[blml] Is "no agreement" like a get-out-of-jail-free card? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> Jerry Fusselman:
> 
>> In the ACBL, though I have not played as often as I would like
>> recently, it seems that when a player says "no agreement," the
>> director is delighted, echos "no agreement!" as if his job is done,
>> and leaves.
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> Proof is rarely asked for.  Followups rarely occur.  It functions
>> like a get-out-of-jail-free card.  Do you think this hypothesis is
>> right?  If so, does anyone see this a weakness in how we rule the
>> game?
> 
> 2007 Law 85A1:
> 
> When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or
> regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as
> follows:
> In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the
> balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the
> weight of the evidence he is able to collect.
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> Some players have the mistaken belief that they need to disclose
> only their explicit agreements.  For those players some of their
> "Undiscussed" explanations are MI, since on those occasions they
> should be saying, "We have an implicit agreement that.....".
> 
> While a gullible TD who automatically rules "Undiscussed" is true
> has committed a director's error in applying Law 85A1, a cynical
> TD who automatically rules "Undiscussed" is false has committed a
> more damaging Law 85A1 director's error (in that the TD has deemed a
> player is a liar without bothering to weigh the evidence).
> 
> One such cynical TD made the remarkable suggestion that since he was
> automatically going to rule "Undiscussed" as MI, a player should
> therefore lie about the actual partnership's non-agreement, and
> instead pretend that the partnership did have an agreement.  The
> rationale was that if the pretended agreement corresponded to the
> cynical TD's erroneous ruling, then the partnership would get a
> better score by its ch**t*ng.
> 

We really need to define our circumstances here. There are two quite 
distinct kinds of "undiscussed":

1) Partner opens 1Di, and we have agreed to play 5-card majors, but 
have not discussed how to deal with the minors. The reply will be: 
"5-card majors, minors undiscussed, so presumably more diamonds than 
clubs, but not necessarily 4".

2) Opponents open 1Sp, partner overcalls 2NT. No particular 
agreements, but most people play this for the minors (in this setting) 
so that is what one should explain.

In the first case, "undiscussed" is true, and given that everything 
else has already been said, this is a complete explanation.
In the second case, while "undiscussed" is basically true, the 
explanation should include, "so it's most probably minors".

A director who cannot make the distinction between the first and the 
second kind isn't worth talking about.

If Richard, in his veiled attempt to disguise "One such cynical TD" 
did indeed mean myself, I would like to suggest that maybe I was only 
talking about the second case. If a player, holding a minor 2-suiter, 
bids 2NT, and his partner, with 3 Diamonds and 2 Clubs, bids 3Di, then 
I am going to rule that there was at least some understanding. If they 
then insist that "no agreement" is everything they are going to say, I 
don't need more evidence to rule MI. If anyone disgrees, they do give 
a free out-of-jailcard to the players.

> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Richard James Hills

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