[c_corgi]

 gnasher, on 2013-September-18, 08:57, said:

Yes, of course they can.
...

Sorry, my post was rather a waste of time! I was trying to ask how you avoid the circles which can arise when whatever one side plays the other side plays something different and can only be resolved by insisting that one side declares their system first, as per various earlier threads. But a coherent post seems to be beyond me at the moment. FWIW I agree that it would be good if disclosure of countermeasures were required.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2013-September-18, 09:10, said:

16A1c.

OK, I can accept that an opponent's question could be "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws". If you decide that, then the question about a double of Stayman is AI.

I like the Law 23 approach, and that would work whenever any convention is missing from the CC, including playing transfers after 1(2)NT-(Pass)-6NT-(Pass)-(Pass)-X-(Pass)-(Pass), a "silly convention of a naive civilization" - aguahombre and the Wizard of Oz. Law 40 (b) states: Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. It does not say "its main partnership understandings", which is normal practice. They could have been aware that leaving this off the CC could work to their advantage, and SB gets his adjustment.

Another thing that concerns me about this hand, is that there would be a different result if screens were in use. Whether or not North is able to or allowed to establish how EW play a double of Stayman, his question will be addressed to East, and West will make his normal lead when North jumps to 3NT. It does not seem right that something a player will not get to know with screens becomes AI when you are playing without screens. Furthermore, if North whispers the question (without screens) to East, the answer is UI to West, and he will not hear the question, and again there would be a different result. Deducing the question from the answer would be a breach of 16Ba(a).

The more I think about, it is correct to adjust here, despite the eminent posters arguing SB did nothing wrong.

[aguahombre]

At the point someone thinks omitting from the SC what a redouble of 6nt would mean is an infraction, I bow out.

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2013-September-18, 09:45, said:

I like the Law 23 approach, and that would work whenever any convention is missing from the CC, including playing transfers after 1(2)NT-(Pass)-6NT-(Pass)-(Pass)-X-(Pass)-(Pass), a "silly convention of a naive civilization" - aguahombre and the Wizard of Oz. Law 40 (b) states: Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. It does not say "its main partnership understandings", which is normal practice. They could have been aware that leaving this off the CC could work to their advantage, and SB gets his adjustment.

It (40A, by the way) also says "The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done."

If the RA specifes this by providing a convention card and telling you to fill it in, and you do fill it in, you have complied with the Law.

Quote

Another thing that concerns me about this hand, is that there would be a different result if screens were in use. Whether or not North is able to or allowed to establish how EW play a double of Stayman, his question will be addressed to East, and West will make his normal lead when North jumps to 3NT. It does not seem right that something a player will not get to know with screens becomes AI when you are playing without screens.

This is an inevitable and common consequence of using screens. Bridge with screens is a slightly different game from bridge without screens. Most people think that it's a better game overall, but that doesn't mean that it's better in every respect.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2013-September-18, 11:20, said:

If the RA specifes this by providing a convention card and telling you to fill it in, and you do fill it in, you have complied with the Law.

There is usually a space which says "other agreements", which some people leave blank, and where others fill in as much as they can fit in. The RA can also, presumably, specify that conventions not on there are asked about and explained when they could be relevant. It would be ludicrous for someone to ask about a redouble of 6NT before the round starts, but when it becomes at all likely, I think it should be disclosed in response to an enquiry. The argument that you cannot ask about future bids that have not been made does not wash with me, and players in Pula were shocked that one could decline to answer how a double of Stayman is played.

And in response to aguahombre, I agree the infraction was not the lack of inclusion of the redouble of 6NT on the CC, but the failure to notify the opponent about the agreement when asked.

[akwoo]

 c_corgi, on 2013-September-18, 09:19, said:

Sorry, my post was rather a waste of time! I was trying to ask how you avoid the circles which can arise when whatever one side plays the other side plays something different and can only be resolved by insisting that one side declares their system first, as per various earlier threads. But a coherent post seems to be beyond me at the moment. FWIW I agree that it would be good if disclosure of countermeasures were required.

This is simple: one can have a law that says that a partnership's agreement on the meaning of a particular call may depend on the meaning of calls opponents have or could have made prior to the call in question but may not depend on the opponent's agreements about calls subsequent to the call in question.

The important point is that this can be solved by regulating permissible agreements (in a perfectly sensible fashion) rather than by limiting disclosure.

You could imagine allowing an exchange like this:

A (to LHO): If I now bid 4♦ and then partner bids 4♥, what would a double by your partner mean?
LHO: That depends. What does 4♦ show?
A's partner: It shows X.
LHO: And what does 4♥ show?
A: It shows Y.
LHO: Then the double shows Z.

(and of course, what A's partner and A said about their agreements are UI to each other if there is a misunderstanding)

[gnasher]

 c_corgi, on 2013-September-18, 09:19, said:

Sorry, my post was rather a waste of time! I was trying to ask how you avoid the circles which can arise when whatever one side plays the other side plays something different and can only be resolved by insisting that one side declares their system first, as per various earlier threads.

You can never get these loops as long as pair making the first call define their methods completely.

"A if you play X, B if you don't" may create a deadlock. "A if you play X against A, B if you don't" is fine.

This post by Free explains it well:
http://www.bridgebas...post__p__749064