[Cyberyeti]

I've been roped in to a panel dealing with the conduct of a player. I just need to check my understanding on part of this (EBU where relevant)

What are your responsibilities around full disclosure ?

If you play a legal but slightly odd treatment, which is correctly described as "♥ + ♠" on your convention card (where there is not really space for more) in a situation where most people would assume 5-5 and you actually play it 4-4 or more, should you make it clear at the end of the auction without being asked before opps lead ? More particularly if partner fails to alert it and the director is called at the end of the auction, when explaining, is it a requirement on you to go the extra mile ?

[paulg]

Good luck on the panel, such cases can often be a nightmare because the bridge laws and EBU regulations are never as watertight as you'd like them to be.

Chapter Two of the EBU Blue Book on System Disclosure is probably your best guide and Law 40 may help

Quote

2 A 1
[...]

All partnership understandings, including implicit understandings and practices that arise from partnership experience, must be fully disclosed to opponents.

2 A 2
These regulations are secondary to the duty of full disclosure (Law 40A). A player who is uncertain whether the regulations require an alert, but believes it would help the opponents, should alert. At the end of the auction the declaring side may offer additional information, even if not requested. In particular, they are encouraged to draw attention to any calls whose meaning the defending side have not asked about but may not expect.

2A1 is very clear and uses must.

2A2 is also very clear but does not use must, which may suggest to some that it is not a requirement. However it is clearly subservient to the previous clause and is encouraging the players to follow the laws of the game by giving examples in circumstances where they may be unclear about their obligations and that they may do so without fear of being improper.

In response to your questions, I think that declarer should explain that '4-4 or better' is their agreement at the end of the auction. When the director is called, I think you must explain that '4-4 or better' is your agreement.

[Cyberyeti]

 paulg, on 2024-March-28, 09:22, said:

In response to your questions, I think that declarer should explain that '4-4 or better' is their agreement at the end of the auction. When the director is called, I think you must explain that '4-4 or better' is your agreement.

This was basically my reading of the laws, but I thought I'd sense check it here

The situation was a cue bid over a 2+ 1♣ where the pair had just converted from natural to this. 4-4 would be much more normal over a strong club, but many in club bridge play the same over a 2+ as they do over a 3 or 4 card club so it would be assumed to be 5-5.

[mycroft]

My question (related to conduct, not ruling) is "what do they say (or not) and when?" And "when asked why the distributional information wasn't mentioned in the above, what was said and how?" Plus a big side order of "Are we talking to lamford's Chimp here?"

Because ruling is a "what" situation, but conduct is a "why" situation.

As I have said frequently here, the Laws are written in many places to avoid having to judge intent when giving a ruling. In fact, the concept of the "Probst cheat" works well, in a "I'm sure *you* didn't think this way, but someone who was trying to ... would do the same thing you did, wouldn't they? So the Laws require an adjustment on the action, no matter the intent."

Well, C&E doesn't work that way. C&E is for when the behaviour is bad enough, or repeated enough, or we have reason to believe there was intent to deceive(*), that a penalty over and above rectification is being considered.

I mean, I frequently forgot to mention, playing Precision that NV, my "11-15" 1♦ opener could be 16 balanced until partner rebid 1NT. I felt bad about it, and apologized, and would ask if they wanted the director. I don't think there was intent to gain through the omission (I don't think there is anything to gain through that omission, frankly, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise).

I think the people playing "4-5+ Flannery", not mentioning that, aren't trying to gain through the omission; most of them learned it that way and don't realize that 4-6 is unexpected enough to mention. I think the one I mentioned in my "rules apply to thee, not to me" thread last year (2♣-2♦ "majors ask, (doesn't guarantee values)") is another one of those - C players, playing Precision for a short time, probably weren't taught right, and nobody's mentioned it before.

The case you mention could also be one of those. Or we could hear that they play it 4-4 or better, and the director has explained that this is uncommon enough to be something they should mention when asked, and they "keep not remembering". Perhaps with a complaint to the director that "but it's obvious" or "so they have to tell us the minimum length of their two-suited overcalls to 1NT, and we get rulings in our favour if it doesn't match our agreements?" or a bar conversation afterwards? Or it could be very A pair that have a fair number of these "unusual agreements" that they are similarly casual about. Or...

