[nige1]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-10, 22:43, said:

We either are or are not required to disclose an agreement to "operate" as a partnership --or that one of us (two) might screw around while the other has agreed not to. I think we are so obligated under the laws pertaining to partnership agreements. One such agreement might be to be the pair who plays it straight while the pair at the other table becomes the wild card; another agreement might be just the reverse. These are partnership agreements. They seem to be covered under the laws. The fact that our teammates know the agreement is part of our partnership agreement. We don't need a special law addressing "team agreements".

That would be OK if your opponents are obliged to disclose the agreements of their team-mates at the other table. For example if an opposing team tactic is that their pair at the other table underbid, then you could underbid too.

[aguahombre]

nige1, on 2013-April-10, 23:20, said:

That would be OK, if your opponents are obliged to disclose the agreements of their team-mates at the other table. For example if an opposing team tactic is that their pair at the other table underbid, then you could underbid too.

If that agreement is disclosable (I believe it is), it is a dumb agreement. It might be a dumb agreement, anyway.

[barmar]

Is an "agreement to operate" is even legal? How do you provide adequate disclosure if there's a strong likelihood that a bid could have almost any random meaning? And if you do come up with a list of possible meanings, is that likely to be a legal agreement in your particular jurisdiction?

[blackshoe]

I think it's a matter of style. Some people play "straight down the line" agreements - the whole concept of operating, or even in some cases of different meanings between 1st seat and 3rd seat is either completely foreign or anathema to them. For the rest of us, change of style based on state of the match is not different, at least in principle, from change of style based on seat or vulnerability.

[jeffford76]

Mbodell, on 2013-April-10, 20:49, said:

It's been discussed before, but while not that common, there are times when it would be very relevant to the play (or bidding) to know aspects of the opponent's team mate's system like strong club or not, weak nt or strong nt, etc. where you might need that information to semi-accurately predict what will have passed at the other table.

Discussing what the law should be, not what it currently is, I wouldn't mind if opponents were allowed to look at my teammates' system card before the round. But I wouldn't particularly want to be forced to learn my teammates' system which in many cases I don't ever play in order to answer questions about it during the round. Once you're not required to disclose teammates' system if you don't know it, it's not fair to require disclosure when you do.

[bluejak]

Style is disclosable. Agreeing to have a go when 30 down is adjusting your style and thus disclosable.

However, team agreements are not covered by the Laws. Despite what some people have argued, that is an important distinction. So I do not believe that you are required to tell your current opponents about your team-mates's style.

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on 2013-April-18, 15:53, said:

Style is disclosable. Agreeing to have a go when 30 down is adjusting your style and thus disclosable.

So disclosing that your style has changed and that you've agreed to operate like crazy then not doing so looks like a good tactic against some teams