[blml] Réf. : why no convention card?

[Matthias Berghaus]

I snipped a lot here. If something got too much truncated the blame is 
on me.

> What if I don't have one? <a CC>
>   

Well, anyone playing without a CC deserves what he gets (and yes, I have 
done so myself on occasion, but I expect the TD to rule against me).

..........
>> Even "I have forgotten, but it can only be A or B" is 
>> better than guessing.
>>
>>     
>
> No it's not. My opponents are entitled to know it it is A or B.
>   
So they are. If my answer is not enough the TD should send me away (and 
instruct the opps to explain their next bid as: if it is A....)

.........
>   
>> 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.
>>
>>     
>
> Ehhh, no. The director will rule as if your partner knows _the_ 
> system, so you had better explain that same thing.
>   

Well, if no CC is present (and the thread title suggests as much) the TD 
will so rule (in most cases. Sometimes partner`s idea will be so queer 
that the TD will have no doubt, but this is a rare occurence). So what? 
I knew I could have a problem when I sat down to play without a CC, 
didn`t I?

........
>   
>> 75A. Your agreements are not "fully and freely available" to your opponents.
>>
>>     
>
> But my uncertainty is not part of my agreements!!!!!!!!!
>   

No, but the fact that this bid is open to a different interpretation 
than the one you have given is part of "special information conveyed 
through partnership agreement or partnership experience", especially 
what that different information may be. Whether you are in doubt 
yourself is indeed entirely up to you.

........

>> 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? 
>>     
>
> Indeed, but very many of our friends here seem to be saying "sorry, 
> didn't talk about it", without the reference to the background. You 
> are very correct in adding that background, so that the opponents can 
> draw the same conclusion as you did. But my point is that if you tell 
> them the background, and they draw a conclusion from it, and that 
> conclusion is not the same as the one you drew from it, then you are 
> still in a MI situation.

Hello? I am in no way responsible for the conclusions my opps draw from 
my explanations if I presented them in a factual way without suggesting 
something. If I did my explanations right they have no one to blame but 
themselves.
"Sorry, undiscussed" is indeed often (very often, in fact) an incomplete 
explanation.

>  So to me, only the sentence "sorry, didn`t 
> talk about it, but the backgound is such and such, which leads me to 
> believe it's AA" is a full explanation. And my second point being that 
> I am not obliged to add "we didn't talk about it" leads me to say that 
> it's just as good replying "AA".
>   

I violently disagree that one should say anything beginning with "which 
leads me to believe" or words to that effect. I may offer my opps the 
perceived probabilities, but only on request and with a firm warning 
that some of it is speculation, and they will get the warning before the 
request. I may even (in the presence of the TD) send my partner for a 
coffee, but I will never tell them what I believe, or where that 
background leads me.

...............
>   
>>  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.
>>     
>
> The doubt has got nothing to do with the system. The system has been 
> fully disclosed. As to it being "wrong", that word is not in the 
> lawbook. I choose to decide what's right and wrong in the way I play 
> bridge. I won't do anything illegal, but I'm not going by what you 
> believe to be right or wrong.
>   

I am going by what I believe the lawbook to say about right or wrong. I 
think you do the same, but with a different result. Perhaps we will not 
get closer than that.

I think my interpretation is the way the law is intended to work, and 
that is always the way I try to look at it. As far as I can make out 
everyone who helped form the current laws and whose opinion I have heard 
seems to agree with my viewpoint. If I got that wrong maybe these people 
will correct me.

>   
>> 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. 
>>     
>
> Not "may be", "is". Even an implicit agreement exists - it's not 
> something fictitious, it's real!
>   

Agreed. Put that down as "sloppy writing".

>   
>> 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.
>
> OK, if that is the truth. But is it, often? Isn't it more common that 
> we are playing in a semi-regular partnership, and that among the 
> meta-agreements there is something like "Herman is always right", 
> which means the likelihood of it now being B is higher? Should you not 
> disclose that meta-agreement? Which means that your explanation would 
> more likely be: "last time he did that he had A, I thought he had B, 
> we did not agree how to play it, but he's the docile one, so now he 
> most likely has B". And isn't that basically the same answer as my "B"?
>
>   
>> 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?
>>
>>     
>
> Yes, if it does turn out to be A again, you have another -1400, or a 
> TD ruling. We both have. Your explanation does not alter the fact that 
> the TD will rule against you. Because the opponents are entitled to 
> know if it is A or B, and if A and B are far enough apart, your 
> explanation will mean exactly the same to them ("B") as mine. And your 
> exonerating sentence will not sway the director into not ruling in 
> their favour.
>
> I am not pretending that you are doing something illegal in adding 
> that sentence. But I am saying that I do nothing illegal in not adding 
> it. It is information they are quite interested in, yes, but it is not 
> information they are entitled to.
>
>   
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> 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.
>>     
>
> This is not enough though. Because there is some pecking order in your 
> partnership that means you two DO know which of the two it is. When my 
> partners ask if I play Drury, my reply is so negative ("no, because I 
> want to be able to open a H1H") that they will not be playing Drury 
> with me. That is an extreme case, but the same is true in small 
> amounts in your partnership. Which does not preclude of course, that 
> situations might crop up where your answer "50/50 guess, truely" can 
> be right. But I believe that to be a minority. Because partner will 
> know it's 50/50 as well, and he won't bid it like that.
>
>   
>> 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.
>>
>>     
>
> The laws don't tell me I should disclose every information I have. I 
> should disclose everything known "by agreement". My doubts (and my 
> cards) are not part of that.
>
>   
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> 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. 
>>     
>
> Of course! that's the same thing isn't it?
> Every time I explain something (even when I am 99% certain), I explain 
> "what I think it means". So do you. We are never 100% certain. So we 
> cannot explain "what it should mean by agreement", we can only explain 
> "what we think the agreement is".
>
>   
>> 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. 
>>     
>
> But again you are calling MI failing to add your doubts. Which I tell 
> you is not MI. I onlyu leave out stuff that I think they are not 
> entitled to.
>
>   
>> 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)
>>
>>     
>
> OK with that. But this is a situation where their guess is indeed 
> better than yours. How often does that happen - and do you think it is 
> the situation this thread is based on? If you do, then we've been 
> really wasting our time here.
>
>   
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> 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. 
>>     
>
> Yeah, but that's not what some people do. And I want to teach then 
> that they should not do it.
>
>   
>> 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.
>>
>>     
>
> The read L75A and C again. I tell them everything that is included in 
> L75A and C. Doubts are not in there.
>
>   
>> <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?
>>
>>     
>
> My point is that there is full disclosure - the rest is poker.
>
>   
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> 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?
>>
>>
>>     
>
> No, there isn't. But then this is not a problem situation, is it?
>
>