Explanation of UCB

[Trinidad]

Yes. It was their agreement.

And even if it wasn't their agreement, then wanoff didn't know better than that it was their agreement (that the cue could show a strong hand without support). So, to put it black and white, wanoff knowingly explained something else ("shows support") than what he thought the agreement was ("shows support or something strong", "as we all know").

 

That seems to merit some form of reprimand, even in the case that wanoff's ideas about the agreement were wrong and his explanation -by pure coincidence- happened to be correct.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

That seems to merit some form of reprimand, even in the case that wanoff's ideas about the agreement were wrong and his explanation -by pure coincidence- happened to be correct.

 

Also the committee may well have been exasperated if wan off presented his case as he did in this thread -- telling us what explanation he gave, asking whether it was correct... and then several posts later gets round to mentioning what his agreement is.

[campboy]

You see the fact that wanoff has read about including strong hands without support in the cue bid, coupled with the fact that his partner cue bid with that hand, as definitive evidence that they have an agreement to bid that way.

No I don't and I did not say that. I see it as evidence that they don't have an agreement not to bid that way. I don't think they had a clear agreement as to whether support was promised or not.

 

Now the question of whether they have an agreement that they can bid this way, as I said before but evidently need to say again, is neither here nor there. The only relevant question is whether they actually have the agreement that was explained, that it must have support. Wanoff doesn't claim to believe that, and there is absolutely no reason to think that wanoff's partner believes it either, since he never describes it that way.

[blackshoe]

they don't have an agreement not to bid that way

So? I don't see anything in the law about agreements not to bid some way.

[Finch]

which club is this? (just so i can avoid it)

 

By the way, while I agree about the MI I also agree with this. A TD's ruling is one thing, a 'reprimand' is another: to me that implies that you were knowingly doing something 'wrong' which obivously (to me) isn't the case.

[Vampyr]

No I don't and I did not say that. I see it as evidence that they don't have an agreement not to bid that way. I don't think they had a clear agreement as to whether support was promised or not.

 

OK, well partner didn't have support and wanoff believed that he didn't promise support. Yet they didn't have an agreement? What do you have to do to be deemed to have an agreement -- carve it in cuneiform?

[campboy]

So? I don't see anything in the law about agreements not to bid some way.

Wanoff's explanation indicated that it shows support by agreement. In other words, that they have an agreement not to bid it without support. If they do not have such an agreement (whether or not they have the opposite agreement) then there was MI. What is difficult about this concept?

[campboy]

OK, well partner didn't have support and wanoff believed that he didn't promise support. Yet they didn't have an agreement? What do you have to do to be deemed to have an agreement -- carve it in cuneiform?

I'm generously assuming that they simply agreed to play "UCB" without discussing exactly what that meant, and a hand where one of them wanted to bid it without support hasn't come up before. If it mattered to the ruling, I might investigate whether they have a clear agreement on this issue more carefully. But it doesn't matter, since there was MI either way.

 

Basically there is a difference between the case of "I might occasionally bid this without support, but I don't know whether my partner would because it's never come up" and "I know my partner might occasionally bid this without support, even though it's never come up". But whichever applies, it should have been disclosed and it wasn't.

[fromageGB]

It seems that support is expected, so I can't see why you refer to it as an unassuming cue bid. You can't assume anything about an unassuming bid. If the words "unassuming cue bid" were used in the explanation, as well as the description "a high card raise" then I think this is a contradictory explanation (but of course not worthy of a reprimand). Well, now you have discussed it, you can obviously give a better explanation next time.

[Vampyr]

It seems that support is expected, so I can't see why you refer to it as an unassuming cue bid. You can't assume anything about an unassuming bid. If the words "unassuming cue bid" were used in the explanation, as well as the description "a high card raise" then I think this is a contradictory explanation (but of course not worthy of a reprimand). Well, now you have discussed it, you can obviously give a better explanation next time.

 

In reality, everybody says they play an "unassuming cue bid", but most have not the slightest idea what that means.

