[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2012-February-11, 12:16, said:

You use your judgement. That's what you're paid to do.

Would that be difficult for me to do, if I have already made a contrary judgement about what the laws state..before the specific case even comes up?

[pran]

gnasher, on 2012-February-11, 12:16, said:

pran, on 2012-February-11, 10:47, said:

How do you single out the player who uses a concealed partnership understanding and discloses it as "No agreement"?

You use your judgement. That's what you're paid to do.

That is no answer.

The player states that he has "no agreement", his partner backs that statement but the problem is that the player "made a very fortunate guess" and you have a strong feeling that his guess was more than just a guess.

On what criterion do you in case rule that his "no agreement" statement is a lie? The apparent consensus (except mine) in this thread has from the very beginning been that "no agreement" is a valid disclosure which needs no evidence because it cannot be proven a lie.

[AlexJonson]

Returning to the OP with due apologies for not reading it incorrectly..

It's presumably unlucky that NOS didn't ask for an explanation of 4NT and 6NT, which would normally reveal the misunderstanding.

On the general point, if the 4c bidder believes he may cue bid or may show a suit needing help, he should say so. If he misbid and realised it after 4NT he may have a difficulty. If he misbid and thought 4NT was to play, he is in the clear.

[aguahombre]

AlexJonson, on 2012-February-11, 14:56, said:

Returning to the OP with due apologies for not reading it incorrectly..

I think I have found my next signature tag line.

[AlexJonson]

aguahombre, on 2012-February-11, 15:33, said:

I think I have found my next signature tag line.

Fame at last.

[PeterAlan]

pran, on 2012-February-11, 10:47, said:

How do you single out the player who uses a concealed partnership understanding and discloses it as "No agreement"?

To start with, you can't "single" out anyone - apart from yourself, that is - by accusing every pair who claim to have no agreement about some sequence or other of lying to you and operating a CPU. Especially when you're not interested in any evidence to the contrary. It just sounds to me like an obsessive crusade. Oh, and BTW you wouldn't be "singling" anyone out, since the operation of a CPU involves both members of the partnership.

You say you want a "fair game for Gentlemen and Ladies". That's a two-way street, and the players are entitled to courtesy and respect fron those directing the game.

I've probably posted too much already. Like blackshoe, I don't intend to beat my head against this brick wall any longer.

[pran]

What remains as a possibility is then consistently taking a player stating "no agreement" (or words to that effect) away from the table while his partner explains his own call to the opponents.

[gnasher]

pran, on 2012-February-11, 14:11, said:

The player states that he has "no agreement", his partner backs that statement but the problem is that the player "made a very fortunate guess" and you have a strong feeling that his guess was more than just a guess.

On what criterion do you in case rule that his "no agreement" statement is a lie? The apparent consensus (except mine) in this thread has from the very beginning been that "no agreement" is a valid disclosure which needs no evidence because it cannot be proven a lie.

The same way you make any determination of the facts - by gathering evidence, then using your experience and judgement to determine the truth. You listen to what the players say, and how they say it. You ask the players what they did discuss about the auction and when they discussed it. You ask them about other related auctions. You consider how likely it is that a pair would not have an agreement about it. You take into account what you and your colleagues know about the players. If in doubt, you believe what the players tell you, because most people are honest.

If I may say so, you seem to have a rather negative view of the players under your control. On my only visit to Norway I was impressed by how honest the players were, but perhaps I was lucky.

[gnasher]

pran, on 2012-February-11, 16:55, said:

What remains as a possibility is then consistently taking a player stating "no agreement" (or words to that effect) away from the table while his partner explains his own call to the opponents.

That is also illegal. You can tell the partner to explain their agreements, but you can't tell him to explain what he intended by an undiscussed call. The opponents are entitled to know the partnership's agreements, but nothing else.

[bluejak]

PeterAlan, on 2012-February-10, 04:24, said:

The simple answer to this is because he had to bid something. The problem he has is that, whatever he bids next, you're going to rule that he has an agreement about it.

We have run this argument round in circles before. Having played for many years in clubs as well as in higher level events, it is quite clear to me from my experience that players often get into situations where they have no system bid. When I play with one of my two clients it happens to me. It is a very common part of the game.

But pran's experience seems to be based on players who are always fairly good and in long-term partnerships. It is notable in a lot of his posts that he never considers new partnerships or ordinary club players or players with a very unscientific approach. We have often tried to convince him such players exist, but we have never come anywhere near convincing him.

Now, the last time I played with my club client I made three bids during the evening that I had no partnership agreement over. I just guessed the best thing to do because that is what one has to do, and if the opponents ask, "no agreement" is the correct answer. In fact my partner always misinforms them by telling them how she is taking it, and some of her explanations are quite interesting.

It does annoy me that if pran was directing and I was playing with a client, or an inexperienced player, that he would rule against us and assume I was lying when I said "no agreement". But that is what pran does, and we shall not change him.

For the rest of the readers of this forum, however, let us be careful about this. When a player says he has no agreement in such a situation, it is a self-serving statement. That is not to be automatically discounted, as a large but dwindling proportion of rec.games.bridge presume, but it is to be looked at with scepticism. And then finding out the class of players involved, the type [scientific or direct], the experience, and the experience of the pair as a partnership, is all part of the res gestae as I believe Perry Mason used to argue.

As to the actual sequence, and the lack of belief of not just pran but others as to whether people would know what 4♣ meant you may trust me when I tell you that if either of my clients bid 4♣ on that sequence I would have no idea what it meant. On the other hand I would be pretty sure [but not absolutely sure] what my regular partner would mean it as. Only pretty sure because it has not turned up nor is it covered by my 75 pages of notes.

