[helene_t]

Echognome, on Jul 18 2007, 08:53 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jul 18 2007, 10:34 AM, said:

Maybe because you're not acting upon it.

I don't believe the part of the EBU regulation stating that you must not act upon it is controversial. The controversial part is that you must not disclose it.

But my point was that because you don't act upon it (whether that's because it would be unethical or whether it's because it would destroy partnership trust) you don't need to disclose it. Like you don't alert a potential psyche if you have no psych-control mechanism, yet if you do it's not a psyche anymore but a convention and then you do alert it.

Not that I necesarily agree with this kind of reasoning, just trying to reconstruct the thinking of those who made the laws.

[Echognome]

Ok. I guess I get that. I mean I think it's probably more of a practical view. For if you disclosed truthfully that partner often forgets you are probably not helping the opposition, but rather adding even more confusion to the auction.

I just feel it is somewhat in contradiction of the laws which say you must disclose all partnership experience if asked to disclose.

[cherdano]

I am surprised at the almost unanimous vote here. If I have hints from partnership experience that partner might forget this particular agreement (say we only added it recently, or partner has forgotten this agreement before, or partner has forgotten almost every other agreement in the previous rounds), then not telling opponents about my knowledge is an obvious breach of full disclosure.

[Yes, I don't understand the EBU's stance on this at all. And yes I agree that the situation described here is borderline.]

Also, the "not acting on it" part in the EBU rule is quite fuzzy. It is a lot easier to notice during the play that partner can't have his bid when you were suspecting so all along...

I also disagree with one of Helene's statement. If I know partner's bid is a likely psych, then I have to tell opponents, no matter whether I act on it or not. You are supposed to tell all your agreements and understandings, not only those that you are acting on.

[helene_t]

cherdano, on Jul 19 2007, 12:57 PM, said:

].....]Also, the "not acting on it" part in the EBU rule is quite fuzzy. It is a lot easier to notice during the play that partner can't have his bid when you were suspecting so all along...

I also disagree with one of Helene's statement. If I know partner's bid is a likely psych, then I have to tell opponents, no matter whether I act on it or not. You are supposed to tell all your agreements and understandings, not only those that you are acting on.

Actually I don't agree with my "statement" either, I was just searching for the logic behind the EBU rules.

[Free]

cherdano, on Jul 19 2007, 11:57 AM, said:

I also disagree with one of Helene's statement. If I know partner's bid is a likely psych, then I have to tell opponents, no matter whether I act on it or not. You are supposed to tell all your agreements and understandings, not only those that you are acting on.

Sorry but I disagree strongly on this one!

You conclude that it's probably a psych because you look at your own hand. Swap your Majors and minors and you won't alert as a possbile psych! So it's hypocryte to suggest you should inform your opponents about your "agreements and understandings", while in fact you just THINK partner PROBABLY forgot the agreement based on YOUR OWN hand (which has nothing to do with an agreement). Not only gives this UI to partner for no good reason (p will now know that you have lots of Majors!), opps know this too, but they are allowed to use the information while your partner is not! So basically you put your opponents in a VERY comfortable position, and you put your partnership in a worse situation than if you just let it be.

If p made an error, you can deal with this later when a TD is called, end of story. If p makes this mistake a lot, change your agreement or alert EVERY time you get this...

[cherdano]

Free, on Jul 19 2007, 06:18 AM, said:

cherdano, on Jul 19 2007, 11:57 AM, said:

I also disagree with one of Helene's statement. If I know partner's bid is a likely psych, then I have to tell opponents, no matter whether I act on it or not. You are supposed to tell all your agreements and understandings, not only those that you are acting on.

Sorry but I disagree strongly on this one!

You conclude that it's probably a psych because you look at your own hand. Swap your Majors and minors and you won't alert as a possbile psych! So it's hypocryte to suggest you should inform your opponents about your "agreements and understandings", while in fact you just THINK partner PROBABLY forgot the agreement based on YOUR OWN hand (which has nothing to do with an agreement). Not only gives this UI to partner for no good reason (p will now know that you have lots of Majors!), opps know this too, but they are allowed to use the information while your partner is not! So basically you put your opponents in a VERY comfortable position, and you put your partnership in a worse situation than if you just let it be.

If p made an error, you can deal with this later when a TD is called, end of story. If p makes this mistake a lot, change your agreement or alert EVERY time you get this...

Please, I may be dumb but not that dumb.
Of course I am only talking about conclusions or suspicions I have without looking at my own hand. The EBU rule explicitly says I should NEVER explain that partner sometimes forgets an agreement, even if he has done it the last 8 out of ten times it came up. This is NOT full disclosure.

[paulg]

Searching the minutes of the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee ....

"Mr Bavin drew the L&E’s attention to the fact that it could be argued that the regulation was contrary to the Laws on the basis that the Laws require full disclosure of players’ agreements. The L&E was happy that its position was legally defensible, as it is not part of a pair’s agreements to forget them." (November 2005)

"In view of the uneasiness felt by some L&E members about the legal justification for the decision, it was felt important to make it clear in the Orange Book that it was a specific exception to the normal full disclosure rule." (January 2006)

The change to the EBU's policy appears due to the problem of people fielding misbids, and that this may not be unlawful when they explained partner had a tendency to forget. Also, as Matt suggested, it can cause more confusion without solving the problem.

Further interrogation of the EBU position is probably best addressed on the bridgetalk forum, where members of the L&E frequently post.

[barmar]

Does partner forgetting a convention in the past really make it more likely that they've forgotten it this time? Couldn't it be exactly the opposite -- when you have a disaster due to an error like this, it sticks in your mind and helps you in the future.

In my experience, the conventions we tend to forget are the ones that haven't come up much, either because we've only recently added them to our system or they're rare.

[jtfanclub]

Free, on Jul 18 2007, 09:46 AM, said:

Btw, if your p can't remember such simple conventions, don't play them!!! Djeez...

You've never played with a partner with a glycemic problem like diabetes, I take it....

I've had lots of partners who go into space cadet mode for a period, and even if you catch it it can take some time for them to recover. I've done it myself once or twice.