[aguahombre]

mjj29, on 2013-January-06, 07:48, said:

Inferences based on other relevant partnership understandings and those based on shared experiences other than explicit discussion are disclosable

Absolutely. Those inferences are not "guesses" in the context I was using the word.

[jallerton]

iviehoff, on 2013-January-04, 11:08, said:

This is truly excellent, and I find Jeffrey Allerton's Ex nihilo argument that Burns reports very interesting. Whilst I agree with the general principle, I am not as convinced as Jeffrey that there has been no infraction.

In both the present case, and Burns' case, a player has made a bid, in the absence of a clear agreement, in the hope that partner will get the gist; and if he does understand it as intended, then it is clearly alertable. However the partner has neither understood it that way nor alerted it. What Jeffrey is saying in effect is, if one does get through to partner in an undiscussed situation, then there is an understanding; but if one doesn't get through, then there isn't an understanding, and the bid was in effect a misbid in its intended but not understood meaning.

There is some pleasing logic to that argument, but I fail to be convinced, or at least not in general. The difficulty with it has its origin in the thought "who is being more stupid - me for thinking you'd understand my bid that way, or you for failing to understand my bid that way". Perhaps partner was being really rather dense today in failing to understand it, and on a better day he would have done. Can we really decide whether something is an infraction depending upon how well a player is playing today? I think the director can't simply say "it wasn't agreed, he didn't understand it or alert it, therefore it was a misbid". He does have to take a position on who was being more stupid, and remember the injunction to lean in the direction of saying MI rather than misbid.

The 2010 "possibly inverted raise" case to which you refer has similarities with the 2012 case described at the start of this thread, but there is also a potentially important difference.

In the 2010 case, the TD's statement of facts (reported to the AC and quoted on the appeals form) included the following: "The TD is convinced that E/W do not have an agreement." My argument at appeal was that, based on the TD's finding, there was no requirement to alert, hence there was no infraction, hence there should have been no adjustment. In the 2012 case described at the start of this thread, it would appear that there was no agreement about 3♦ and by the same argument, the failure to alert was not an infraction.

In the 2010 case, the AC did eventually agree to an adjusted score. Why? One AC member felt strongly that a player would never bid 2♣ after 1♣-(1♥)-? intending it as forcing unless he had some reason to believe that partner would take it as forcing, and that reason was probably an explicit or implicit partnership understanding. This seems like a reasonable argument.

Now let's look at the 2012 case again. When South bid 3♦ how did she suppose that North would work out that her bid was not showing diamonds? Based on partnership understanding? Probably not, because it's unlikely that the sequence or anything like it had come up before. Based on general bridge knowledge? Probably yes.

To put in another way, if I had been South in the 2012 case, I would equallly bid 3♦ whether playing with a first time partner or with a partner I have been playing with for the last decade. On the other hand, I would only bid 1♣-(1♥)-2♣ intending it as forcing if I had specifically agreed to play it as such with that partner.

[iviehoff]

jallerton, on 2013-January-23, 16:46, said:

In the 2010 case, the TD's statement of facts (reported to the AC and quoted on the appeals form) included the following: "The TD is convinced that E/W do not have an agreement." My argument at appeal was that, based on the TD's finding, there was no requirement to alert, hence there was no infraction, hence there should have been no adjustment. In the 2012 case described at the start of this thread, it would appear that there was no agreement about 3♦ and by the same argument, the failure to alert was not an infraction.

When the TD became convinced that that E/W did not have an agreement, was he referring only to an explicit agreement? But implicit agreements are also alertable. (Further, whilst the Orange Book does refer to agreements in the context of alerting, the law refers only to understandings. I like the word "understanding" because it implies that if you do something and I understand it, then we have an understanding.)

OB 5B9 says
"..,A call with an alertable meaning arising from an implicit agreement (see section 3 A 2) must be alerted."

and OB 5B10 says
"A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player’s partner’s actions are also consistent with that agreement."