[Trinidad]

In one of my partnerships, which is six year long, and regular (once a week), it happens regularly that we have no agreement about bids. It also happens that we have two (or more) agreements about a bid.

We aren't really palookas, but we do have different opinions about the strategic principles underlying bidding. As a result, he regularly surprises me with bids that -in my view- are impossible. When the opponents ask what partner showed (and at such a point they always ask) I don't have a clue what it might be. I can only tell them that we do not have an agreement, that partner has a history of making incomprehensible bids and that they usually indicate that he did something wrong earlier in the auction.

Rik

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2012-February-11, 19:39, said:

I can only tell them that we do not have an agreement, that partner has a history of making incomprehensible bids and that they usually indicate that he did something wrong earlier in the auction.

Rik

And I am sure your partner takes that in the nicest way

"Bluhmers" come to mind in this thread..for the situation of an experienced competent partnership. Specifically, Bluhmers which are recognized by the other half of the partnership due entirely to a combination of the previous bids and of his/her own holding in the suit, not agreement.

[blackshoe]

I know what bloomers are, but what's a Bluhmer?

[mjj29]

Pran asks how we can deal with the people who are failing to disclose. Firstly - I don't believe the majority (or even a significant minority) of players are dishonest - and most of the time we should assume they are not. If we think someone may be lying with 'no agreement', as has been said, we gather what evidence we can to see if we can find any evidence they may have an agreement. As with other things in bridge - particularly psyches, there's always the option of recording hands and seeing if there's a trend of them having the same 'no agreement' auction multiple times.

Mostly if you ask the right questions, bridge players will answer them honestly and we rely on that quite a lot in the laws. Where people lie, that's a separate matter and the same principles apply here as elsewhere for dealing with that.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-11, 21:28, said:

I know what bloomers are, but what's a Bluhmer?

You don't wear a Bluhmer, but it could get wrapped around your neck.

Its a thing attributed to Lou Bluhm..a bid signifying nothing (except interest in going high) in a convoluted auction; a cousin to Last Train, but "LT" is a real convention which is discussed and disclosable.

I.E., if you have talked about it, its Last Train. If not, its a Bluhmer.

[blackshoe]

Ah. Okay, got it. Thanks, Agua.

[pran]

gnasher, on 2012-February-11, 17:00, said:

The same way you make any determination of the facts - by gathering evidence, then using your experience and judgement to determine the truth. You listen to what the players say, and how they say it. You ask the players what they did discuss about the auction and when they discussed it. You ask them about other related auctions. You consider how likely it is that a pair would not have an agreement about it. You take into account what you and your colleagues know about the players. If in doubt, you believe what the players tell you, because most people are honest.

If I may say so, you seem to have a rather negative view of the players under your control. On my only visit to Norway I was impressed by how honest the players were, but perhaps I was lucky.

If I were only concerned with my own little world I wouldn't bother at all because I have yet to meet a player who hides behind "no agreement" or similar expressions when asked about an auction. In my world players keep in mind the main principle that opponents shall know all there is to know about auctions, nothing shall be kept secret under some technicality.

My worries are that players will "discover" the possibility with "no agreement" to "cleverly" use CPU. And arguments like "I do not have to tell opponents this" just tend to strengthen these worries.

[blackshoe]

I've heard "I don't have to explain that" exactly once. The auction went 1m-1♥-3♥-4NT-5♦-6♥. A bog standard auction, if you know what system they're playing. I wasn't sure, so I asked for an explanation of the auction. First response: "Huh?" Second response: a review of the bidding. Third response: Director! The putative declarer is the one who said, of the 3♥ bid, "I don't have to explain that". To my surprise, the TD explained to her that yes, she did have to explain any partnership agreement regarding that bid. Why surprise? The first thing the director asked me when she arrived at the table was "which call were you interested in?" I replied "all of them".

The pair in question are a regular partnership, are decent but not as good as they think they are, and can be argumentative - they came back from a sectional a few years ago having received a score adjustment after a BIT by one of them, and for six months thereafter they called the director every time they thought there might have been a BIT by opps — so I wasn't picking on bunnies or anything like that.

When I've heard "no agreement" it's been from players who understand the rules, and who I know to be ethical players.

Anyway, the point is I don't hear things like that very often. Most of the disclosure problems around here arise because people don't understand the rules, not because they're trying to circumvent them.

[pran]

gnasher, on 2012-February-11, 17:03, said:

pran, on 2012-February-11, 16:55, said:

What remains as a possibility is then consistently taking a player stating "no agreement" (or words to that effect) away from the table while his partner explains his own call to the opponents.

That is also illegal. You can tell the partner to explain their agreements, but you can't tell him to explain what he intended by an undiscussed call. The opponents are entitled to know the partnership's agreements, but nothing else.

And what law (if any) makes it illegal for the Director to temporarily send a player away from the table while his partner discloses to opponents his own understanding of the partnership agreement (whether explicit or implicit) relevant to the call(s) in question? (Everything of course under supervision by the Director.)

[gnasher]

pran, on 2012-February-12, 06:09, said:

And what law (if any) makes it illegal for the Director to temporarily send a player away from the table while his partner discloses to opponents his own understanding of the partnership agreement (whether explicit or implicit) relevant to the call(s) in question? (Everything of course under supervision by the Director.)

That's perfectly legal, but it's not what you said before. What you said before was "his partner explains his own call to the opponents". Explaining the partnership agreement about a call is different from explaining the intended meaning of a call about which there is no agreement.