[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-December-03, 09:45, said:

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?

No.

[barmar]

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

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

Because sometimes you improvise.

Today my partner had an auction that started 1♥ 1♠ 2♣. Partner's clubs were just AK. We do NOT have an agreement to rebid 2♣ on hands like this. His hand was 3=5=3=2 with 17 HCP, but he felt it had too many flaws to open 1NT or rebid 2NT (he didn't have diamonds stopped), and he also didn't think it appropriate for a 3-card raise. So he made up this rebid.

We ended up in a horrible 4♠ on a Moysian because when he showed delayed support for my suit I took him to be 3=5=1=4.

[pran]

barmar, on 2011-December-04, 20:08, said:

Because sometimes you improvise.

Today my partner had an auction that started 1♥ 1♠ 2♣. Partner's clubs were just AK. We do NOT have an agreement to rebid 2♣ on hands like this. His hand was 3=5=3=2 with 17 HCP, but he felt it had too many flaws to open 1NT or rebid 2NT (he didn't have diamonds stopped), and he also didn't think it appropriate for a 3-card raise. So he made up this rebid.

We ended up in a horrible 4♠ on a Moysian because when he showed delayed support for my suit I took him to be 3=5=1=4.

So I take it that NOS was not in any way "damaged"? Then what was the problem?

Recently in a teams match I had a case of misinformation which was revealed when dummy faced his cards. I told them to play it out and call me again if NOS felt damaged. They never called me so I just asked later about the outcome: "We cashed in 4000"!

[barmar]

pran, on 2011-December-05, 01:04, said:

So I take it that NOS was not in any way "damaged"? Then what was the problem?

No problem, I was giving an example of a player making a bid that doesn't match the partnership agreement.

I guess it was technically a psyche, since he did it intentionally.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2011-December-03, 09:45, said:

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?

Of course they do not prove he has an agreement or that he believes he has. Give it up.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-December-06, 02:48, said:

Of course they do not prove he has an agreement or that he believes he has. Give it up.

Yes, indeed I have to give up when you do not accept his cards as evidence, and even as proof of which cards he could see when he decided on his call.

If you had bothered to digest what I wrote earlier you would have realized that I didn't claim his cards to be evidence of agreements but proof on the hand on which he made a call.

So the question I ask in the relevant situations is "why did he select the call he actually made on these cards?"

Did he believe that he had an agreement according to which his call fits his cards?
Did he deliberately deviate from his agreements AKA psyche?
Or what?

IMHO such questions must be part of TD considerations when judging a situation.

And I am very reluctant to accept a player's self-serving statement that he has no agreement without other supporting evidence.

[mjj29]

pran, on 2011-December-06, 06:14, said:

Yes, indeed I have to give up when you do not accept his cards as evidence, and even as proof of which cards he could see when he decided on his call.

If you had bothered to digest what I wrote earlier you would have realized that I didn't claim his cards to be evidence of agreements but proof on the hand on which he made a call.

So the question I ask in the relevant situations is "why did he select the call he actually made on these cards?"

Did he believe that he had an agreement according to which his call fits his cards?
Did he deliberately deviate from his agreements AKA psyche?
Or what?

Or, he discovered that his agreements didn't cover this situation and had to make something up and hope. This happens surprisingly often.

pran, on 2011-December-06, 06:14, said:

IMHO such questions must be part of TD considerations when judging a situation.

And I am very reluctant to accept a player's self-serving statement that he has no agreement without other supporting evidence.

I'm unclear how you can have evidence of the _lack_ of an agreement?

[aguahombre]

mjj29, on 2011-December-06, 07:11, said:

I'm unclear how you can have evidence of the _lack_ of an agreement?

Really? I guess we define evidence and proof our own ways. To me, proof is derived from weighing evidence; but evidence is not proof. Any time we have a misunderstanding, or an explanation not consistent with the actual hand, there is evidence of the lack of agreement. This can be outweighed by other evidence (CC marked, statement that one person forgot, etc.) to arrive at a conclusion.

[pran]

mjj29, on 2011-December-06, 07:11, said:

Or, he discovered that his agreements didn't cover this situation and had to make something up and hope. This happens surprisingly often.

Sure, that is certainly an important possibility.

mjj29, on 2011-December-06, 07:11, said:

I'm unclear how you can have evidence of the _lack_ of an agreement?

The most obvious "evidence" of "no agreement" is of course the (self-serving) statement(s) from the partnership.

Partner's further calls can be evidence, conflicting or corroborating depending on whether or not he appears to having understood the disputed call the way it seems to having been intended.

Convention cards, system descriptions etc. are evidence from which TD may judge whether or not the particular situation is covered by agreements.

