[blml] De Whale

[Herman De Wael]

Tim West-Meads wrote:
> Herman wrote:
> 
>> do you really believe a player is going to put all his eggs in one 
>> basket by bidding 4H (either on a singleton or a 7-card suit) if he 
>> believes it's a true 50/50 toss of the coin? 
> 
> But it's not a 50/50 toss of the coin.  Assuming the bid is undiscussed 
> and equally likely to be either by inference I expect partner to have a 
> good chance of working out which by looking at his hand.  There are is 
> also the possibility that if I splinter my LHO will double and save 
> partner a guess.  Of course an LHO with 7+ hearts might decide not to 
> double when informed that the bid is undiscussed.
> 
>> No, that is a case that I don't believe will come up.
> 
> It does.  Don't forget that the 4H bidder may be unaware of the 
> ambiguity (believing that everybody/nobody plays 4H as a splinter) but 
> that his partner doesn't know to which camp 4H bidder belongs.
> 

Aha, but in that case it is not "undiscussed", it is merely "not 
talked of". I realize that this seems like a strange statement, but 
what I mean is that the meaning one player ascribes to it is fixed, 
even if not known to his partner. We are then again out of the scope 
of our discussion. In a case like this "either splinter or natural" is 
simply a misstatement. It is splinter (even if partner is genuinely 
unaware of the bidders misconceptions of globality).

>> Rather, the bidder has some idea about this going to be understood. I 
>> want to know what that idea was, and my AC will investigate fully, 
>> and judge on the evidence. That's their job, as you say.
> 
> What's wrong with the idea that the odds favour partner getting it right 
> despite the complete lack of agreement?
> 

Because there are no such things as odds - only clues. And those clues 
need to be disclosed. Yes, you are correct that if there are no clues, 
your explanation "undiscussed" is authorized and complete. But I want 
to stress that I find those circumstances extremely rare. Even among 
the examples you have tried to come up with, there are very few in 
which "undiscussed" will be accepted by the director at the end.

>> It's all good and well you guys giving counter-examples. Some of 
>> those examples are correct, others are less likely to happen in real 
>> life. But those are only counter-examples. You have not touched upon 
>> the majority of cases. In which the TD WILL rule against a pair that 
>> hides behind "no agreement".
> 
> But Herman, the point is that the players should hide *nothing*.  They 
> shouldn't either the possibilities or the ambiguities.
> 
>> I am trying to get people to tell more about their agreements - even 
>> to the point of explaining guesses. I want them to "bend over 
>> backwards" in being helpful to their opponents, because that is how I 
>> believe bridge should be played.
> 
> Herman - I have no problem with people explaining their guesses.  It is 
> when they start pretending to have an agreement and don't explain the 
> options that I have an issue.
> 
>  
>> Even if you manage to convince the TD that you really have no 
>> agreement, is it really worth the hassle of a TD call and ruling? 
> 
> I have never actually had a TD call in these circumstances.  Maybe it's 
> because the truth often sounds convincing but when I start saying "Not 
> actually discussed but it's probably either A or B because...etc.." I 
> might get the occasional nudge for being boringly detailed but never a 
> complaint that I haven't put them fully in the picture.
> 
>> And 
>> are you really happy about getting a good score because you guessed 
>> correctly but left your opponents to guess also - and they guessed 
>> wrongly so you get an overtrick? 
> 
> Yes.  Often I don't bother guessing what partner holds and just bid the 
> cards in front of me.  Sometimes I guess because my holding makes it 
> more likely B than A or vice versa.  Opps may guess wrong because their 
> hands don't provide any clues - that's life.
> 
>> Why not simply tell a bit more?
> 
> Because the only "more" I could tell would be related to my hand.  
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> 
> 


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be