer. So they must be entitled to meaning C.

[blackshoe]

Here's what might actually happen at the table, if the agreement is descried accurately. Opponents ask about the bid and are told "we agreed to play Widget, but didn't have any further discussion and this sequence hasn't come up before". Now if opponents are familiar with Widget, they will assume C. If not, they will ask "What is Widget?" It seems clear from OP that any answer which doesn't say "Widget means C in this situation" would be incorrect.

 

Now opponents must be entitled to ask this supplementary question -- you cannot get around the requirement to disclose agreements by having discussions in terms they don't understand. And if they are entitled to ask, they are entitled to a correct answer. So they must be entitled to meaning C.

Your argument is flawed in that "any answer which doesn't say 'Widget means C in this situation' would be incorrect" is in fact incorrect. The fact is that the name of an agreement is irrelevant. It's what the partnership agreed here that's relevant, and they didn't actually agree anything other than "let's play widget". What will actually happen at the table is that the answer given to "what is widget" will depend on who gives it — and then his partner will, at the appropriate time, call the director and give the other answer.

[mikeh]

Here's what might actually happen at the table, if the agreement is descried accurately. Opponents ask about the bid and are told "we agreed to play Widget, but didn't have any further discussion and this sequence hasn't come up before". Now if opponents are familiar with Widget, they will assume C. If not, they will ask "What is Widget?" It seems clear from OP that any answer which doesn't say "Widget means C in this situation" would be incorrect.

 

Now opponents must be entitled to ask this supplementary question -- you cannot get around the requirement to disclose agreements by having discussions in terms they don't understand. And if they are entitled to ask, they are entitled to a correct answer. So they must be entitled to meaning C.

as it happened, the widget bid was not alerted and no questions were asked at the time, so your entire premise is wrong, in terms of addressing the OP questions.

 

I almost despair of explaining, successfully, why those who say that the innocent players are entitled to C are so wrong, but here is one last try.

 

Forget all the guff about 'widget': it is irrelevant. To show why, let's assume that the widget bid was 2♥.

 

In real widget, as devised by its creator and as written up, assume this shows the minors.

 

(A), the person who bid 2♥, thinks it shows the blacks.

 

(B), his partner, thinks it is the only natural bid in the method, and shows hearts.

 

The auction ends, and for the sake of simplicity, let's assume (A) will declare. He says: there has been a failure to alert my 2♥ bid......and let's assume further that the TD is right there, no explanations are given at the table, the TD takes first (A) and then (B) away and grills them.

 

Ok, let's revert to the point of the call...and assume an opp asks (B) what 2♥ meant. (B)'s obligation is simple. In real life he might say: we agreed to play widget and in widget this is natural, but only the last 3 words are part of the proper answer....telling the opps one plays widget is unneeded....the opps aren't asking: what is the name of that convention? They aren't asking...if you play widget, what does 2♥ show? They are asking: what agreement do you have about what 2♥ shows, and at that time, at the time of the 2♥ bid, the explanation they are entitled to is that 2♥ is natural. Later, there may be adjustments because that was MI, but that is a different issue.

 

Go back to the TD being at the table. He didn't ask (or needn't ask) 'what do you guys play here? He isn't interested in the name of the convention. He wants to know: do these guys have an agreement about what 2♥ showed?

 

He will very quickly learn that while these guys thought they had agreed on widget, they didn't have a real agreement at all: in short, they did not have ANY agreement as to what 2♥ showed, and that is the only important question. Forget all of the worriesw about what widget ought to mean, etc. What did they understand from the bid made at the table? And they did not have any agreement as to what that bid meant.

 

The fact that 6 skilled, experienced widget players would have unanimously agreed that 2♥ shows the minors is utterly irrelevant.

 

The opps are not entitled to know how players not at the table would understand 2♥. What possible relevance could that have to the auction?

