Disclosure

[blackshoe]

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 laws do not entitle the asker of this question, in the circumstance you describe, to any answer.

[WellSpyder]

I am in the "no agreement" camp. But this does not feel like sufficient information to me, since it doesn't tell oppo everything that the widget bidders know, namely that they think they have an agreement. The name of this agreement, and the official meaning, are completely irrelevant. But I think oppo ought really to know "we don't have an agreement, but we think we do" (which is, of course, a logically impossible answer to give when asked for an explanation.....)

[Trinidad]

I am in the "no agreement" camp. But this does not feel like sufficient information to me, since it doesn't tell oppo everything that the widget bidders know, namely that they think they have an agreement. The name of this agreement, and the official meaning, are completely irrelevant. But I think oppo ought really to know "we don't have an agreement, but we think we do" (which is, of course, a logically impossible answer to give when asked for an explanation.....)

The correct explanation is perhaps: "We do have an agreement, even a special agreement, but we disagree on what the agreement is."

 

Rik

[barmar]

I am in the "no agreement" camp. But this does not feel like sufficient information to me, since it doesn't tell oppo everything that the widget bidders know, namely that they think they have an agreement. The name of this agreement, and the official meaning, are completely irrelevant. But I think oppo ought really to know "we don't have an agreement, but we think we do" (which is, of course, a logically impossible answer to give when asked for an explanation.....)

While the opponents might be entitled to know that you don't have an agreement, it's simply unreasonable to expect it in practice. Players can't explain things they don't know. Since the opponents each think they have a firm agreement, that's what they're going to explain.

 

Once you get to the end of the auction and the partner tries to correct the MI, then you'll learn that they don't really have an agreement.

[helene_t]

Yes but the OP question was what opps "theoretically" are entitled to know, not what is reasonable to expect in practice.

[WellSpyder]

While the opponents might be entitled to know that you don't have an agreement, it's simply unreasonable to expect it in practice. Players can't explain things they don't know. Since the opponents each think they have a firm agreement, that's what they're going to explain.

 

Once you get to the end of the auction and the partner tries to correct the MI, then you'll learn that they don't really have an agreement.

But we haven't been asked what the widgetters should tell their opponents, we have been asked what information the opponents are entitled to! As has already been implied, these don't have to be the same thing. The first is relevant to what we would expect to happen at the table. The second is relevant to what the score should be adjusted to if we decide there has been MI (and presumably also to the ruling about whether or not there has actually been MI, which does not seem to be in doubt on this occasion).

[dburn]

The opponents are allowed to know what is true: "We have agreed to play Widget, but we have not discussed in any way how Widget operates (although we do know when it operates)." This is the equivalent of an alert given in a case where a player is sure his partner's bid is alertable, but does not know what it means.

[nige1]

The opponents are allowed to know what is true: "We have agreed to play Widget, but we have not discussed in any way how Widget operates (although we do know when it operates)." This is the equivalent of an alert given in a case where a player is sure his partner's bid is alertable, but does not know what it means.

This description will apply to many conventions agreed by a new partnerships e.g. "UNT". Suppose that the partners haven't discussed "UNT"; but it's in their normal repertoire with other partners and both imagine that they know it. Are opponents really entitled only to the information that "We have agreed to play "UNT", but we have not discussed in any way how it operates (although we do know when it operates)"?

 

After all, the new partnership were happy to agree "UNT" by name. Rarely, will they have learnt it badly or forgotten it. More often, they will be on the same wave-length. Opponents seem at a disadvantage.

[Finch]

Someone in the thread asked what was actually ruled.

This was only part of at the ruling. The players involved have only just been told the outcome.

 

Once the dust has settled, I'll post the full ruling on another thread.

[cherdano]

I realize I still haven't posted my opinion on the original question, and David's post gives me a nice opportunity to do so.

 

The opponents are allowed to know what is true: "We have agreed to play Widget, but we have not discussed in any way how Widget operates (although we do know when it operates)."

 

I assume we all agree that this is the minimum information that the opponents are entitled to. But I don't think this is sufficient. Let me start with some extreme examples, that I think we all agree on:

 

- "We play BART as discussed in The Bridge World March 1986, page 43" may be a complete representation of the partnership discussion, but it is evidently not full disclosure - this sentence doesn't have the same meaning to someone who has not read, or do not remember page 43 on said The Bridge World edition. The opponent should be entitled to a description of the relevant parts of page 43.