I think that, even playing with a first time partner, if you have sufficient confidence to make an undiscussed bid with an alertable meaning, and it is reliably understood, it should be alerted, as there is clearly understanding. Certainly the second time it happens it is alertable, and why should the first pair you play against not have the benefit of the alert? The criterion of 5B10 suggests that you will usually be considered to have an agreement (of some kind) if you can make a call of alertable meaning and have it understood, consistent with the what I have said about "understanding".

[blackshoe]

"Understanding" is two way. When you say "there is clearly an understanding" you have left out the part where partner actually does understand what you're doing. If you alert on the basis that partner's call meant X, and he intended meaning Y, there is no understanding — although OB 5B10 seems to imply that the TD might rule there is an understanding, excuse me, an agreement, even if your partner's actions are not consistent with it. I find that a little surprising.

[Zelandakh]

The part of the OB regs that I find surprising is that you alert to tell partner how you are taking their bid. Let us say that there is an auction and we make an undiscussed cue bid. Luckily we have the suit and wanted to force anyway to show a good hand. There are only 2 possible meanings for the call, either it is natural or [the equivalent of] fourth suit forcing. No problem, if partner alerts they have taken it as the latter and if not the former. Unethical? for sure, but try proving it.

And no, I would never do this myself but I can see some wriggle room for the usual suspects here.

[campboy]

IMO OB5B10 is often misunderstood. It starts "A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable [...]". Now if you know you have no agreement, implicit or explicit, you are sure: the call is not alertable. OB5B10 comes into play when you are not sure whether you have an agreement, or not sure what the agreement is. And then it is eminently sensible: if you can't remember your agreement but take it as X, and partner meant X, the TD is normally going to conclude that you had an agreement and it was X.

[jallerton]

iviehoff, on 2013-January-24, 06:30, said:

When the TD became convinced that that E/W did not have an agreement, was he referring only to an explicit agreement? But implicit agreements are also alertable.

No. The TD's full statement of his ruling, as reported on the appeals form, was:

Quote

Director’s ruling:
80% of 2♣ + 3 N/S -150
20% of 3NT + 2 N/S -460

Details of ruling:
The TD is convinced that E/W do not have an agreement. North should have been told that there was no agreement. In this case passing 2♣ would involve some risk.

His second sentence is the problem. Whilst it would have been ideal if North had known about (what the TD determined to be) "no agreement", E/W were in no way at fault for North did not knowing this. West did what the alerting regulations required of him. North did not ask about 2♣, so West could not offer any verbal explanation.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-24, 09:18, said:

The part of the OB regs that I find surprising is that you alert to tell partner how you are taking their bid.

No. You alert to tell the opponents that in your opinion the bid may have an alertable meaning, or that you don't know whether it does. BTW, it's the bidder, not the alerter, who is unethical when he makes a bid expecting to find out from partner's alert how partner's taking it.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-24, 09:18, said:

The part of the OB regs that I find surprising is that you alert to tell partner how you are taking their bid. Let us say that there is an auction and we make an undiscussed cue bid. Luckily we have the suit and wanted to force anyway to show a good hand. There are only 2 possible meanings for the call, either it is natural or [the equivalent of] fourth suit forcing. No problem, if partner alerts they have taken it as the latter and if not the former. Unethical? for sure, but try proving it.

And no, I would never do this myself but I can see some wriggle room for the usual suspects here.

I believe the general philosophy is that avoiding UI is not a good reason to keep a secret from the opponents. Full disclosure always passes UI (when playing conditions allow partner to hear the alerts and explanations), partner is expected not to take advantage of it. So we err in the direction of disclosure.

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2013-January-24, 19:42, said:

I believe the general philosophy is that avoiding UI is not a good reason to keep a secret from the opponents. Full disclosure always passes UI (when playing conditions allow partner to hear the alerts and explanations), partner is expected not to take advantage of it. So we err in the direction of disclosure.

Passing UI to partner is not illegal. Giving MI to opponents is illegal.

I believe this is what the colonists (and Londoners) call a "no-brainer".