The actual cards held by the player making the disputed call is evidence that can be compared with documented agreements to see how well they fit such agreements.

TD should consider all such pieces of evidence to form his opinion on whether "no agreement" is a disclosure that satisfies Laws 20F and 75. He should be particularly alert on the possibility that the players within the partnership intuitively will understand each other in spite of lacking formal agreements. Remember that "implied understanding" is also "agreement" in this connection!

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-December-06, 06:14, said:

Yes, indeed I have to give up when you do not accept his cards as evidence, and even as proof of which cards he could see when he decided on his call.

If you had bothered to digest what I wrote earlier you would have realized that I didn't claim his cards to be evidence of agreements but proof on the hand on which he made a call.

Sorry, Sven, but that isn't what you said. You said

Quote

the agreement is according to the cards held by the player in question unless proven otherwise.

The emphasis was yours. So you did not in fact claim that his cards are evidence of what he could see in his hand, you claimed that they are evidence of an agreement. And perhaps they are. What they are not is "proof".

pran, on 2011-December-06, 06:14, said:

So the question I ask in the relevant situations is "why did he select the call he actually made on these cards?"

Did he believe that he had an agreement according to which his call fits his cards?
Did he deliberately deviate from his agreements AKA psyche?
Or what?

IMHO such questions must be part of TD considerations when judging a situation.

Fair enough, but...

pran, on 2011-December-06, 06:14, said:

And I am very reluctant to accept a player's self-serving statement that he has no agreement without other supporting evidence.

You might discount it somewhat, but you can't just toss it out with the trash.

It is extremely likely that any statement a player makes to the director will be self-serving. Will you toss them all? If so, then why bother to let him speak?

Perhaps we've gotten twisted around semantics here. I agree with pretty much everything you say in your last post, but I do not agree that a) self-serving statements should be disregarded unless corroborated* or b) that evidence gathered by the TD necessarily proves anything.

*I gather from things you've said in this thread and elsewhere that you do not consider agreement with a self-serving statement by the player's partner to be corroboration.

[pran]

Proper quotation does not lose the context.

What I have tried to express all the time is that if TD is unable to determine whether there is misexplanation or misbid then he should assume misexplanation, i.e. that the correct disclosure should match the hand on which the call was made.

And what I consider obvious is that "no agreement" is not a complete disclosure unless "lacking agreement" can be substantiated by other evidence. Especially if the auction continues in a fortunate manner for the offending side TD should suspect and investigate the possibility of an implied partnership understanding. "No agreement" should never be accepted on its own as a convenient excuse for concealing information from opponents.

[mjj29]

pran, on 2011-December-06, 17:09, said:

And what I consider obvious is that "no agreement" is not a complete disclosure unless "lacking agreement" can be substantiated by other evidence. Especially if the auction continues in a fortunate manner for the offending side TD should suspect and investigate the possibility of an implied partnership understanding. "No agreement" should never be accepted on its own as a convenient excuse for concealing information from opponents.

I'm still confused as to how you propose that lack of agreement be substantiated? I make a call, my partner says 'we have no agreement about this call' and when questioned afterwards I say when asked 'yes, we have no agreement about this call'. Now, you seem to be suggesting that if, having made such a call and avoided a bad score, unless we can prove we don't have an agreement, you will give us a bad score anyway. How am I meant to show we don't have an agreement? I can hardly show you system notes containing all the sequences we _haven't_ agreed! While I'm sure many people would like us to have agreed all possible sequences and remembered them all the time, it's just not the case in real life.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-December-06, 17:09, said:

Proper quotation does not lose the context.

What I have tried to express all the time is that if TD is unable to determine whether there is misexplanation or misbid then he should assume misexplanation,

Agreed.

pran, on 2011-December-06, 17:09, said:

i.e. that the correct disclosure should match the hand on which the call was made.

I disagree. The laws do not require us to make that determination, nor should we.

pran, on 2011-December-06, 17:09, said:

And what I consider obvious is that "no agreement" is not a complete disclosure unless "lacking agreement" can be substantiated by other evidence.

It is certainly incumbent on the TD to gather what evidence he can in such cases. It is also pretty certain, IME, that the player's statement will not be the only evidence available. It is a requirement of law that the director base his ruling on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence he has collected.

There is a difference between a ruling of "mistaken explanation" on the basis of evidence that they actually had an agreement, even if both members of the pair didn't think, so and a ruling of "mistaken explanation" on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to rule "mistaken call".

pran, on 2011-December-06, 17:09, said:

"No agreement" should never be accepted on its own as a convenient excuse for concealing information from opponents.

