[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Herman De Wael]

Alain Gottcheiner wrote:
> David Burn a écrit :
>> Similarly, if you "work out partner's intention" at the bridge table, you do
>> so at least in part on the basis of agreements (implicit and explicit) that
>> your partnership has. These must be explained to the opponents. So says the
>> Law, so say John Probst and Grattan Endicott, and so say I.
>>   
> Partner makes a bid that's unknown to me. I can see at least four 
> possible meanings, and can't decide. I tell my opponents : "I don't 
> know". I assign to each possible meaning a suit. I pick a card from my 
> hand. It happens to be a club, so I assume partner showed such-and-such 
> pattern and such-and-such strength. I happen to be right. David, Grattan 
> and John tell me I used our implicit agreements. Am I allowed to feel 
> uneasy ?
> 
> (whether I'm allowed to use an external randomizer is another question)
> 
> NB : don't say it can't happen, I know a player who did it at least 
> twice. In one of those occurrences he was playing with me. No, no UI, 
> there were screens.
> 
> Now suppress the randomizing mechanism. Isn't there at least some chance 
> that you'd guess correctly *without* resorting to implicit agreements ?
> 
> 
> 
> This is a live case : playing with an experienced TD, you hold Jxx - 
> 10xx - K10xx - Kxx.. LHO : 2S (weak), partner : double. you can't 
> remember which answers you use. You can't even remember having discussed 
> it either. BTW, you're right. According to your club's tendencies, 2NT 
> could be either natural or lebensohl ("mini-cue" is uncommon where you 
> live). You're a bit lucky, because you can bid 2NT. If partner takes it 
> as natural, that isn't bad (although you'd prefer to hold more than Jxx 
> in spades). If he bids 3C in response to your lebensohl, the right bid 
> is now 3D. And if he explains 2NT as natural, and bids 3C (1RF according 
> to your meta-agreements), the right bid is 3D, too. So you won't use UI.
> Partner alerts, bids 3C and you bid 3D, over which he passes. He took it 
> as lebensohl. 3D gets you a fair score (-50 vs -110, his double was 
> lightish).
> 
> - So we play lebensohl ?
> - I hadn't the foggiest idea, but I had to guess something, didn't I ?
> 
> Would you tell him they did something wrong ?
> 
> Another example : over your 1S, partner answers 1NT. You don't know 
> whether that's forcing or not (I computed that I use forcing with 
> exactly half my partners). Everyody at the table knows that, when you 
> explain "I don't know whether it's forcing", you'll decide it is, to 
> minimize possible damage. Of course your uncertainty is UI to partner, 
> who will have to raise your minor on 4 cards, but do you have to answer 
> "forcing" merely because you intend to treat it as such ? Or is "I don't 
> know, but I'll say forcing" a legal explanation ?
> 

Alain, you don't seem to understand my argument. When it turns out 
that a player has the same idea about the meaning of a certain call 
than his partner, it is up to him to prove that this is not due to 
some form of partnership understanding. (The director is to presume ...).

Now of course it is possible that the understanding was just a lucky 
guess. A player is allowed to say "We don't have any understanding". 
He is allowed to look into his hand and guess a meaning from that. But 
he'll have to convince the TD that that is what he has done.

I realize there are cases where this is in fact true, but in the vast 
majority of cases there is reason to believe that players know more 
than they are telling.

Alain, I know you, and I know you are a very ethical player. You seem 
to regard this thread as a personal attack, in which "never" means, 
"not even if Alain honestly says he doesn't know". That is not the 
meaning of "never" when I say: I think "no agreement" is never a 
correct and full answer. I realize that sometimes it is.
But most of the time it's a cop-out from pairs who don't realize that 
even when they haven't agreed anything, they still have a lot of 
partnership experience.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html