[Vampyr]

Recently I played in a match. In the first half of the match I played against a new partnership, who had few agreements. Naturally some of their agreements would have been implicit ones, like things that were common in their circle of players, or at their club, or with partners they had in common.

So. RHO bids 1NT in the sandwich position . Lefty alerts and says "I don't know, but it could be the other two suits". Before the opening lead we ask LHO to leave the room while we ask RHO what his understanding of the agreement was. He had assumed that they were playing the standard meaning of a strong NT; certainly the correct assumption if they had not discussed the situation. We never phoned and asked for a ruling because in the end it didn't matter.

But I have been thinking about it. If a player truly has no agreement but speculates, is the opponent misinformed if she chooses to assume that the speculation is their de facto agreement? One thing that complicates this question is that you do not know how strong a basis the player has for his guess. Please share your thoughts on the matter.

[GreenMan]

I would have supplied more information, e.g., "We didn't discuss this, but we have a partner in common, with whom we both play it as showing the other two suits." If I don't have that much of a basis then I won't volunteer information (but will describe any relevant considerations if asked, e.g., "Undiscussed, but 'takeout' is common at the club where we play").

This is why I ask new partners to agree to "undiscussed = natural when in any doubt."

[blackshoe]

I think that if an "explanation" is clearly speculating, as it was here, then if the other side also speculates, whichever way they go, they do so at their own risk.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-11, 22:08, said:

I think that if an "explanation" is clearly speculating, as it was here, then if the other side also speculates, whichever way they go, they do so at their own risk.

That seems pretty harsh to the other side -- they are fu cked whatever they do.

Also as I mentioned above, the opponents may have a very good reason for their guess. Or not, but I have no way of knowing.

[Vampyr]

 GreenMan, on 2014-November-11, 20:56, said:

I would have supplied more information, e.g., "We didn't discuss this, but we have a partner in common, with whom we both play it as showing the other two suits." If I don't have that much of a basis then I won't volunteer information (but will describe any relevant considerations if asked, e.g., "Undiscussed, but 'takeout' is common at the club where we play").

This is why I ask new partners to agree to "undiscussed = natural when in any doubt."

OK, but that is not what happened here, so the other side have to deal with it somehow.

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2014-November-11, 22:32, said:

That seems pretty harsh to the other side -- they are fu cked whatever they do.

Also as I mentioned above, the opponents may have a very good reason for their guess. Or not, but I have no way of knowing.

If they have a very good reason, they should say so.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-11, 22:47, said:

If they have a very good reason, they should say so.

Maybe so. I doubt they would have done that, and I still don't know how good a reason he had. This was an inter-club match, and I have never played at their club or knowingly played against the club's members.

These posts about what the explaining side should do are pointless because they didn't do it. I am concerned about what their opponents should do with the situation with which they are faced.

[blackshoe]

It's tough when there's no director right there. I suppose if you think the explanation is inadequate you should call for a ruling. If you're not sure, call for one just to be on the safe side.

[gnasher]

 Vampyr, on 2014-November-11, 22:55, said:

I am concerned about what their opponents should do with the situation with which they are faced.

They should have an agreement about how to treat an undiscussed bid, and an agreement about whether to treat speculative explanations as meaning "undiscussed" or not.

[gordontd]

 Vampyr, on 2014-November-11, 20:22, said:

He had assumed that they were playing the standard meaning of a strong NT; certainly the correct assumption if they had not discussed the situation.

I don't see that it would necessarily be the right assumption if you hadn't discussed it. This is one of those situations that, if they occur with an unknown partner, I usually really do have no idea what they intend, often even after looking at my hand.

[Vampyr]

 gordontd, on 2014-November-12, 02:41, said:

I don't see that it would necessarily be the right assumption if you hadn't discussed it. This is one of those situations that, if they occur with an unknown partner, I usually really do have no idea what they intend, often even after looking at my hand.