 

The opps are entitled only to KNOW THE AGREED MEANING OF THE BID, AS WITHIN THE PARTNERSHIP THAT MADE THE BID.

 

As it happened, there was NO agreement within the partnership. One thought it was natural, the other that it showed the blacks. But it is only the partnership understanding that is proper information to the opps, and here the only correct explanation to be given by the TD is: I have determined that the partnership had no agreement as to what 2♥ meant.

 

There may still be adjustments, if the failure to alert resulted in (A) gaining UI, from the absence of the expected alert. There might, in some circumstances, be sanctions for failing to know partnership methods, but those issues are beyond the OP issue, which was merely about what information ought be given to the opps.

 

Put another way: the opps are not entitled to know what widget means. They don't give a damn about what widget means. They care only about what 2♥ means to their opps....what agreement, if any, do the opps have about the hand that is shown by the 2♥ bid. They don't care if the opps think they are playing widget, modified widget, brozel, astro, timbuctoo, inverted whatsis, etc. They want to know what the partnership has agreed 2♥ to mean.

 

 

They would only be entitled to know C if they were entitled to ask: what is the published meaning of 2♥ within the widget convention? Firstly, no bridge player would ever ask that question and secondly the answer is irrelevant unless the opps have agreed to play widget in precisely that fashion, which (in the OP) they hadn't.

[campboy]

Your argument is flawed in that "any answer which doesn't say 'Widget means C in this situation' would be incorrect" is in fact incorrect. The fact is that the name of an agreement is irrelevant. It's what the partnership agreed here that's relevant, and they didn't actually agree anything other than "let's play widget". What will actually happen at the table is that the answer given to "what is widget" will depend on who gives it — and then his partner will, at the appropriate time, call the director and give the other answer.

The question "What is Widget?" is not a question about this partnership's agreement (or lack of it). It is a factual question about the meaning of a word that opponents do not understand. It has a definite answer. OP made it clear what this answer is.

[mikeh]

The question "What is Widget?" is not a question about this partnership's agreement (or lack of it). It is a factual question about the meaning of a word that opponents do not understand. It has a definite answer. OP made it clear what this answer is.

Nobody ever asked, or would in real life (if they knew anything about disclosure rules): what is widget? They ask: what did that bid show? Or, if they are sticklers for the correct procedure: what is your agreement about what that bid shows?

 

To which the answer should not be: that is widget and widget means C. The answer would mistakenly be, at the table, that bid means x....and later the widget bidder would tell the opps that there had been MI, and the TD would find out that there was no agreement about what the bid meant. What is so difficult about this that you seem to cling to the notion that the opps are entitled to be told not what the bidders meant but some 'official' meaning of a gadget....a meaning that has zero relevance to anything that happened at the table?

 

Go back and re-read the OP. Quote that part in which the OP says that either opp ever aaked: please give us the official definition of widget? Please cite the Law that requires that either bidder explain what 'widget' means, rather than what they had agreed the bid of 'x' meant.

[StevenG]

The question "What is Widget?" is not a question about this partnership's agreement (or lack of it). It is a factual question about the meaning of a word that opponents do not understand. It has a definite answer. OP made it clear what this answer is.

The players learnt Widget from somewhere. They haven't read the supposedly definitive document, so presumably they have learnt it from clubmates. So there must be a set of players who play it differently from standard, and probably at least two different sets of players, given the nature of the problem. So Widget has already developed a variety of meanings.

 

I play Halmic as a defence to 1NTx, and so does a friednd of mine. How we play it varies significantly, and I would never offer to play Halmic without a detailed discussion at to what was meant. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to go to a website and tell me how I ought to play it.

[campboy]

Nobody ever asked, or would in real life (if they knew anything about disclosure rules): what is widget? They ask: what did that bid show? Or, if they are sticklers for the correct procedure: what is your agreement about what that bid shows?

