[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2011-September-22, 19:25, said:

Would they be more likely to reach game if they were not told that one defender held the majors? Yes.

WTP?

One problem is that they were not told that one defender held the majors.

There were given an explanation that expressed some doubt. At that point they had other options to remove the doubt. For example call the director. They chose to play on knowing that there had been an incomplete explanation. Perhaps therefore they need to take some responsibility for missing game.

Another problem is that one might argue there is no damage as they should have bid game any way.

[gordontd]

gombo121, on 2011-September-21, 05:51, said:

On the other hand you really can't argue that "No agreement" is better explanation than "I think it is for majors".

Of course it is. It's true and it's not misleading. I'd have a good shot at working out what's going on, when partner bids spades, with "no agreement", but much less chance when told "I think it is for majors".

[Cascade]

gordontd, on 2011-September-25, 12:02, said:

Of course it is. It's true and it's not misleading. I'd have a good shot at working out what's going on, when partner bids spades, with "no agreement", but much less chance when told "I think it is for majors".

You can insist on a proper explanation rather than accepting the speculation.

[gordontd]

Cascade, on 2011-September-25, 12:06, said:

You can insist on a proper explanation rather than accepting the speculation.

Which seems to support my point, that "No agreement" is a better explanation than "I think it is for majors".

[mrdct]

gombo121, on 2011-September-21, 05:51, said:

On the other hand you really can't argue that "No agreement" is better explanation than "I think it is for majors". The latter clearly translates into "we do not have explicit agreement or I don't remember it; on the basis of our common experience in similar situations, I judge it should be for majors", which in my opinion is absolutely appropriate.

I disagree.

The manner in which explanations of partnership agreements are disclosed is largely a matter for Regulatory Authorities, in this case I assume NZ Bridge, but I don't think there is too much variation around the principle that you should never inform your opponents as to how you are interpreting a bid if you're uncertain. Generally in this situation you should say "no agreement", "undiscussed" or "I can't remember" but you should also add pertainent information about analogous agreements; for example it would be appropriate to say, "directly over a strong club we play double is majors but I can't remember if we agreed to do the same thing after a negative 1♦ response".

It could be argued that any words that come after "I think" should be discounted or disregarded, but in this case I believe the poor explanation did disuade North from an otherwise obvious 4♠ bid so I'm adjusting to 4♠=.

[Cascade]

mrdct, on 2011-September-26, 03:30, said:

I disagree.

The manner in which explanations of partnership agreements are disclosed is largely a matter for Regulatory Authorities, in this case I assume NZ Bridge, but I don't think there is too much variation around the principle that you should never inform your opponents as to how you are interpreting a bid if you're uncertain. Generally in this situation you should say "no agreement", "undiscussed" or "I can't remember" but you should also add pertainent information about analogous agreements; for example it would be appropriate to say, "directly over a strong club we play double is majors but I can't remember if we agreed to do the same thing after a negative 1♦ response".

It could be argued that any words that come after "I think" should be discounted or disregarded, but in this case I believe the poor explanation did disuade North from an otherwise obvious 4♠ bid so I'm adjusting to 4♠=.

I really think there is a strong case that one should be protecting oneself here after an uncertain explanation. It is easy to call the director and get the explainer to go away from the table while the bidder explains the agreement or lack thereof. You are entitled to a proper explanation and it is clear that the explainer is not certain of the agreement. I can't think of any reason not to try and clear up the agreement.

Its not entirely clear what "I think ..." adds to the explanation other than uncertainty. The uncertainty could be based on no clear agreement or it could be based on a forgotten agreement.

For what its worth my practice when we don't have a clear agreement is to say something like:

"We have never discussed this particular auction however 'without the double ...' or 'in a similar auction ...' or 'if she wasn't a passed hand ...' the bid would mean ..." sometimes I am also able to add additional qualifiers or options. Sometimes I can tell what the bid means from my own hand but I don't think I need to disclose that however I need to be on clear grounds that we don't in fact have an agreement if I am not going to disclose that
to the opponents. Even an implicit agreement needs to be disclosed when asked.

[bluejak]

Cascade, on 2011-September-25, 11:46, said:

One problem is that they were not told that one defender held the majors.

There were given an explanation that expressed some doubt. At that point they had other options to remove the doubt. For example call the director. They chose to play on knowing that there had been an incomplete explanation. Perhaps therefore they need to take some responsibility for missing game.

Another problem is that one might argue there is no damage as they should have bid game any way.

No, but it is extremely easy to sort these problems out on paper [ok, computer screen] but you need more sympathy when dealing with real problems. If an opponent says to you "I think it shows the majors" do you play the bid for the majors? Do you call the TD every time? Do you know how partner is taking it? It is a very unhelpful answer [despite the fact that players who usually give such an answer are trying to be helpful] and not to adjust because the offending side have put the non-offenders in a difficult position which have caused them trouble seems unfair, unjust and illegal.

They should have bid game anyway? Whoopee! Now there's a terrible Law, which fortunately is not in the Law book. Anytime the non-offenders make a mistake we shall give the offenders a good board. How on earth do you justify that?

If players do not follow the Laws we do not want this terrible method of rewarding them and penalising the non-offending side.

[barmar]

FYI, this month's Bridge World editorial is all about messy situations that arise because of problems with the normal methods of full disclosure.

[nigel_k]

In New Zealand at least, there are lots of players who always sound uncertain when giving explanations. They start with 'I think' or 'It should be' even when the agreement is well established. It is possible to try to protect yourself by asking 'what's your agreement?' but these people will generally not understand the question, repeat what they just said, and think you are a bit odd or maybe you didn't hear them the first time.