[barmar]

hirowla, on 2011-November-30, 17:57, said:

I know what you're saying. We do play Unusual NT but not in that sequence (at least we've never discussed it). If he thought I'd "work it out", he was wrong! I just though that instead of saying "it might be the Unusual NT, it might be a strong NT hand, or it might be something else" - I said we had no agreement. Maybe I should have said "we play Unusual NT but it's never come up in this sequence and we've never discussed it in this sequence" and left it at that, other then saying we have no agreement if pushed further (which I was). I was actually getting annoyed when pushed to tell a minimum point count of a sequence I've made clear we have no agreement - I should have said "between 0 and 28 points" (given there was a weak NT opening!). BTW, our convention card does mention Unusual NT on there (and yes the card was present and available!).

So what could I have said to give the relevant information?

How could it be a strong NT hand? He passed as dealer!

I think it's appropriate to mention that you play Unusual NT in other situations, but you don't have an explicit agreement about this sequence. On the other hand, if it turns out that he DIDN'T have a two-suiter, the opponents are likely to complain that this explanation strongly suggested something and was misleading.

Sometimes, you can't win.

[hirowla]

barmar, on 2011-November-30, 20:03, said:

How could it be a strong NT hand? He passed as dealer!

I think it's appropriate to mention that you play Unusual NT in other situations, but you don't have an explicit agreement about this sequence. On the other hand, if it turns out that he DIDN'T have a two-suiter, the opponents are likely to complain that this explanation strongly suggested something and was misleading.

Sometimes, you can't win.

I think I quoted the bidding wrong - he didn't pass first time through (that bid was his 1st bid).

[bluejak]

BunnyGo, on 2011-November-30, 03:51, said:

Do the opponents have the right to know if you play unusual no trump in similar situations? This seems to fall under the category of implicit agreement.

Yes, certainly.

pran, on 2011-November-30, 11:02, said:

I have been trained for an assumption (which IMHO conforms with the following clause in Law 75C: the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that the agreement is according to the cards held by the player in question unless proven otherwise.

Where on earth does this come from? "Prove"? That is not the way TDs decide things, which is done on the preponderance of evidence.

Why should an agreement be as the cards the player holds? Players get agreements wrong, so the cards are evidence but not proof.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-December-02, 02:41, said:

Where on earth does this come from? "Prove"? That is not the way TDs decide things, which is done on the preponderance of evidence.

Why should an agreement be as the cards the player holds? Players get agreements wrong, so the cards are evidence but not proof.

Splitting hairs, are we?

Fair enough that cards are evidence (not proof) of agreements.
And according to Law 75C: This evidence from the cards decides the agreement unless TD is given more convincing evidence to the contrary.

[blackshoe]

hirowla, on 2011-November-30, 18:20, said:

Isn't that just about mistaken explanations? What I meant was the law that says agreements are what should be said and not bids?

Sorry, you're right. See Laws 40B6, 40C1, and 40C2.

[axman]

pran, on 2011-December-02, 06:13, said:

Splitting hairs, are we?

Fair enough that cards are evidence (not proof) of agreements.
And according to Law 75C: This evidence from the cards decides the agreement unless TD is given more convincing evidence to the contrary.

The cards <sic>, if you will, are evidence of judgment, or lack thereof.

[pran]

axman, on 2011-December-02, 09:39, said:

The cards <sic>, if you will, are evidence of judgment, or lack thereof.

Unless there is (convincing) evidence to the contrary the cards are evidence of what the player expected to be understood by his partner as partnership understanding.

The judgmenmt is about how partner would understand the call. Thus the cards are evidence of partnership understanding, and absent other (convincing) evidence TD should rule accordingly.

[StevenG]

The cards are evidence that the player's bidding is consistent with his holding, and what he thinks his methods are. But surely that's true for anyone who isn't psyching, down to the dumbest palooka.

The cards are not evidence that the player's partner has any reason to understand the bid.