No TD should ever assume that a statement by a player, even a "self-serving" one, is "a convenient excuse for concealing information from opponents" unless he is prepared to bring charges of cheating against that player.

[Zelandakh]

@pran, let us say that partner deals at w/r and passes playing a light opening style and that RHO opens with a constructive weak 2 in diamonds. Our agreement in this position is for 2NT to be natural but I hold a very weak hand with clubs and hearts. For whatever reason I now get a crazy idea in my head that if I bid 2NT I can pass partner's 3C or 3H response while if partner bids 3D we have a 10 card heart fit so no problems. If they double us in 2NT I can just take-out later which may or may not end well. Partner actually holds close to a max with 4324 and bids 3C (Stayman) which I pass. 3CX becomes the final contract and is a top against their vulnerable game.

The opponents call you to the table. It is "obvious" to them that there is an agreement that the 2NT bid shows the lowest 2 suits. We insist that the agreement is natural and that I psyched. Are the cards in my hand proof of this undisclosed agreement? Partner's 3C response is certainly consistent with this and we can provide no evidence to the contrary other than my explaining the logic behind the bids. How are you going to rule here?

No agreement cases sometimes work similarly to the above. You do not know what to bid so you make a call that seems to cater to as many cases as possible to allow you to reach a playable spot. If you can cover your partner's possible hands then it does not really matter what cards you hold - since partner has no real idea of what you have they will probably be cautious anyway.

For completely unknown situations most players I have seen fall into 3 camps when faced with unknown bids - passers (pass most unknown bids), blasters (bid the most likely contract and hope) and crawlers (make the cheapest call that makes any sense). Given you know your partners tendencies better than the opponents do you are obviously better placed than them to understand what is likely to happen. Does this also represent a disclosable agreement for you?

When I play a natural system like Acol I probably make as many such undiscussed bids as anyone you have met. Sometimes partner sits there completely flumoxed for a while, sometimes a long while. Usually things work out, not because we had an agreement but because partner made a logical bid that catered to as many possibilities as they could. Sometimes they ask afterwards what they should do - often the answer is "it didn't matter", more usually it is "any natural bid". If I am playing with a "passer", typically with minimal agreements, then these hands become very difficult!

The given auction here is (1NT) - P - (2D) - 2NT. Some logical questions to ask here is whether the pair have any agreed defence to transfers in any other situations - transfer Walsh? Namyats? etc. What would X or 2H mean? What about a delayed X or 2NT? Are there any other unusual situations where 2NT is not natural - after a weak 2 perhaps? And above all, if 2NT was meant as non-natural why did the bidder think their partner would understand it?

I am also interested in the OP's assertion that they thought partner could not hold hearts. Why not? Is a natural strong NT not a possibility? This is the best evidence that I can see here that this bid could be worked out as some kind of 2-suiter. Otherwise the default (non-)agreement is surely natural under the "All undiscussed bids are natural" umbrella.

The bottom line is that saying "No agreement" does not mean "If you get a good score the TD should take it away". If the pair in question has agreements in place that cover this or related situations that they did not disclose then it should become evident when the TD makes their enquiries. You need all the evidence and if you are still 50-50 you decide for misinformation. You do not need something equivalent to the "burden of proof" from legal procedings in order to decide for misbid instead.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2012-January-05, 05:27, said:

The given auction here is (1NT) - P - (2D) - 2NT. Some logical questions to ask here is whether the pair have any agreed defence to transfers in any other situations - transfer Walsh? Namyats? etc. What would X or 2H mean? What about a delayed X or 2NT? Are there any other unusual situations where 2NT is not natural - after a weak 2 perhaps? And above all, if 2NT was meant as non-natural why did the bidder think their partner would understand it?

I am also interested in the OP's assertion that they thought partner could not hold hearts. Why not? Is a natural strong NT not a possibility? This is the best evidence that I can see here that this bid could be worked out as some kind of 2-suiter. Otherwise the default (non-)agreement is surely natural under the "All undiscussed bids are natural" umbrella.

No the given auction is not as you state, there's a pass on the front which means 2N is only a strong no trump if he pulled the initial pass by accident.

We had a situation where I think we ought to have asked more questions than we did.

Opps bid unopposed 1♥-1N-2♠ and on to 3N. Opening leader had ♠A8xxx and decided not to lead them letting 3N through when the 2♠ bidder only had 3.

If this is a systemic agreement, I feel we're entitled to know about it, if it's a deviation we're not.

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-January-05, 06:18, said:

No the given auction is not as you state, there's a pass on the front which means 2N is only a strong no trump if he pulled the initial pass by accident.

The OP has stated that the initial pass is incorrect and that partner was acting in 4th seat. Therefore it is perfectly possible for 2NT to be played as natural.