[Codo]

So if you think you have an agreement and your partner does not think so, you have an agreement?

Is this written down in the rules anywhere?

[gnasher]

Codo, on Sep 1 2010, 09:18 AM, said:

So if you think you have an agreement and your partner does not think so, you have an agreement?

Is this written down in the rules anywhere?

Law 21B1b said:

The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

[Codo]

So the TD who judged:

Quote

Basis of TD's Ruling
Having spoken to East and West, he was "convinced" that they did not have an agreement about the meaning of 2♣.

was wrong- and you know better?

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on Sep 1 2010, 06:51 AM, said:

Codo, on Sep 1 2010, 09:18 AM, said:

So if you think you have an agreement and your partner does not think so, you have an agreement?

Is this written down in the rules anywhere?

Law 21B1b said:

The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

um, no. That the law requires the TD to presume mistaken explanation does not mean they have an agreement. It means there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the explanation given was correct.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on Sep 1 2010, 03:15 PM, said:

um, no. That the law requires the TD to presume mistaken explanation does not mean they have an agreement. It means there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the explanation given was correct.

Yes, I know - I too can read English.

If you look at the post by Gerry, to which Codo's post was a reply, you will see why Law 21B is relevant, and provides an answer to the point that Codo was making.

[blackshoe]

My point was that it is not the case that Law 21B says a pair have an agreement when they disagree as to what that agreement is.

Those who are familiar with the laws may roll their eyes and think "everybody knows that!", but in fact, everybody doesn't. We try here to help people understand the laws as they are, and we try not to let them believe something that isn't true. Even if it seems trivial to the more experienced.

[Pict]

I imagined that this was a post about fielding.

We are in the EBU (?) where fielding 'misbids' (whatever they are) is a transgression.

I am amazed to not see any discussion of this topic.

Maybe I have misunderstood, but I will await the DBurn and JAll summaries with a lot of interest.

[gnasher]

Codo, on Sep 1 2010, 01:14 PM, said:

So the TD  who judged:

Quote

Basis of TD's Ruling
Having spoken to East and West, he was "convinced" that they did not have an agreement about the meaning of 2♣.

was wrong- and you know better?

As I understand it, the TD found that:
- They had an agreement to play inverted raises in some sequences
- They had no agreement about whether that included this sequence
- As a result of this incomplete agreement, one of them thought that the raise was inverted and one did not.

The opponents are entitled to know about this agreement, even though it is incomplete. That is, they're not entitled to know that there's a misunderstanding going on, but they are entitled to know that the partnership has an agreement that may make this rase forcing.

Having said that, the EBU regulations (Section 5B) don't necessarily say that. It tells us to alert a bid if we don't know whether it's alertable but we're going to bid as though it is, but doesn't say what we should do if we plan to treat it as not alertable.

[jallerton]

Cyberyeti, on Aug 28 2010, 06:51 PM, said:

I would also ask E what he thought 2♥ shows. IMO this shows extra values and a GF opposite an 11 count which I don't think he necessarily has, particularly when partner has failed to alert his inverted raise and may well have values. Wouldn't 3♣ show the 5th club and 11 or so points after the inverted raise from E's point of view (but a lot less from W's) ? Not sure what W does over 3♣, possibly depends on what other raises were available initially.

East said that 2♥ was showing a good hand and asking for a stop. He said that he knew 2♣ had not been interpreted as inverted because partner had passed a forcing bid.

Pict said:

I imagined that this was a post about fielding.

We are in the EBU (?) where fielding 'misbids' (whatever they are) is a transgression.

I am amazed to not see any discussion of this topic.

The TD should only adjust for a fielded misbid or psyche if there is sufficient evidence of an unauthorised, undisclosed agreement. I don't which call you consider to be "fielding", but you should appreciate that East is entitled to draw inferences from the auction. When there is no possible hand consistent with all of West's actions to date then the only logical conclusion is that at least one of West's calls or plays is not as East first believed.

jdonn said:

West passed the 2♣ bid, it is 100% that partner forgot about inverted raises or didn't think they were on here.

I agree with Bluejak that because of the theoretical possibility of partner having psyched, it is clearly not 100% that partner forgot about inverted raises or didn't think they were on here. But how much less than 100% will depend on the partnership experience. Imagine that I am East playing with screens.

Scenario 1. I am playing with a brand new partner. In our short system discussioin, we agree to play inverted raises without further discussion. On an early board I elect to bid 2♣ after 1♣-(1♥) hoping that partner will take it as forcing. When partner actually passes, I will become 99.99% certain that we are not on the same wavelength and, frankly, there is no logical alternative to basing my subsequent bids on this conclusion.