 

- Let's say partnership X-Y has discussed "We play 2C has Acol Two in one major". The opponent Z doesn't know how strong of a bid and Acol Two typically is. Clearly (in my view) Z is entitled to an explanation of how strong an Acol Two typically is. But what do we do if X and Y have slightly different notions of what an Acol Two shows? Clearly, Z is not entitled to the knowledge that X and Y have different expectations for an Acol Two. At the same time, if he doesn't get any explanation about its strength, X is in a better position than Z when Y opens 2C, as he probably isn't that far off. And even if X realizes that Y's hand doesn't match his

expectations, he probably is in a better position to guess how he deviates than Z: someone for whom "Acol Two" is a sufficient description in a partnership discussion, is more likely to realize "Oh yeah, now I remember that some people actually think of Acol Two a bit stronger than what it really is supposed to show", and proceed to correctly guess Y's strength, than a random opponent. So what information is Z entitled to? In my view, it's something along the lines of: "Acol Two" most typically shows [insert your description of its strenght], but some play it a little bit stronger. Anything less does not give Z the same chance of guessing Y's hand as X does.

 

- Let's say a partnership agrees to play "2D is Ekrens, with standard continuations". Again, I think the opponents are entitled to the an explanation about standard continuations after Ekrens.

 

- Now to widget. Similarly I think that the opponent should be entitled to an explanation of the form Some think it shows A, some think it shows B, but really it shows C. (I still haven't figured out whether C should really be included in that explanation as a possibility - I would tend to think yes, but I could be talked out of that.) Again, I think someone for whom "we play widget" is sufficient in a partnership discussion will be in a better position to work out partner's holding than a random opponent - even when it turns out that they think it shows A and their partner think it shows B. They may know which problem "widget" is trying to solve, or they may know other conventions that apply in this situation (and be able to work out that their partner mistook "widget" for that other convention), etc.

Indeed, let's say during the play it becomes apparent to everyone that the person making the bid cannot have a hand matching agreement "A". We set up a competition between his partner (who thought widget shows "A") and one of the opponents (who is only told that partner thought it means "A"); the goal is to work out bidder's actual hand. You have to put money on who wins this competition. Would anyone pick a random opponent? I would always pick the partner.

 

So what do I base my opinion on?

- On the principle of full disclosure: the opponent should be in as good a position to work out someone's hand as their partner.

- On the laws. Yes, a partnership is only required to disclose "partnership agreements". But once you parse what it means to make an agreement, you cannot just use recite words that happen to have meanings to some players, but not to others; you have to give opponents an equal chance to work out the meanings of these words as the two parties having this partnership discussion.

[barmar]

This description will apply to many conventions agreed by a new partnerships e.g. "UNT". Suppose that the partners haven't discussed "UNT"; but it's in their normal repertoire with other partners and both imagine that they know it. Are opponents really entitled only to the information that "We have agreed to play "UNT", but we have not discussed in any way how it operates (although we do know when it operates)"?

An example where this might actually arise is Michaels cue bids. Some people play that 2NT asks partner to bid his unknown minor, some play that 3♣ is pass/correct, and some use both, with one of them being stronger than the other. But I'll bet few many new partnerships never discuss this, and each player probably assumes that their understanding is the usual meaning.

[nige1]

Someone in the thread asked what was actually ruled.

This was only part of at the ruling. The players involved have only just been told the outcome.

Once the dust has settled, I'll post the full ruling on another thread.

Frances, please post the full ruling (if you haven't already done so). The committee's reasoning should be instructive.

[Zelandakh]

I think this is actually easier in the EBU than most other jurisdictions because there there is a regulation saying that you need to alert a call where any one of the possible meanings would be alertable. This is the problem I have with Mike's position. The argument is based upon the notion that the widget bid was not alerted but it is reasonably clear that it should have been under the (lack of) agreement because one of the possible meanings was alertable. Barry's example here is a good one. If you only agreed Michaels then you should alert a 3♣ advance even if you think it more likely that 2NT would be used to reach the minor.

 

What is less clear is the more theoretical situation from the OP. Here it is impractical to follow the most popular suggestion of giving the actual agreement (of a convention name) because an opponent is perfectly entitled to ask what that means. We have heard on BBF of cases from international play in which conventions that most of us might regard as basic caused problems for opponents. I would certainly ask a supplementary question as to what "widget" is and would expect an answer for reasons Arend has already outlined.

 

In both cases there is clear MI, in the first because an alertable call was not alerted and in the second because the description of "widget" does not match the partnership agreement. It will be interesting to hear how the EBU themselves rule on the matter. When is/was the hearing Frances/Gordon?