[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2015-July-31, 16:11, said:

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

wanoff, on 2015-July-29, 02:26, said:

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

In a later post, he said

wanoff, on 2015-July-29, 13:09, 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

wanoff, on 2015-July-29, 04:27, 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

wanoff, on 2015-July-29, 04:27, 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]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-31, 19:16, said:

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!

Quote

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.

Quote

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]

Vampyr, on 2015-August-01, 03:52, said:

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]

Trinidad, on 2015-August-01, 09:45, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2015-August-01, 10:18, said:

"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.)

blackshoe, on 2015-August-01, 10:18, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2015-August-01, 10:18, said:

"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]

Vampyr, on 2015-August-01, 11:32, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2015-August-01, 12:35, said:

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.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-31, 19:16, said:

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.

It is not GBK because it is simply not true. Believe it or not Ed, not everything that gets written on the internet is the truth. This one is really simple. They agreed to play "bog standard UCBs" and both understood this to mean either a good raise or a GF hand without a better call. That is an agreement. The agreement was explained differently. That is MI and if the MI caused damage they get ruled against. It is perfectly ok for the club to tell the players that they should give the correct explanation. A reprimand would be an over-reaction but refer to my second sentence before automatically avoiding the club for this.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2015-August-15, 10:15, said:

It is not GBK because it is simply not true. Believe it or not Ed, not everything that gets written on the internet is the truth.

I wrote "if" for a reason. And believe it or not, I'm not as gullible as you seem to think I am.