[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2014-November-11, 11:33, said:

With regards to the UI - then I agree with West. He has to assume that East knows his hand and has decided to defend.

With regards to the MI - NS are entitled to know that EW have no agreement. In fact the law book states that the TD is to rule incorrect explanation instead of incorrect bid which (on the EBU Directors course) is described as TWO convention cards/ system notes agreeing with the description given.

Hence - since there was MI, NS would have taken a different action with the correct Information and their loss was directly attributable to the MI - I would adjust. With 27 points I cannot see NS not reaching 4 Hearts providing they have some method of getting there.

(I might even throw in a bit of 4 Spades X - 3 -800 for fun.)

I wonder what methods one should have in any event, of any strength, over an undiscussed double of 1NT. Perhaps the best method is to assume that system is on, so that 2C is now Stayman. However, I suspect few pairs have "discussed" what to do over "undiscussed". I tend to think "undiscussed" is an unacceptable explanation. Say that you play a different defence to a weak or a strong NT, and when someone opens 1NT their partner announces "undiscussed". Unless you have an agreement over an undiscussed NT, you have no idea how partner will interpret any of your bids. I would tend to give NS the benefit of the doubt and allow them to reach 4H as well.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-November-11, 19:42, said:

tend to think "undiscussed" is an unacceptable explanation.

It may be incomplete, because there may be experience or knowledge of partner's tendencies or agreements with others that should be disclosed, but IMO that's the only basis for calling it 'unacceptable'.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-11, 22:04, said:

It may be incomplete, because there may be experience or knowledge of partner's tendencies or agreements with others that should be disclosed, but IMO that's the only basis for calling it 'unacceptable'.

I think that "deemed misinformation" would be better than "unacceptable explanation". Imagine a game where all calls by a side were "undiscussed", and the other side had to guess at the meaning of every call, and have a whole system to cope with every "undiscussed" bid of the opponents. For example, 1S - (3C, undiscussed). Now I play with most partners that if 3C is natural, double is takeout, if 3C is Ghestem, double is looking for a penalty. If 3C is "undiscussed", I do not have a clue what to do.

[pran]

lamford, on 2014-November-12, 05:14, said:

I think that "deemed misinformation" would be better than "unacceptable explanation". Imagine a game where all calls by a side were "undiscussed", and the other side had to guess at the meaning of every call, and have a whole system to cope with every "undiscussed" bid of the opponents. For example, 1S - (3C, undiscussed). Now I play with most partners that if 3C is natural, double is takeout, if 3C is Ghestem, double is looking for a penalty. If 3C is "undiscussed", I do not have a clue what to do.

This is one of the reasons why I favour "undiscussed" or "no agreements" etc. be treated as misinformation to the extent that NOS has been damaged (in the Director's opinion) from the uncertainty created by the lacking description of a call.

In the balance of interests I find it far more important to protect NOS than to protect OS in such situations.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-November-12, 06:35, said:

This is one of the reasons why I favour "undiscussed" or "no agreements" etc. be treated as misinformation to the extent that NOS has been damaged (in the Director's opinion) from the uncertainty created by the lacking description of a call.

In the balance of interests I find it far more important to protect NOS than to protect OS in such situations.

Certainly. But the definition of damage starts "damage exists when, because of an infraction…" If "undiscussed" is found to be incomplete because there are inferences not available to the NOS, then there's been an infraction. If there are no such inferences, there's been no infraction. Put another way, if the explaining player can truly say "we haven't discussed it, you know as much as I do" then the explanation is complete. One could argue, I suppose, that this is never the case, but I don't buy it, so I don't think treating "undiscussed" as conclusive evidence of MI is kosher.

[barmar]

The spirit of "full disclosure" is that the opponents should be on equal footing as the players. If they don't know what their bid means, then you're in the same boat when you don't know what your defense to it means.

Although you could do better, and have meta-agreements about how to treat undiscussed sequences.

[pran]

When a player tries to convince me that he has selected a particular call in spite of knowing that his partner would have no idea of how to explain that call (and his partner claims "no agreement" or similar) I shall initially suspect that there exists some kind of implied partnership understanding.

The players will of course always have the opportunity to prove their position, but I shall hardly trust them just on their statement.

I am always reluctant to believe that a (presumably) sane player deliberately chooses a call without some expectation that his partner will understand why he chose that call.

[barmar]

pran, on 2014-November-12, 09:38, said:

I am always reluctant to believe that a (presumably) sane player deliberately chooses a call without some expectation that his partner will understand why he chose that call.

It sounds like you don't have much experience playing with pick-up partners, then. Sometimes your "expectation" is just based on what you think GBK is for players of a certain level of experience. But that assumes that not only does partner have the experience that you think he has, but also that he knows that YOU have that experience level.

You can try to avoid the problem by keeping your bidding really simple. But sometimes you'll take a chance and hope for the best, because if partner does understand you, your bid is the best description of your hand.

[mgoetze]

pran, on 2014-November-12, 06:35, said:

This is one of the reasons why I favour "undiscussed" or "no agreements" etc. be treated as misinformation to the extent that NOS has been damaged (in the Director's opinion) from the uncertainty created by the lacking description of a call.

In the balance of interests I find it far more important to protect NOS than to protect OS in such situations.

1st board of a 2-board round in a Howell. North dealer.

North: 1 Club.
South: Alert!
East: Pass.
South: 1 Diamond.
North: Alert!
West: Uhm, what does that show?
North: It's a two-under transfer showing 4 or more spades.
West: Uhm, 1 Heart.
North: What does that mean?
East: We, uh, haven't discussed this auction, but I guess it's natural.
North: DIRECTOR!!!!! We are getting misinformation! I want to protect our rights!!!

