[blml] Réf. : why no convention card? Expanded version- sent the other one too early

[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"?

No, I don`t agree. If this meta-agreement exists it should definitely be 
part of the explanation, but it just is not the same.

>
>   
>> 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.

No,Herman,my explanation certainly does not amount to the same as your 
"B". The TD may still rule against me, that depends upon how satisfied 
he is with my explanation, but if I did my job well he will not rule 
against me. The opps are not entitled to know whether it is A or B, they 
are only entitled to every tiny little bit of information I can give 
them. If I cannot honestly tell them A or B, then they only get "may be 
A or B, and this is the complete background". They are only entitled to 
A or B if there is an agreement (explicit or implicit, but the operative 
word here is "agreement".

>
> 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.

75C

>
>   
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> 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. 

Not in my partnerships, no. I (and my partners) have to fight for every 
agreement, and we do. No pecking. Shouting maybe (away from the table), 
but no pecking. I have seen partnerships where your argument applies, so 
I do not reject it completely, but you should not reject the other part 
either.

> 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.

Sometimes he has no choice, but I agree with most of the text above. 
Still it is possible to disclose that.

......

>
> 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.

Indeed they are not. But your partnership experience is, and that covers 
more than your agreements. Even your "pecking order" is part of the 
partnership experience.

..................

> 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".

Why can`t we be 100% certain? Sure we can, and I often have been when it 
turned out that I was wrong. I even lost bets. But that is somewhat 
beside the point.

>
>   
>> 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.

So, in the end, we disagree what they are entitled to.
.......



>
> My point is that there is full disclosure - the rest is poker.
>

But at Poker you hide information.