[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-28, 08:14, said:

What is the basis of this likelihood that partner intended an alertable meaning? What is the basis of your "fair guess"? It's not as simple as you seem to think.

I don't imagine current disclosure law is simple. The law is unnecessarily sophisticated. Even when a strange partner overcalls 2♠ over an oppnents' 1♠, it's conceivabe that he intended his bid as natural. Playing with a long-term partner, you can be unsure whether you have an agreement about an unusual call. With the law as it is, it seems that you must just try to cope, as best you can.

I'm never certain of my agreements. I'm unsure of my practical legal obligations.. I don't know whether the procedure I suggested is correct. I accept that it's a time-wasting and convoluted palaver. I confess that I usually guess and live with possible MI consequences .

But, for more reticent players there seems to be much scope for concealment

As for other current anomalies, solutions are possible. Law simplification would mitigate common problems. It is natural that prevaricators resist such suggestions tooth and nail. For example, when asked about partner's call, if you;re unsure about its systemic meaning, then ...

• You must leave the table and partner must explain his intended meaning OR
• You must always make the best guess that you can, unprompted. AND
• Phrases like "Just Bridge" or "Common Bridge Knowledge and Experience" are treated as gratuitous profanity

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2012-April-28, 11:35, said:

I don't imagine current disclosure law is simple. The law is unnecessarily sophisticated.

Is it? Perhaps the lawmakers, having done their best to provide us with laws that cover the problems that have arisen over the years, don't see it that way. There are tradeoffs that have to be considered between simplicity, covering problems that have occurred, and keeping the game interesting.

nige1, on 2012-April-28, 11:35, said:

I'm never certain of my agreements. And I'm unsure what my legal obligations are. I suppose that I could follow the above convoluted procedure. I confess that I usually guess and live with possible MI consequences .

You legal obligation is to describe your agreements. If you can't remember what they are, you are obligated to disclose that. If you are uncertain whether you have one, you disclose that. If you have other possibly pertinent agreements, you disclose that. You do not disclose how you're taking partner's bid, what your "guess" is as to what he intended. I don't see what's "convoluted" about that.

Of course, if Bobby Wolfe gets his way, those who can't remember their agreements will probably do best to give up the game, since they will be penalized for every forget.

nige1, on 2012-April-28, 11:35, said:

As for other current anomalies, solutions are possible. Law simplification would mitigate common problems. It is natural that prevaricators resist such suggestions tooth and nail. For example, when asked about partner's call, if you;re unsure about its systemic meaning, then

This is not the place to discuss such things. Try the "Changing Laws" forum.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-28, 12:25, said:

You legal obligation is to describe your agreements. If you can't remember what they are, you are obligated to disclose that. If you are uncertain whether you have one, you disclose that. If you have other possibly pertinent agreements, you disclose that. You do not disclose how you're taking partner's bid, what your "guess" is as to what he intended. I don't see what's "convoluted" about that.

I'm not sure of my agreements, so must I go through that rigmarole, every time I'm asked? IMO it's not fair to opponents. It takes time to tell them about half-rememnbered discussions and tenuously related bidding sequences. They may find it hard to arrive at the tortuous chain of reasoning necessary to reveal the possible meanings of partner's call. It would be like laboriously listing the axioms of geometry when asked to explain the gist of Pythagoras Theorem. But more messy and chaotic .

IMO it would be better if the law enjoined players to start by answering the question proposed by Sven Pran "From partner's calls, what do you deduce about his hand (shape, strength, etc)?"

[barmar]

If this comes up often enough to be a real hassle (you say you're never sure), maybe you need to simplify your system so you can remember it better. Should we really fix the laws to accomodate players who overload their system and then can't follow the rules as a result?