Scenario 2. I have been playing with this partner regularly for the last ten years. I know we play inverted raises in this sequence and the sequence 1♣-(1suit)-2♣ has come up dozens of times before. When partner actually passes, now I shall consider partner having psyched the 1♣ opening or having "taken a view" on a subminimum opener a significant possibility.

In the actual case. there were no screens so East had UI, hence:

Scenario 1. East has UI, but there is no logical alternative to assuming that partner is not on the same wavelength about the meaning of 2♣. Hence East is perfectly at liberty to bid 2♥ or anything else that he thinks might wake partner up.

Scenario 2. East has UI, but now he should base his subequent bidding on the other logical possibility of partner having a suspect 1♣ opening.

[Pict]

Excellent summary from JAllerton.

I happen to regard the supposed severe extra constraints of Law 73 as unneccesary, and otherwise misguided.

However, I have seen both dburn and jallerton toy with Law 73 more than once - more than toying for dburn.

I'd still like to understand where they stand on not taking advantage of UI in this case.

[FrancesHinden]

gnasher, on Aug 29 2010, 08:06 PM, said:

dburn, on Aug 29 2010, 12:34 AM, said:

Unlikely - the hand occurred this year in Brighton. I was part of the AC with Jeffrey and Mike Ash

Ah yes - it looks familiar because Jeffrey told me about it at Brighton.

There was a similar hand in one of the appeals booklets from a few years ago.
In that one, the auction was

P p 1D P
2D P P ?

and the player in the passout seat protected them into game.

This auction is obviously different because (i) a 3rd seat 1D opener is much much much more suspect than a second seat one and (ii) it is reasonably common to play inverted raises by a passed hand but to play them as non-forcing,

[lamford]

I am coming to this thread a bit late. I agree with the two possible scenarios indicated by jallerton, but I think that one has to assume that partner has psyched, unless it is overwhelmingly likely that he has not. What "overwhelmingly" means in terms of percentage is up to the TD or AC to decide, I guess.

If West had alerted 2C, described it as forcing, and then passed, I bet you East would have shrugged and passed over 2H, but again he would be using UI. This time he must assume that partner has forgotten the methods, as it is the UI that confirms partner has psyched, rather than just the pass. This is a little different to partner making a 1NT overcall and then passing Stayman, but even then the possibility that partner thinks it is weak and non-forcing, which I know to be some players' methods, must not be discounted.

I am intrigued to know the decision of the eminent AC.

[jallerton]

lamford, on Sep 15 2010, 01:41 PM, said:

I am coming to this thread a bit late. I agree with the two possible scenarios indicated by jallerton, but I think that one has to assume that partner has psyched, unless it is overwhelmingly likely that he has not. What "overwhelmingly" means in terms of percentage is up to the TD or AC to decide, I guess.

This is where different laws and regulations can lead to different conclusions.

The UI might suggest that a player is obliged to act as you say, but the Orange Book regulations on psyching suggest that you should never assume that partner has psyched unless nothing else makes sense.

[jallerton]

The AC found this to be a difficult case as there were a few issues to consider.

1. Unauthorised information

East has UI. As I mentioned earlier, without the UI, there are two logical possibilities from East's point of view: either partner is not on the same wavelength, or he has psyched his 1♣ opening.

It seemed to us that if screens were in use, East would take an action (such as 2♥ or redouble) which caters for both possibilities and hence he is perfectly entitled to do the same thing here (or, to put it another way, there is no logical alternative to taking such an action).

2. Misinformation - was there an infraction?

The AC took up PeterE's suggestion and asked the TD to explain why he had ruled there to be an infraction. He reiterated that he felt N/S ought to be entitled to know about the "no agreement" but could not explain why this meant E/W ought to alert. The TD kindly lent us his printout of the Orange Book.

One sad AC member knew the relevant Orange Book references and asked the Chairman to consider paragraphs 5B5 and 5B10:

EBU Orange Book said:

5 B 5 If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that there is no agreement that the call falls within an alertable or announceable category.

EBU Orange Book said:

5 B 10 A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player’s partner’s actions are also consistent with that agreement.

Had West subsequently acted on the basis that 2♣ was forcing, them according to 5B10, he would have been obliged to alert it. However, as West was plainly interpreting the 2♣ bid as non-forcing, a corollary of OB 5B10 is that he was under no obligation to alert the call.

Hence the AC concluded that if there was no agreement about the meaning of 2♣ then:

the failure to alert was not an infraction; and

if there was no infraction then the table result should stand.

