[blml] Réf. : why no convention card?

[Matthias Berghaus]

Herman De Wael schrieb:
> Matthias Berghaus wrote:
>   
>> What "entitles" you to answer 
>> with a guess 
>>     
>
> My opponents are entitled to know what the system is, and the best I 
> can do is guess at what that system is.

Come again? The best you can do is know your system, or have a correct 
CC, or have the TD send you away and let partner explain if the TD deems 
that the sensible thing to do. Guessing is a distant 44th or 
thereabouts. Even "I have forgotten, but it can only be A or B" is 
better than guessing.

>  Why should I not do my utmost 
> in trying to accomodate them. If I have guessed correctly, and the 
> director rules that there was an agreement after all, then I have 
> misinformed my opponents. it strikes me as extemely odd that you would 
> _forbid_ me to explain what my partner's bid (probably) means.
>   

I _want_ to forbid nothing. The laws are clear on this. You have to 
explain the system as agreed, not as partner seems to remember it.

> Really, this baffles me beyond belief.
>
>   
>> (while at the same time carefully hiding this from your 
>> opponents, to whom you present a facade of confidence)? 
>>     
>
> As I've repeated over and over again, there is absolutely no 
> requirement for me to inform my opponents about the doubts that are in 
> my mind. If my attitude misleads them into thinking that I am quite 
> confident about my system, then that is their problem. Read L73E. I 
> cannot imagine that does not also extend to the manner in which I 
> explain my system. I am not even misleading, I am simply "avoiding 
> giving information by making ... in unvarying tempo and manner".
>
>   
>> This is a cheap 
>> charade at best, and a flagrant violation at worst. 
>>     
>
> Very harsh words - please give me the law reference saying which law I 
> am breaking.
>   

75A. Your agreements are not "fully and freely available" to your opponents.

>   
>> How about a slam 
>> investigation: you know that your partnership holds more than 33 points 
>> combined. You bid RKCB and get the answer 4/1. Hm. You hold AK of 
>> trumps, so he cannot have 4. He cannot have 1 either, as you are not 
>> missing that many HCP. So you tell them your agreement is 3/0, yes?
>>     
>
> No, you don't. Since you know it's 4/1, that's what you tell them. 
> I've never said otherwise.
>   

That so? Herman, if you only tell them the straight system, what then is 
this discussion about? If the system is "sorry, didn`t talk about it, 
but the backgound is such and such", why not tell them so? And I would 
not dream of telling them 3/0. I may tell them that something is wrong 
(in a social game, or behind screens), but otherwise I tell them 4/1 and 
let the TD handle it if there is a problem.

>   
>> You 
>> purposely keep the opponents in the dark that partner has forgotten the 
>> system (and you know about that).
>>     
>
> No, they are not in the dark, since they don't know how many aces I 
> have. But even if I did keep them in the dark, where does it say that 
> they are entitled to know that my partner has forgotten the system?
>   

They are not entitled to that. But if your hand comes down as dummy they 
see for themselves that a wheel has come off, and they do if partner`s 
hand is on the table. From there they are on their own again, as long as 
you can prove that your explanation is correct. If you can`t the TD will 
rule against you if there was damage and the case is closed. Easy, isn`t it?

>   
>> You keep information away from your 
>> opps. 
>>     
>
> Yes I do, I don't tell them I have AK of trumps either. That is 
> information they are not entitled to, so I have no qualms about 
> keeping that information from opponents. Where does it say I have to 
> tell them "He's shown 4/1 but since I hold AK of trumps he must be 
> mistaken"? Nowhere does it say that. And I repeat, I would not reply 
> "3/0" either.
>   

That is good to hear. Herman, I may do you wrong, but being only human I 
have to rely on my fallible memory. I distinctly remember reading  
something from you (I may be wrong, and I apologize if I misconstrued 
something) to the effect that you would sooner tell opps what you think 
partner means his bid as ( in other words: what partner thinks the 
agreement is) than what you remember the agreement to be (if you have 
cause to think that there is a difference). If this is the case (and I 
am pretty sure it did not get that totally wrong) you are in violation 
of  Law 75 as set out in the footnote to 75D2. It is essential to fully 
disclose when an agreement is implicit rather than explicit, and what 
room for different interpretation there is.
 To explain something as A when it is pretty likely that it is A, but 
just might be B, thereby giving the impression that you are on firm 
ground here is just plain wrong. That is not full disclosure.
If you have an explicit agreement that`s what you tell them (that much 
seems to be agreed upon between us).
If you have no explicit agreement you tell them what the implicit 
agreement may be made up of. If I get you right you would do the 
following: Say you had some disaster with a pick-up partner. He meant A, 
you assumed B. -1400, case closed. Now you play with him again, 
unexpectedly (some guy from out of town, never expected to see him 
again, let alone play Bridge with him). You did not agree on how to 
handle the situation after the first disaster, but now your hand tells 
you that it is (for example) B. You explain it as B, right? I would 
explain it as "last time he did that he had A, I thought he had B, we 
did not agree how to play it". You give UI, I don`t. There may be cases 
(especially when partner is convinced there is an explicit agreement) 
where it is the other way around, but the laws and TDs can handle that, 
can`t they?