[barmar]

By the way, while I agree about the MI I also agree with this. A TD's ruling is one thing, a 'reprimand' is another: to me that implies that you were knowingly doing something 'wrong' which obivously (to me) isn't the case.

Seems to me that a reprimand wouldn't be warranted unless you'd already been warned that your explanation was inadequate, and you continued to use it.

[blackshoe]

I'm generously assuming that they simply agreed to play "UCB" without discussing exactly what that meant, and a hand where one of them wanted to bid it without support hasn't come up before. If it mattered to the ruling, I might investigate whether they have a clear agreement on this issue more carefully. But it doesn't matter, since there was MI either way.

 

Basically there is a difference between the case of "I might occasionally bid this without support, but I don't know whether my partner would because it's never come up" and "I know my partner might occasionally bid this without support, even though it's never come up". But whichever applies, it should have been disclosed and it wasn't.

So it is illegal to deviate from your agreements unless your partner, who presumably does not know that you have or may have deviated, tells the opponents that you may have done so. This is where I have a problem.

[billw55]

Whatever, getting a reprimand from your club's Laws and Ethics committee has to be the overreaction of the millennium.

True in isolation, which leads me to suspect there is more to the story.

[PhilKing]

True in isolation, which leads me to suspect there is more to the story.

 

Yep - it could possibly be that buckle heads like giving reprimands.

[Vampyr]

So it is illegal to deviate from your agreements unless your partner, who presumably does not know that you have or may have deviated, tells the opponents that you may have done so. This is where I have a problem.

 

Why do you think partner has deviated? Partner has made a bid, and the OP agrees that such a bid with such a hand is within their agreements. Why are you having trouble understanding this?

[blackshoe]

Why do you think partner has deviated? Partner has made a bid, and the OP agrees that such a bid with such a hand is within their agreements. Why are you having trouble understanding this?

 

Wanoff has not, AFAICS agreed that such a bid with such a hand is within their agreements.

 

In the original post, wanoff said

 

I described it as 'A high card raise to at least 2♠'.

In a later post, he said

 

We had no agreement that it may be less than a 3cd fit but I have read that it may also be a hand that can control the auction. As you've probably guessed, partner had less than 3cd support.

The "but" in that first sentence does not make an agreement that such a hand might bid this way.

 

In between these two posts, he said

 

We play a bog standard UCB, just the same as everyone else - so I'm asking for the correct explanation of this.

Whether he plays a "bog standard UCB" or not isn't really the issue. The point is that, to here, it looks to me like their agreement was that the cue bid shows just what he said it did: 'A high card raise to at least 2♠'. It then appeared to me that everyone seized on the fact that his partner didn't have that hand, and treated that fact as conclusive evidence that their agreement was more along the lines of 'A high card raise to at least 2♠ or any force that can control the auction'. I disagreed with that. However, what I missed is that in that middle post wanoff also said

 

As we all know, some of the time it's a hand that needs to force

Now, if this "as we all know" is knowledge generally available to bridge players (GBK), then there has been no MI, because he is not required to disclose GBK. But is it? I think perhaps we don't have all the facts, because of this, but also because the situation proceeded to a reprimand from the club's Laws and Ethics committee. However, given this comment, I think the director (and the AC if there was one) must presume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken bid. So while I still think wanoff's partner deviated from their explicit agreement, I suspect there may have been an implicit agreement to include the general force in the set of possible hands that would make the bid (though not solely from a one-sided "I read it somewhere"). So it now seems to me that there was probably MI, a violation of law 20F which might result in a score adjustment and maybe a procedural penalty. It seems though that there was also deemed to be a violation of Law 40C, and perhaps of Law 72B1. The former might be, and the latter certainly would be enough to invoke an L&E hearing. But all this is speculation — we do not have all the facts.

[Vampyr]

Wanoff has not, AFAICS agreed that such a bid with such a hand is within their agreements.

 

In a portion of your post I have snipped (can be summed up by the "as we all know" bit you have quoted) you have admitted that it is within their agreements. Anyway the fact that you missed a post explains why your comments have been coming from left field!