3 What was the real E/W agreement?

The TD was "convinced" that E/W had no agreement about 2♣ but was he right to be so convinced?

The AC asked East and West whether this auction had ever come up before, to which they replied "no" (perhaps the TD had already asked the same question to explain his finding of "no agreement").

However, the AC reflected that:

(i) East/West had been playing together for several years [if the players had not been known to the AC, then this is certainly something the AC should have asked about]; hence

(ii) East and West must have played thousands of boards together; hence

(iii) notwithstanding the reports of East and West, the not unusual sequence of 1♣-(1suit)-2♣ must have come up several times before for this pair, in all probability.

(iv) if the sequence really was undiscussed, would East really have risked a 2♣ bid when he had an attractive less ambiguous call (2♥) available?

It was therefore determined that E/W probably did have an agreement. In accordance with Law 75C, the AC ruled on the basis that the agreement had been misexplained, i.e. that 2♣ was forcing.

Whilst we believed that North would now be inclined to pass out 2♣, we were happy to leave the 20% weighting of -460 as even given the explanation of “forcing” North might have protected anyway (after all, from his point of view, Opener might have psyched - he has just passed a forcing bid!).

Maybe if we had not spent quite so long discussing the principles, we might have spent more time discussing the weighting, but as it was we left the TD's weighted adjustment to stand, but with different reasoning.

[lamford]

jallerton, on Sep 18 2010, 04:10 PM, said:

The UI might suggest that a player is obliged to act as you say, but the Orange Book regulations on psyching suggest that you should never assume that partner has psyched unless nothing else makes sense.

When they conflict, which one takes priority? I would have thought The Laws of Bridge should.

[Pict]

Perhaps, as I suggested earlier, we have had some absolutist posts about Law 73 - 'can't take any advantage'.

But it seems in the real world of TDs and ACs Law 73 is strictly deemed unworkable?

[jallerton]

lamford, on Sep 29 2010, 04:15 PM, said:

jallerton, on Sep 18 2010, 04:10 PM, said:

The UI might suggest that a player is obliged to act as you say, but the Orange Book regulations on psyching suggest that you should never assume that partner has psyched unless nothing else makes sense.

When they conflict, which one takes priority? I would have thought The Laws of Bridge should.

Well the Orange Book psyching regulations are based on the EBU's interpretation of Law 40. Which takes priority out of Law 40 and Laws 73/16?

[lamford]

jallerton, on Sep 29 2010, 05:50 PM, said:

Well the Orange Book psyching regulations are based on the EBU's interpretation of Law 40. Which takes priority out of Law 40 and Laws 73/16?

A complex question. If East passes over the double of 2C, he will certainly be avoiding take advantage of the UI. Also, he "knows" really that partner has not psyched, from the UI, and he knows that passing is likely to get a bad result. In this example, by concluding his partner has psyched, East is not really breaching Law 40, because he is not gaining an advantage by so concluding.

So, in answer to your question, the one he follows is the one that he thinks is least favourable to him - at least that would be my approach.

Let us say that partner opens 1H and you respond 1NT which is forcing. Partner does not alert and they protect in the passout seat. You know that is very unlikely that partner has psyched, but here I think you have to assume he has. In short I think 73C is absolute, and "carefully avoid" a very clear instruction.

[bluejak]

Pict, on Sep 29 2010, 09:19 PM, said:

But it seems in the real world of TDs and ACs Law 73 is strictly deemed unworkable?

Why?

[Pict]

bluejak, on Sep 29 2010, 08:15 PM, said:

Pict, on Sep 29 2010, 09:19 PM, said:

But it seems in the real world of TDs and ACs Law 73 is strictly deemed unworkable?

Why?

When East bid 2C and there was no alert, he immediately had UI that his bid had been misunderstood.

When East bid 2H, without any extra values that I can see, rather than pass, he rescued the situation for his side, in seeming contravention of Law 73.

It appears from the discussion that many posters believe it possible to argue away Law 73.

1. Because West's pass gave AI of the misunderstanding (but we are often told that subsequent AI does not 'trump' UI. I've been told this myself in this Forum)

2. There was no agreement, because East and West had a different idea of their system. But what has this to do with Law 73 - which applies to the responsibilities of an individual player in receipt of UI.

So all I was saying is that for this AC, or at least a majority of them, Law 73 could be argued away, despite the absolute way it is written.

This leaves me with a great uncertainty as a player. With UI and AI, can I prefer the injunction to play to win, to the injunction to avoid taking advantage of UI, or can I not . I'd just like to know.