Of course they would not ask that as the first question. But, as I said, if they asked what the bid showed and were told "our only agreement is that we play Widget", which several people in this thread have suggested is the correct answer, the next question would naturally be "so what is Widget?"

[barmar]

Of course they would not ask that as the first question. But, as I said, if they asked what the bid showed and were told "our only agreement is that we play Widget", which several people in this thread have suggested is the correct answer, the next question would naturally be "so what is Widget?"

I'm not sure that's a question that they're required to answer. You're required to explain your agreements, not give bridge lessons.

[mikeh]

Of course they would not ask that as the first question. But, as I said, if they asked what the bid showed and were told "our only agreement is that we play Widget", which several people in this thread have suggested is the correct answer, the next question would naturally be "so what is Widget?"

 

You really need to refresh your knowledge of the obligations on the bidding pair after an alert.

 

They are not being asked: what convention do you play?

 

People often get sloppy about the questions and the answers, but what the question should be is: what is your agreement as to the meaning of the alerted call?

 

The answer is sometimes sloppily and improperly given as 'widget'. But the correct answer, assuming the player thinks they have agreed to play widget, is to explain what, as far as he knows, the call means in widget. To the extent that anyone here suggested that a proper answer to a question prompted by an alert is the name of the convention, they are flat out wrong...not that I actually see anyone suggesting this, btw.

 

If he screws up and says, as if this were an acceptable answer: 'we play widget', then the opps may in turn get sloppy and ask: what is widget? But that would be improper: they should ask, kindly or irritably as the occasion and personalities warrant: 'no...we aren't asking for the name of your convention, and we aren't asking you to explain the entire convention.....please tell us your understanding of what you and your partner have agreed his action shows'.

 

If the answer to the original question is: 'we play widget....he has a widget hand...', the next question should NEVER be 'what is widget?'. It should be: what is your agreement as to what that call meant, and please don't just tell me the name of the convention....tell me what it shows!

 

The fact that, it appears, you don't know what questions you should be asking makes your opinions about what the innocent pair ought to be told of dubious value.

 

To give you a concrete example, at the local level where we can't play our preferred defence to a strong 1N, my current partner and I play Molson.....a little known defence.

 

Say I double in direct seat...partner alerts.

 

If asked, he shouldn't say: we play Molson.

 

if he does, then the opps shouldn't say: what is Molson? They don't give a damn about what Molson is...they aren't about to start playing it mid-session. All they care about is what am I showing by my double. That's the question they are entitled to ask...more accurately, they are entitled to know what my partner thinks is our agreement. If that turns out not to be my understanding, then the outcome depends on which of 3 scenarios obtain. One is that he got it right, and I forgot our agreement. Usually there is no adjustment, altho if I subsequently take action based on his explanation, there may be an adjustment. The second is that I got it right, and he forgot. Now there may well be an adjustment if the misinformation caused a problem for the innocent side.

 

The third is what happened here: we each had our own idea of what Molson was, we hadn't in fact discussed it so had never come to a common understanding about double, and now the question of whether an adjustment is due arises only when we see if the alert procedure provided me with information to which I was not entitled, but relied upon to do or not do something.

[barmar]

The players learnt Widget from somewhere. They haven't read the supposedly definitive document, so presumably they have learnt it from clubmates. So there must be a set of players who play it differently from standard, and probably at least two different sets of players, given the nature of the problem. So Widget has already developed a variety of meanings.

Or it's possible that both of them simply misremember what they learned.

 

Consider the Astro family of convention. I'll bet there are players who can't keep straight which is which. So they'll agree on Aspro, but player A's understanding is actually Astro, while B's is Asptro.

 

It would be more understandable if only one of them deviated from the common meaning. Imagine players agreeing to play Drury. Most people these days actually play Reverse Drury, and it has become common to omit saying "Reverse". But a particularly pedantic player might hear his partner say "Let's play Drury", and assume he means classic Drury (for some reason he hasn't learned to ask for clarification rather than assuming).