[bluejak]

mgoetze, on 2010-December-17, 11:12, said:

And then you might be playing a BSC/Level 5/whatever system... then the TD demands that you change your methods, so you decide to change them into "we don't forget this", etc. ad nauseum

What right has the TD to do this? Under what Law? Or is this just one of the "I am the TD and do what I want" efforts?

[FrancesHinden]

There's another reason you might bid 3C on this hand: you have agreed with your partner to play "system on" when partner e.g. overcalls a weak 2 opener with 2NT, but you aren't certain if that applies in this sequence. Your system includes a 3NT bid to show 5-4 in the majors, and all of a sudden you aren't certain if that would apply here... b ut you are certain 3C will be conventional, so you feel safer bidding 3C then 3NT.

Has anyone asked 2nd seat why he bid 3C?

[mfa1010]

bluejak, on 2010-December-17, 12:28, said:

Maybe. But we are talking of following the Laws, not of something else. So, practical or not, you follow the Laws.

Now this is different from a bidding sequence that is so abstruse and unlikely that you make a call to allow for something because of the sequence: that is legal. But when it is because of your history of partner's actions then playing for it without disclosing it is illegal, and rightly so in a game where agreements must be disclosed.

This seems like a difficult distinction to make.

I would say that every partnership has a sort of border district of agreements that for different reasons are not so well established as the core system and where consequently there will be some doubt. Maybe it's a rare sequence. Maybe it hasn't come up at all since the agreement was made. Maybe someone once forgot. Maybe there is a solid general agreement but a pinch of uncertainty if it applies to the actual sequence in question. A lot of other reasons are also possible, and the point is that there is a continuous path from a solid agreement to pure guesswork/general knowledge.

It seems tough when one is ready to congratulate and another to execute for finding an ingenious way to handle a problem in practice when it happened to be possible to take free insurance in the bidding.

Is the solution that we are supposed to take a reservation in our explanations every single time we have the smallest quantum of doubt? I think it would not be helpful to the opponents to hear those reservations time and time again. Or are we supposed to take a reservation specifically when we are about to take a free insurance for a misunderstanding? I guess not.

I think this is a difficult area of the laws. In Denmark we don't have regulations about fielded misbids as far as I know.

[campboy]

WellSpyder, on 2010-December-17, 11:24, said:

It is certainly not unknown for my partner to say after a hand "yes, I thought that is what you were showing but I bid X rather than Y [another alternative bid] because then you would be able to bid Z if you really had [something else]." Is this really wrong?

That depends. If he did so because he himself wasn't sure of the agreement, or because you don't have an explicit agreement, then that's fine.

[Ant590]

I guess there is added complexity when a player only becomes aware that partner has misbid because of a holding in their own hand (e.g. partner opening with a strong bid later showing 1/4 keycards when I hold two). I'm presuming that continuing on the basis partner forgot 1430/3014 is legally, ethically and logically correct.

So next time partner gives a keycard response you might consider the possibility that again there is a discrepancy between 1430/3014, and it seems that this thread suggests that you need to alert you opponents to this. In the EBU I believe such an alert should be delayed until the end of the auction, before the opening lead.

Last time I alerted a bid and included a "partner previously forgot" clause In my explanation I was later accused in an appeal of coffee-housing. Great catch 22 there.

[pran]

Ant590, on 2010-December-18, 04:32, said:

I guess there is added complexity when a player only becomes aware that partner has misbid because of a holding in their own hand (e.g. partner opening with a strong bid later showing 1/4 keycards when I hold two). I'm presuming that continuing on the basis partner forgot 1430/3014 is legally, ethically and logically correct.

So next time partner gives a keycard response you might consider the possibility that again there is a discrepancy between 1430/3014, and it seems that this thread suggests that you need to alert you opponents to this. In the EBU I believe such an alert should be delayed until the end of the auction, before the opening lead.

Last time I alerted a bid and included a "partner previously forgot" clause In my explanation I was later accused in an appeal of coffee-housing. Great catch 22 there.

The way I know the laws on disclosure a player must disclose all relevant facts about the partnership agreemements/understandings, but nothing he just can tell from his own cards.

So if partner (according to agreements) has shown ♦Ace then that is what the player shall disclose even if he holds the ♦Ace among his own cards.

Of course, if partner tends to forget so frequently that his forgetfulness becomes part of your implicit partnership understanding . . . . . . .

[bluejak]

One swallow does not make a summer - old English proverb.

You do not build up partnership agreements based on a single occurrence. Over the years, people on RGB have suggested that if partner has psyched once, every time partner produces that precise sequence you have to alert and say "It could be a psyche". That is ridiculous and not required.

I play a highly complex system with my partner, Liz Commins, which she sometimes forgets, though not in any specific way I remember. After a bad board in Orlando, we were sitting together chatting, and we invented a new convention to cover that. Two days ago she used it - and I forgot. After she had finished chortling - that took some time - there is zero chance that I shall ever forget it again!

In effect, when partner forgets an agreement, most players think "Silly sod" and it does not affect them. But when he forgets a type of agreement two or three times in a few weeks, you now have a position where his parter will start to worry next time it comes up. Now they have an implicit agreement.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2010-December-18, 09:17, said:

One swallow does not make a summer - old English proverb.

Interesting. I thought it had its genesis in the swallows of San Juan Capistrano, in California. So I looked it up. I found a Quotations Page site that attributes the proverb to Aristotle, as do several other sites. I don't think he was English — or Californian. Guess I learned something.

Here's another quote, about bridge: "My wife made me join a bridge club. I jump off next Tuesday." — Rodney Dangerfield.

[mycroft]

I remember (vaguely) a relay system I thought about learning, where there was a bid explicitly for "the wheels have come off" that could be bid by relayer (you can't have that hand) or responder (I think/know I misbid earlier). I don't know what happens after that save "sauve qui peut", but it was actually part of the system.

I tend to prefer "he's not allowed to make that bid" in situations where it's true; I'm happy to tell them what he is allowed to do so they can guess as well as I can what has happened over there.

(having said that I broke system at least twice in a game last week and would have a third time had the call come round to me. The two times I did, it was wrong (but survivable, sorry partner); the one time I would have, it would have been right. I believe that explicit breaking system carries the same risks as psychics - if you get a bad score, you get 100% of the blame, no matter how idiotic your partner was afterward. If both pairs psych, then there's 200% of the blame to go around).