[axman]

pran, on 2011-December-02, 10:18, said:

Unless there is (convincing) evidence to the contrary the cards are evidence of what the player expected to be understood by his partner as partnership understanding.

The judgmenmt is about how partner would understand the call. Thus the cards are evidence of partnership understanding, and absent other (convincing) evidence TD should rule accordingly.

I am reminded of a recent article by Paul Cronin recounting a story about a player that responded to 1C- he bypassed two 5 card pointy suits to raise to 2C on a stiff Q. The consequence of which being some intriguing declarer play when the opponents won the contract.

Certainly he bid it due to his judgment that partner and opponents [raised to 3C] would believe he held 4+ pieces rather than one

His cards reflect his judgment given his agreements [and table presence].

[jh51]

This whole discussion reminds me of something that occurred at a club game several months ago. After the bidding had concluded, partner made her lead face down, and I asked dummy about what one of his partner's bids. In giving his explanation, he remarked that he was not sure but he thought .... I then turned to declarer to ask if his partner's explanation did in fact reflect the partnership's agreements. He got all indignent that I was only entitled to their agreements and not what he held in his hand. And that I would have to ask his partner about their agreements. I pointed out that I was not asking what he had in his hand and his partner was unsure of their agreement on the bid in question. When he refused to answer my question, I called the director.

I seem to recall that the director supported my position. After all, I was simply trying to confirm whether I had received a mistaken explanation, which seemed likely based upon dummy's uncertainty.

[pran]

jh51, on 2011-December-02, 15:21, said:

This whole discussion reminds me of something that occurred at a club game several months ago. After the bidding had concluded, partner made her lead face down, and I asked dummy about what one of his partner's bids. In giving his explanation, he remarked that he was not sure but he thought .... I then turned to declarer to ask if his partner's explanation did in fact reflect the partnership's agreements. He got all indignent that I was only entitled to their agreements and not what he held in his hand. And that I would have to ask his partner about their agreements. I pointed out that I was not asking what he had in his hand and his partner was unsure of their agreement on the bid in question. When he refused to answer my question, I called the director.

I seem to recall that the director supported my position. After all, I was simply trying to confirm whether I had received a mistaken explanation, which seemed likely based upon dummy's uncertainty.

After the closing pass both presumed dummy and presumed declarer has an unconditional duty to immediately, without being asked by opponents, call the Director and inform opponents if in their opinion partner has given any incorrect explanation so far. This includes incorrect explanation given during the clarification period as well. (Law 20F5{b}).

The Director should indeed support your position, and he should also consider a PP on declarer.

[pran]

StevenG, on 2011-December-02, 10:37, said:

The cards are evidence that the player's bidding is consistent with his holding, and what he thinks his methods are. But surely that's true for anyone who isn't psyching, down to the dumbest palooka.

The cards are not evidence that the player's partner has any reason to understand the bid.

Why would a player use a particular call (except when psyching) unless he has some expectation that his partner will understand the call as it is intended? Such expectation is evidence of a partnership understanding, and this makes the actual card holding itself evidence of a partnership understanding. (Not neccessarily discussed, but still an understanding.)

[pran]

axman, on 2011-December-02, 10:58, said:

I am reminded of a recent article by Paul Cronin recounting a story about a player that responded to 1C- he bypassed two 5 card pointy suits to raise to 2C on a stiff Q. The consequence of which being some intriguing declarer play when the opponents won the contract.

Certainly he bid it due to his judgment that partner and opponents [raised to 3C] would believe he held 4+ pieces rather than one

His cards reflect his judgment given his agreements [and table presence].

That sounds to me like a perfect example of a psyche? (Provided of course that partner was unaware of the possibilty that he would bid like that with his stiff Q.)

A sound psyche is (I believe) always the result of some judgment.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-December-02, 17:45, said:

Why would a player use a particular call (except when psyching) unless he has some expectation that his partner will understand the call as it is intended? Such expectation is evidence of a partnership understanding, and this makes the actual card holding itself evidence of a partnership understanding. (Not neccessarily discussed, but still an understanding.)