I don't think you can conduct a one-off. But I also don't think the "[player] exception" applies - keep with the sketchy behaviour until called on it. Then stop that one, but keep doing all the other ones... It's not a one-off if "sure, we all miss the odd disclosure once in a while. But it's odd that whenever I hear about you 'missing', it's always a 'miss' where allowing the opponents to assume the normal case is distinctly to your benefit." or "sure, we all miss the odd disclosure once in a while. But not everybody also always 'has left their CC in the car', or has a history of only having to think about a problem when partner needs to wake up, or plays some cards on defence very casually and others very deliberately, or..."

That's why you're on the conduct committee and not me - and get all the information (that I *really* don't want to know!)


(*) even by omission. Review my opinions about "psychic Ogust" - and know they are not universally shared (but I bet they're not upset when it works).

[Cyberyeti]

The conduct hearing is against one of the "NOS" who took umbrage at the lack of disclosure, hence why I asked about the lack of disclosure to see if he had a case.

[mycroft]

Ah, that's different.

I would assume, and I would think that everyone in my areas would assume, that "Michaels" would be at least 5-4, and "mean to be" 5-5 minimum. To the point where, if I believed that the pair were not mentioning "4-4 or better" for reasons that were anything less than "oh, really? That's unusual?", I'd be mentioning it to the director. And if, having called the director to the table - even if I didn't think they were trying anything on - and I got a response like "they said they had hearts and spades, and they had it. The fact that it was 4-4 shouldn't be surprising to you, or at least if you care, you need to ask" - I could see there being cause for a conduct hearing (were I the kind of person who would do that, and were the director easily personally affronted).

And if the opponents did anything that could be seen even peripherally as gloating when they picked off our suit, even better!

There are so many situations where "if they show 4, we could play in that suit. If they show 5, we don't try" in defences that "it might only be one card, but 4-4 is, yes, fundamentally different from even 5-4, never mind 'expect 5-5'."

Having said that, 2+ 1C defences are allowed to be more interesting than 3+, and I think the people who play it should be prepared to ask more careful questions. I might not phrase it quite that bluntly at the table, though (see above).

[pilowsky]

A quirk of the language that is not well understood by most english speakers is that the term full disclosure in the game of Bridge is a euphemism for:
"as little disclosure as one can make and reasonably expect to get away with if challenged, and anyway the penalties are very mild and melt away like the winter snow in spring."

[Cyberyeti]

 mycroft, on 2024-March-28, 18:33, said:

Ah, that's different.

I would assume, and I would think that everyone in my areas would assume, that "Michaels" would be at least 5-4, and "mean to be" 5-5 minimum. To the point where, if I believed that the pair were not mentioning "4-4 or better" for reasons that were anything less than "oh, really? That's unusual?", I'd be mentioning it to the director. And if, having called the director to the table - even if I didn't think they were trying anything on - and I got a response like "they said they had hearts and spades, and they had it. The fact that it was 4-4 shouldn't be surprising to you, or at least if you care, you need to ask" - I could see there being cause for a conduct hearing (were I the kind of person who would do that, and were the director easily personally affronted).

And if the opponents did anything that could be seen even peripherally as gloating when they picked off our suit, even better!

There are so many situations where "if they show 4, we could play in that suit. If they show 5, we don't try" in defences that "it might only be one card, but 4-4 is, yes, fundamentally different from even 5-4, never mind 'expect 5-5'."

Having said that, 2+ 1C defences are allowed to be more interesting than 3+, and I think the people who play it should be prepared to ask more careful questions. I might not phrase it quite that bluntly at the table, though (see above).

The "OS" did what the EBU ask them to do and put ♥ + ♠ on the card not Michaels. There is not room on the card to put 4-4+. The point is the lack of disclosure subsequently. The ruling itself is IMO quite simple, but we're not asked to deal with that, just the conduct.

[paulg]

 Cyberyeti, on 2024-March-29, 03:51, said:

The point is the lack of disclosure subsequently. The ruling itself is IMO quite simple, but we're not asked to deal with that, just the conduct.

As the NOS, I'd be very frustrated if the Director had not slapped them four times, saying "DON'T DO IT AGAIN".

Perhaps a good thing I am not on the panel.

[Cyberyeti]

Quote

As the NOS, I'd be very frustrated if the Director had not slapped them four times, saying "DON'T DO IT AGAIN".

Perhaps a good thing I am not on the panel.

The director was playing at the table (online but F2F alerting), so it was somebody without director software privileges although a qualified director that dealt with it.