>   
>> So if nothing bad happens (and no TD would have ruled against you 
>> anyway) everybody is happy, but if telling the truth about your 
>> agreements (and you are 100% sure it is 4/1, not 3/0) could get you in 
>> trouble because the opps misdefend or some such and the TD has to clear 
>> up the mess, you have lied about your agreements and probably get away 
>> with murder because nobody suspects you. You have described partner`s 
>> hand correctly, didn`t you?
>> Bah.
>>     
>
> Indeed Bah if I were to explain "3/0", but I'm not. I'm saying "4/1".
>
>   
>> In the Drury example you try to read partner`s response, guess at what 
>> pard thought your bid was, and then sell it as an "agreement"? Argh.
>>
>>     
>
> But that is exactly what the director is also going to do. He's going 
> to look at the hands, find out that partner has made a Drury call, and 
> that I've responded as if it were Drury. He's going to ask, why did 
> you not explain it as Drury, and I'm gonna say (no: you're gonna say) 
> "I was not 100% certain that we had agreed Drury". The Director is 
> going to rule it is an agreement. Argh.
>   

No Herman. I tell them: This may be natural or it may be Drury. We did 
not discuss this, but my partner often plays Drury. On the other hand he 
knows that I usually do not play Drury, but that I know quite well that 
he likes to play Drury.
I do not tell them what I think this bid is, but I tell them everything 
(except my cards) I can base my next bid on. I try to make sure they 
have the same background as I have. If I fail in this the TD will tell 
me so, so where is the problem?
If I forgot an agreement I tell them so, and tell them to look on the CC 
if it is listed there.



<snipped>
>> Who cares a damn "what makes it better for you"?? The question is what 
>> is inside the laws, and what is outside. 
>>     
>
> Yes indeed. And from among all the things that are inside the laws, I 
> am allowed to choose what is better for me. So tell me again where I 
> am going outside of the laws.
>   

In not disclosing every information you have.

>   
>> We do not play Bridge by making 
>> it better for ourselves. 
>>     
>
> Yes we do, we are trying to win the tournament.
>   

Which is beside the point. The point is that you try to evade 
controversy by telling them what you think the bid means, not what you 
think it should mean by agreement or -absent an explicit agreement - 
what your implicit agreement encompasses. So if you guess right there is 
no problem, because nobody knows about your failure to disclose fully, 
if you guess wrong you gave MI. I give all available information at 
once, so (if I left nothing out) there is no MI. There may be some UI, 
but in most situations I will be able to choose my words careful enough 
to give no UI (It is not UI to partner that we do not, in fact, have an 
explicit agreement. If he thinks we have, and I have woken him up to 
this, this is of course UI. Whether this will demonstrably suggest any 
action over another is debatable. I think that in most cases it does 
not). If partner can`t handle the UI (which should not often be the 
case), too bad for me. TD gives AS. That`s life.
As a non-playing TD I occasionally have to fill in for a hand or two 
with some unknown partner. 1NT-p-2D. So I explain: we have not played 
together, most people here play this as transfer. Or, if playing with a 
beginner: You probably know better than I do what is taught in the 
beginner class. May be natural or transfer. (I have to look into 
beginners books again, I truly do not know. Shame, really)

>   
>> We play it by making sure opps learn about our 
>> agreements, 
>>     
>
> Which is exactly what I am trying to do! I'm not hiding behind "no 
> agreement", you are!
>   

Oh no. I have not ever used the expression "no agreement" here, nor do I 
do so at the table. If it is undiscussed I say so, but tell them 
everything relevant I know about the situation, which usually is a lot 
if I play in my club. My memory is somewhat peculiar in that I can 
remeber hands from 20 years ago, but I cannot go to the supermarket 
without first making a list of things to buy. So I remember lots of 
things people did against me and form some opinions about unexpected 
bids if I should happen to partner them, and I tell this to my opps, as 
I am obliged to do. Yes, there may be UI, maybe leading to a bad score 
for me, but there will never be MI as long as I properly disclose 
everything. This is what the laws tell me to do. I do not try to guess 
how I may be able to circumnavigate certain problems by telling only 
half of the story. As long as my memory serves me and my judgment what 
information is relevant is correct I will never give MI (sure, I am 
human, so I may err sometimes, but not on purpose). Occasionally I will 
create UI, that is true, but I am confident to keep that to a minimum, 
and the TD will protect my opps from that. I follow Law 75 A and C as 
much as I am able to. You, IMO, don`t.

<snipped>

>> This is 
>> not the Oscars, you know? 
>>     
>
> Isn't it? Smooth playing and bidding is not just allowed, it is even 
> encouraged.
>   

What does that have to do with not disclosing fully that an agreement is 
implicit at best?

>   
>> What is the problem with explaining your 
>> agreement, or if there is none the background against which you see this 
>> bid, giving opps all pertinent information while wording it in a way 
>> that partner has no useable UI? 
>>     
>
> "we have agreed nothing, but here in this club everyone plays 2Cl as 
> Drury after a third hand opening". What is so pertinent about that 
> sentence which is not included in the statement "Drury"?
>   

Only that you are basing your answer on an implicit agreement. If truly 
everyone plays Drury there is no UI either, is there?