Because he's confused? Because he's been playing for three weeks and doesn't know his system? Because he's been playing for forty years and still doesn't know his system?

I'd be wanting to know what the basis of this implicit understanding might be. If it turns out to be something like "well, I know he plays it that way with others" or "we read it in The Bridge World, and while we didn't agree to use it, we both thought it was pretty cool" or something similar, well and good. If it turns out to be "I don't know, I just pulled it out of the air" well, that's evidence, too.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2011-December-02, 17:45, said:

Why would a player use a particular call (except when psyching) unless he has some expectation that his partner will understand the call as it is intended? Such expectation is evidence of a partnership understanding, and this makes the actual card holding itself evidence of a partnership understanding. (Not neccessarily discussed, but still an understanding.)

I sometimes wonder whether you actually ever play this game, pran.

Of course a person who makes a call will usually do so with a belief partner will understand it, but only usually, and your suggestions that it proves an understanding are beyond belief. Of course it does not. He might have got the understanding wrong: there might be no understanding whatever: he might be deliberately misleading.

No, I am not splitting hairs: your statement that the cards prove an agreement is just absolutely and completely wrong.

[mjj29]

pran, on 2011-December-02, 17:45, said:

Why would a player use a particular call (except when psyching) unless he has some expectation that his partner will understand the call as it is intended? Such expectation is evidence of a partnership understanding, and this makes the actual card holding itself evidence of a partnership understanding. (Not neccessarily discussed, but still an understanding.)

Because of General Bridge Knowledge he hopes his partner has? Because it's an undicussed cue bid of the opponents suit and while his partner might not understand what he meant, it's surely forcing and hopefully partner will use his next bid to show something useful? Because he's realised that none of the discussed bids show his hand and he has to pick one of the undiscussed bids and hope it works - because of the the discussed bids will be bad scores anyway? Because he's just sat down against me and I've opened 2H showing a weak hand with spades or a weak hand with the minors or a game forcing hand with the minors and it's two board rounds so they didn't bother agreeing a defence to our system? (list not necessarily exhaustive)

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-December-03, 03:15, said:

I sometimes wonder whether you actually ever play this game, pran.

Of course a person who makes a call will usually do so with a belief partner will understand it, but only usually, and your suggestions that it proves an understanding are beyond belief. Of course it does not. He might have got the understanding wrong: there might be no understanding whatever: he might be deliberately misleading.

No, I am not splitting hairs: your statement that the cards prove an agreement is just absolutely and completely wrong.

I do wonder why you so often include personalities (sometimes directly insulting) instead of concentrating on the matter.

A player's cards held are evidence as much as anything else: They prove what the player had in view when selecting his call.

Why isn't that evidence on his (assumed) agreements?

Of course this evidence must be weighted with other available evidence, but one thing is sure: I shall never give much weight to any self-serving statement like "no agreement" when a player has selected a call that turns out to be fortunate. To me such statements are "evidence" of an attempt to hide a CPU.

(If he considers his call to be part of "general bridge knowledge" then opponent's question obviously reveals that it is not GBK to him, in which case the only polite attitude is to explain this "knowledge")

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-December-03, 04:34, said:

They prove may suggest what the player had in view when selecting his call.

FYP.

Seriously, Sven. Yes, the hand is evidence. However, your adamant insistence that it proves something is just flat wrong. Give it up.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-03, 09:27, said:

FYP.

Seriously, Sven. Yes, the hand is evidence. However, your adamant insistence that it proves something is just flat wrong. Give it up.

I don't care (in this forum), but are you seriouosly implying that the player had not seen his cards when he selected his call, and coonsequently that the actual cards he held do not prove what he had seen?

[aguahombre]

Hey, guys. You can't even agree on what "prove" means. Maybe it is time to just give up the whole thread.