Now, if this "as we all know" is knowledge generally available to bridge players (GBK), then there has been no MI, because he is not required to disclose GBK. But is it?

 

Some extremely good players have commented that they don't know that. No one knows how a pair play a convention until it is explained to them. So this may be knowledge owned by people who have played against the pair before, and it can in no way be classed as GBK.

 

So while I still think wanoff's partner deviated from their explicit agreement, I suspect there may have been an implicit agreement to include the general force in the set of possible hands that would make the bid.

 

I don't think that there is so much of a need to distinguish between explicit and implicit agreements. After all, when a pair sit down and have time to agree "basic Acol" or "2/1" aren't pretty much all of the agreements implicit? These agreements are not somehow "lesser" as you seem to think they are.

[blackshoe]

I don't think that there is so much of a need to distinguish between explicit and implicit agreements. After all, when a pair sit down and have time to agree "basic Acol" or "2/1" aren't pretty much all of the agreements implicit? These agreements are not somehow "lesser" as you seem to think they are.

Not lesser. Not at all. But the law does make a distinction between the two — although it treats them the same for disclosure purposes. My point was that absent the post that I missed, I did not believe they had the implicit agreement everybody jumped on. Now I do believe they had that implicit agreement.

[Trinidad]

It is not merely the "As we all know" part. It is also the fact that Wanoff's partner explains the cue bid as 'asking more about the overcall'. They both know that the cuebid can be made without support. Wanoff's partner doesn't even mention support in his explanation, whereas Wanoff says that it shows support, knowing that it doesn't (but often will have support).

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

It is not merely the "As we all know" part. It is also the fact that Wanoff's partner explains the cue bid as 'asking more about the overcall'. They both know that the cuebid can be made without support. Wanoff's partner doesn't even mention support in his explanation, whereas Wanoff says that it shows support, knowing that it doesn't (but often will have support).

"Doesn't" is not the same as "might not". Wanoff cannot know from the bid that his partner does not have support, unless his partner is sitting in front of a mirror.

 

Is there a difference between the two agreements below?

 

1. Forcing, asking for more information, may (or often will) have support.

 

2. Forcing, limit raise or better, or possibly no support, simply asking for more information.

[Trinidad]

"Doesn't" is not the same as "might not". Wanoff cannot know from the bid that his partner does not have support, unless his partner is sitting in front of a mirror.

Wanoff cannot indeed not know that his partner doesn't have support, but neither can he know that his partner has support. Therefore, the bid doesn't promise support. It may have support, or it might not have support. His explanation "Limit raise or better" does promise support. (And I explain my partner's cuebids like that, since they actually do promise support.)

Is there a difference between the two agreements below?

 

1. Forcing, asking for more information, may (or often will) have support.

 

2. Forcing, limit raise or better, or possibly no support, simply asking for more information.

Other than that on the second one the strength of the hands with support is defined ("limit raise or better"), where on the first one the strength is not defined, there is no difference. Only the order of priorities is different. When a call has multiple meanings, I tend to start with the most frequent one because it is the clearest way to explain things, but grammatically there is no difference.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

"Doesn't" is not the same as "might not". Wanoff cannot know from the bid that his partner does not have support, unless his partner is sitting in front of a mirror.

 

Is there a difference between the two agreements below?

 

1. Forcing, asking for more information, may (or often will) have support.

 

2. Forcing, limit raise or better, or possibly no support, simply asking for more information.

 

I don't really like either of them,as the bid is used to set up a force of some sort, and is not (IMO) primarily asking for information.

[blackshoe]

I don't really like either of them,as the bid is used to set up a force of some sort, and is not (IMO) primarily asking for information.

Okay. How would you define wanoff's partnership agreement?

[Vampyr]

Okay. How would you define wanoff's partnership agreement?

 

Normally a good raise to at least N hearts, rarely a non-fitting GF. Well, that is how I explain the same agreement.

 

It is not an asking bid, at least without specialised continuations.

[blackshoe]

Fair enough. It seems you've answered wanoff's question. :)