But have I been misinformed?

[gordontd]

 Vampyr, on 2014-November-12, 04:42, said:

But have I been misinformed?

LHO's description sounds closer to the truth to me than RHO's assumption.

[Vampyr]

 gordontd, on 2014-November-12, 04:55, said:

LHO's description sounds closer to the truth to me than RHO's assumption.

It was in fact a strong NT, but the general question is am I entitled to rely on the description I was given.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2014-November-12, 02:19, said:

They should have an agreement about how to treat an undiscussed bid, and an agreement about whether to treat speculative explanations as meaning "undiscussed" or not.

I think that is an unfair burden on any partnership. There is enough work forming agreements over things like a 1H opening fert, without having to have an agreement over an "undiscussed" but alerted 1H opening bid.

[pran]

As I just wrote in another thread:

In the balance of interests I find it far more important to protect NOS than to protect the side that failed to give a correct and precise description of a particular Call, whether the reason for such failure is "no agreement", "undiscussed", "forgotten agreement" or whatever.

So if NOS (in the Director's opinion) has been damaged by uncertainty so created I consider it just fair (for both sides) to rectify such damage by adjusting the result.

[NickRW]

 pran, on 2014-November-12, 06:44, said:

As I just wrote in another thread:

In the balance of interests I find it far more important to protect NOS than to protect the side that failed to give a correct and precise description of a particular Call, whether the reason for such failure is "no agreement", "undiscussed", "forgotten agreement" or whatever.

So if NOS (in the Director's opinion) has been damaged by uncertainty so created I consider it just fair (for both sides) to rectify such damage by adjusting the result.

While I don't disagree with the sentiments expressed here, what basis in law do you have for determining that the supposedly offending side is, in fact, offending. They did their best to explain. They can't make up knowledge of agreements that they don't have. They did correctly describe their explanation as speculation.

Indeed, I've been told at various times NOT to alert things and then say "I am not sure but I think it is..." or "I am taking it as" because it creates UI for partner. It seems that to me, if you take your point of view, the "offending" side is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

[blackshoe]

 NickRW, on 2014-November-12, 08:14, said:

Indeed, I've been told at various times NOT to alert things and then say "I am not sure but I think it is..." or "I am taking it as" because it creates UI for partner. It seems that to me, if you take your point of view, the "offending" side is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

IIRC, Vampyr said something similar upthread, but she was referring to the non-offending side. One could argue we should automatically resolve this dilemma in favor of the NOS, and as I understand it that was in fact how it was resolved in practice thirty years ago. I think today it would be better for the TD to investigate a little more deeply into what the OS knows — not assumes, but knows, whether from mutual experience, knowledge of partner's tendencies, or whatever. This may improve future situations, at least with these players, as the investigation itself should point out to players what things they need to disclose.

[Vampyr]

 NickRW, on 2014-November-12, 08:14, said:

Indeed, I've been told at various times NOT to alert things and then say "I am not sure but I think it is..." or "I am taking it as" because it creates UI for partner.

If you don't know, but there is a possibility that the bid is alertable, you must alert. Explaining is a separate issue.

[pran]

 NickRW, on 2014-November-12, 08:14, said:

While I don't disagree with the sentiments expressed here, what basis in law do you have for determining that the supposedly offending side is, in fact, offending. They did their best to explain. They can't make up knowledge of agreements that they don't have. They did correctly describe their explanation as speculation.

Indeed, I've been told at various times NOT to alert things and then say "I am not sure but I think it is..." or "I am taking it as" because it creates UI for partner. It seems that to me, if you take your point of view, the "offending" side is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

When there is an apparently incomplete explanation of a call then the side giving this "explanation" is by definition offending in that irregularity.

[barmar]

The law says you have to disclose any explicit or implicit agreements. How much more complete can you get than saying that you don't have any explicit agreements, but X could be an implicit agreement? It seems like he's really trying to comply with that law.