[axman]

 Cyberyeti, on 2024-March-28, 08:36, said:

I've been roped in to a panel dealing with the conduct of a player. I just need to check my understanding on part of this (EBU where relevant)

What are your responsibilities around full disclosure ?

on your convention card (where there is not really space for more)

The SO has a duty to supply to supply adequate space.

[Cyberyeti]

 axman, on 2024-March-29, 06:21, said:

The SO has a duty to supply to supply adequate space.

Defence to short 1♣/♦ has room for X = penalties;2♣=♥&♠;2♦=6♥ or 6♠:2M =5M & 4+m; 1N=6m or 5m and 4M
so there is a fair amount of space, but they use it

[pescetom]

 Cyberyeti, on 2024-March-29, 06:47, said:

Defence to short 1♣/♦ has room for X = penalties;2♣=♥&♠;2♦=6♥ or 6♠:2M =5M & 4+m; 1N=6m or 5m and 4M
so there is a fair amount of space, but they use it

If you look closely there are at least 9 unneccesary characters in that string, so I'm not convinced the space argument holds water.

[mycroft]

So, conveniently for them, everything else has length information, except the "majors" bid that is more often 4=4 than 5=5. And since the other two suiters are 5-4 at least, it is reasonable to assume that the majors bid is also 5-4 at least.

Agree with pescetom - X: PEN, 2♣: 4+♥ & 4+♠; 2♦: one 6cM;... is the same space.(*)

But we're not considering that pair.

I stand by my statement that if, when the director was called, it was my fault that "well, if they don't have the shape on the card, and you care, you have to ask", my response might involve some of the "when did you learn to play direct? I mean, I know it was today..." attitude. I would hope not, because that's both ineffective in getting the ruling reviewed and might lead to a conduct hearing, but it might.

I certainly am more likely to make a "it sure is convenient that the only bid without length information posted is the one that is best for you if we don't know the lengths..." comment. Shouldn't, and that also might lead to conduct hearing, but I know I've said similar things in the past (and felt bad about it after, usually. There are times, though, where I'm *right*...usually with those players they take it with "good grace").

(*) Again, not relevant to the issue, but do we get supplementary sheets on this card? Or space in the "bids players should take note of" section going to waste? [mycroft goes off grumbling about the "lots of space to tell people 'things they need to know' on the new ACBL card" comment he got from the committee. Two sided, people, we can learn to keep our scorecard separately.]

[blackshoe]

 Cyberyeti, on 2024-March-29, 03:51, said:

The "OS" did what the EBU ask them to do and put ♥ + ♠ on the card not Michaels. There is not room on the card to put 4-4+. The point is the lack of disclosure subsequently. The ruling itself is IMO quite simple, but we're not asked to deal with that, just the conduct.

If there's not room for something on the card, you make a supplementary page and put it there. "There's no room" is a BS excuse.

[pescetom]

Having made a righteous criticism, I feel doubly bound to come clean and admit that one of my own cards has the same problem of not specifying length of Michaels. The reason is that I have different length agreements with different partners playing otherwise the same system and the RA system only currently holds 6 cards per player (and has no import mechanism). But I guess that is an excuse too: will try to find space for a per-partner list on the common card.

[jillybean]

Back when I was using Convention Cards, I found there was never enough room for details.
I would add *ASK!! in bold beside anything that warranted further disclosure.

Like a few things, the Kiwi's do a better job with CC's.

https://www.nzbridge...ystem-card.html

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2024-March-29, 10:45, said:

Back when I was using Convention Cards, I found there was never enough room for details.
I would add *ASK!! in bold beside anything that warranted further disclosure.

Like a few things, the Kiwi's do a better job with CC's.

https://www.nzbridge...ystem-card.html

I guess I could add "ASK!!" or even just give in and play 5-5: its mainly me that wants 5-4 but can't convince them all.

I think the NZ card is quite good, although I worry about the SA default "4C Gerber most times" I like the practical choice to use Adobe forms or Excel. Although I like the Italian approach of having the cards in cloud (with no need to print) even more: it's just that it has some teething problems, like the six card limit and not showing up automatically on opponent's phone.

[hrothgar]

I am surprised that this is rising to the level of a Conduct and Ethics Hearing

I agree that this should be disclosed
Without evidence of deliberate deceit or repeated offenses (after a discussion), it feels strange to waste time on this

[jillybean]

4♣ is a contentious topic in NZ
I see the Italians have moved past the fear of cell phones being used to cheat in the game, they have other methods.
All this initiative sounds great and I look forward to seeing how bridge is
being played in the next 10 years.