[helene_t]

This p sometimes forgets conventions and this evening she has already made an insufficient bid and two very strange bids so she's obviously not in her Heat A.

LHO open 1NT and p overcalls 2♣ (Landy). I hold 5-4 in the majors myself so it's a little suspicious. I alert and explain it as "Landy", avoiding eye contact with p because it might convey UI to me.

[Gerben42]

It would be very hard to me to play with this partner again in the future but it is hard to judge without knowing the reason behind the forgetting.

Hopefully if I bid 3M now (my 5-card suit) this will sensiblize her and she will try harder.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

First of all you need to alert your agreement and bid according
to your agreements. The same is true for partner, the partner
cannot use the alert as wakeup call.

Second, if you can deduce from your own cards, that the bid is
impossible, say 2C promises 5-5, than you may act on this
information.
Assuming 2C shows 5-4, the bid is still possible, because opener
may be 3-2 in the mayors and you have a big double fit in the
mayors.

Depending on your agreements I may bid 2D asking for partners
preference, and partner has to pass, because if 2C is natural,
than 2D is natural non forcing.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[paulg]

The EBU has changed its position on this over the years and the current policy is:

"If a player has knowledge that partner tends to forget a particular agreement that tendency must neither be disclosed nor acted upon." EBU Orange Book (PDF)

[gwnn]

This has happened to me before and I did what Gerben suggested (it was a two-suited overcall and I just bid the appropriate game EVEN THOUGH it seemed we were playing with a 50 hcp deck).

Also, re the "say this and do that" propositions: it has happened to me that I overcalled 3♣ as highest 2 unbid suits and partner alerted but then just passed and passed. It caused a double game swing (-620 at us, -790 other table) and she explained to me "I saw a subtle sneer at the margin of your mouth so I figured you must have forgotten the system". Plus, she had a great double fit. Needless to say, I wasn't very pleased with her sparkling psychological analysis and also considered her behavior as highly unethical.

[Fluffy]

I have had 2 times this problem with the sequence 1♣-2♦

On both I alerted as michaels even when I was having the amjor 2 suiter.

Here is why: I KNEW IT WAS NOT MICHAELS BECAUSE THE NATURAL CALL TOOK LESS THAN 4 SECONDS.

that is the key factor, you can legally (I think) take the conclusion that parner has made a mistake, what you cannot do is reach that conclusion based on UI. Wich was my case.

[helene_t]

Fluffy, on Jul 18 2007, 04:31 PM, said:

I have had 2 times this problem with the sequence 1♣-2♦

On both I alerted as michaels even when I was having the amjor 2 suiter.

Here is why: I KNEW IT WAS NOT MICHAELS BECAUSE THE NATURAL CALL TOOK LESS THAN 4 SECONDS.

Lol, I had a similar one with a different p: p bid 2♦ without using the stop card. That p never forgets the stop card. So either he wanted to bid 1♦ or he thought that the opening was 1♠ (or such) so that 2♦ was not a skip bid.

[Free]

The ethical thing to do is the first choice. Anything else is a severe infraction of the ethics of the game imo.

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

[bhall]

Bid according to your agreement. Defend according to logic: When partner can no longer hold the requisite number of cards in each major, that is information you should use, since it is discovered in the play.

[Gerben42]

Also: NEVER ever ever play partner to have forgotten the system. It might be the opponents who are messing things up and you will look REALLY REALLY silly.

[TimG]

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

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

With any new agreement, there is potential for a break-in period where they are not remembered that well. That doesn't mean you should never play new methods. But, you should be aware of your ethical obligations when misunderstandings arise.

[Fluffy]

Gerben42, on Jul 18 2007, 03:07 PM, said:

Also: NEVER ever ever play partner to have forgotten the system. It might be the opponents who are messing things up and you will look REALLY REALLY silly.

I'll give you one real hand example:

KJ10xx
AQJ10xx
x
x

You open 1♠ and partner bids a natural 4♥.

This is just to point out that whatever you do there is always a limit case.

You should almost always follow the system, but at some point you will find an exception.

[gwnn]

Partner really liked his hand with K987xxx and minor quacks. I'm passing.

[Echognome]

cardsharp, on Jul 18 2007, 02:32 AM, said:

The EBU has changed its position on this over the years and the current policy is:

"If a player has knowledge that partner tends to forget a particular agreement that tendency must neither be disclosed nor acted upon." EBU Orange Book (PDF)

Yeah. This section is certainly not without controversy. The question is whether this violates the laws if one of the opponents asks about the meaning of the bid.

Law 75C Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements said:

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience.

The key point here is why isn't partner's tendency to forget part of "partnership experience"?

[helene_t]

Echognome, on Jul 18 2007, 08:24 PM, said:

The key point here is why isn't partner's tendency to forget part of "partnership experience"?

Maybe because you're not acting upon it. If p opens 1NT showing 15-17 but I know she often confuses the jacks with the kings so she may have anything from 7 to 25, I still have to bid as if she really has 15-17.

Another thing is that the rules are not made primarily with gozzilas in mind. Those who can't remember Landy tend to play at clubs where nobody reads the rules anyway.

But I do think you have a point. Last sunday I played a tourney with a novice, she had never played IRL before and only ten boards at BBO. She asked me if she should warn the opps that they'd better not take her biddings and signals (and lacks of alerts) too serious. I said that according to the laws she's not obliged to volunteer that info, but if it would make her more comfortable of course she should say it.

[Echognome]

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.

[awm]

This has to depend upon the reason for thinking partner forgot. It's sort of like a psych. Basically:

(1) If you have partnership experience that partner has forgotten this particular agreement before, and suspect a forget just because a forget is frequent, I think it needs to be disclosed. If it's not disclosed, then you certainly can't act on it.

(2) If the forget seems obvious based on your own hand (for example partner's bid should be exclusion in spades and you have a singleton spade and the opponents had many chances to bid at a low level and never did) then you don't have to disclose anything. You're allowed to assume partner forgot in this situation.

(3) If you're playing in a non-serious event, it's best to take partner's bids at face value. This will help partner remember the convention next time, and also improve partnership trust. If it's an important event, you may do better by playing partner for the forget, and it's not necessarily unethical to do this if the forget seems clear from your own hand and/or opponents actions (but it is unethical if you base this decision on partner's mannerisms when you alert the forgotten convention or based on the fact that partner "always forgets" this particular convention).

[helene_t]

That makes a lot of sense, Adam.

This particular case was a club evening. It should count as non-serious event in this respect, I think.

[Free]

TimG, on Jul 18 2007, 04:09 PM, said:

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

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

With any new agreement, there is potential for a break-in period where they are not remembered that well. That doesn't mean you should never play new methods. But, you should be aware of your ethical obligations when misunderstandings arise.

Yeah ok, new methods, but this doesn't seem the case here...