[pran]

barmar, on 2014-November-12, 09:51, said:

It sounds like you don't have much experience playing with pick-up partners, then.

But I do!

barmar, on 2014-November-12, 09:51, said:

Sometimes your "expectation" is just based on what you think GBK is for players of a certain level of experience. But that assumes that not only does partner have the experience that you think he has, but also that he knows that YOU have that experience level.

You can try to avoid the problem by keeping your bidding really simple. But sometimes you'll take a chance and hope for the best, because if partner does understand you, your bid is the best description of your hand.

And that is exactly what I try to do. And if I take a chance it is because I expect my partner being able to figure out (using his general bridge knowledge) what information I try to convey.

It works, believe me!

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-November-12, 09:38, said:

When a player tries to convince me that he has selected a particular call in spite of knowing that his partner would have no idea of how to explain that call (and his partner claims "no agreement" or similar) I shall initially suspect that there exists some kind of implied partnership understanding.

The players will of course always have the opportunity to prove their position, but I shall hardly trust them just on their statement.

I am always reluctant to believe that a (presumably) sane player deliberately chooses a call without some expectation that his partner will understand why he chose that call.

I have had occasion to choose a call that I have not discussed with my partner. Usually, it's a call that I expect partner to get from "general bridge knowledge". Sometimes it's a call that I believe is "safe" because even if partner doesn't know what it means, he has a safe rebid. Sometimes that backfires. Example. I opened a diamond on void A KQJTxx AQJTxx, the auction got competitive, partner supported diamonds, I jumped to six clubs. Partner passed. She held four diamonds to the ace, and a void in clubs. I don't remember her exact holding in the majors, but seven diamonds was cold; six clubs went down one. When dummy came down, my RHO started quizzing her on why she passed. "I didn't know what to do!" she wailed, and burst into tears. I figured that if she couldn't figure out what I was doing, she could at least go back to diamonds. And three years ago she'd have done just that. This year, nope. Have I done similar things with this partner before? Not at the six level, but maybe at some lower level, I don't remember. I suspect if she had been asked what six clubs meant she would have said "I have no idea".

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-12, 12:09, said:

I have had occasion to choose a call that I have not discussed with my partner. Usually, it's a call that I expect partner to get from "general bridge knowledge". Sometimes it's a call that I believe is "safe" because even if partner doesn't know what it means, he has a safe rebid. Sometimes that backfires. Example. I opened a diamond on void A KQJTxx AQJTxx, the auction got competitive, partner supported diamonds, I jumped to six clubs. Partner passed. She held four diamonds to the ace, and a void in clubs. I don't remember her exact holding in the majors, but seven diamonds was cold; six clubs went down one. When dummy came down, my RHO started quizzing her on why she passed. "I didn't know what to do!" she wailed, and burst into tears. I figured that if she couldn't figure out what I was doing, she could at least go back to diamonds. And three years ago she'd have done just that. This year, nope. Have I done similar things with this partner before? Not at the six level, but maybe at some lower level, I don't remember. I suspect if she had been asked what six clubs meant she would have said "I have no idea".

Opponents were apparently not damaged?
(I find you reasoning quite OK, and it was you who took a chance)

[blackshoe]

No, they weren't damaged.

[helene_t]

P opens a weak NT vulnerable, RHO doubles. You are playing with a pickup and most people at the club play transfers over the double but whether this particular p would think that they should apply without discussion is a 50/50 guess. Opps are from the same club and they know you are pickups so their guess is as good as yours.

In that situation you may decide to make the transfer bid, not because it is more likely that p takes it as a transfer but because at least you won't get to play at the 3-level that way.

The correct explanation (and the only acceptable one) is "undiscussed", IMO.

[pran]

helene_t, on 2014-November-13, 07:32, said:

P opens a weak NT vulnerable, RHO doubles. You are playing with a pickup and most people at the club play transfers over the double but whether this particular p would think that they should apply without discussion is a 50/50 guess. Opps are from the same club and they know you are pickups so their guess is as good as yours.

In that situation you may decide to make the transfer bid, not because it is more likely that p takes it as a transfer but because at least you won't get to play at the 3-level that way.

The correct explanation (and the only acceptable one) is "undiscussed", IMO.

I see absolutely no good reason why, before the opening lead at last, this "explanation" should be changed to reflect the assumed implicit partnership, i.e. "transfer" understanding. The probability that this is the correct explanation must be far greater than 50% given the environment and background for the players?

[mycroft]

So, "undiscussed, but you know the field here as well as I do" seems appropriate?

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2014-November-12, 09:17, said:

The spirit of "full disclosure" is that the opponents should be on equal footing as the players. If they don't know what their bid means, then you're in the same boat when you don't know what your defense to it means.

Not really. If the players who have no agreements are damaged, that is their problem. But if the opponents are damaged because they have to guess how to proceed, then they are being punished because their opponents have no agreements. I find it hard to believe that anyone can think that this is just.

[blackshoe]

One of the prerequisites for "damage" is that the opponents must have committed an infraction. Is "having no agreements" an infraction?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-14, 08:43, said:

One of the prerequisites for "damage" is that the opponents must have committed an infraction. Is "having no agreements" an infraction?

Counter-question: Is "I cannot give any description" really a description?

Or is it, as I tend to think, an infraction by failure to give a description.

(For this question I don't care about why he cannot give any description, only the fact that he cannot.)

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-14, 08:43, said:

One of the prerequisites for "damage" is that the opponents must have committed an infraction. Is "having no agreements" an infraction?

Not per se, but regulations could define it as misinformation in order to protect opponents from damage.