[Fluffy]

Today it went pass, pass, pass to me and I had a 4 count.

is the fact that I know my partner uses to stick his honnor behind others meaning that she is the most likely to hold the missing HCP AI or UI to me?

Not that it mattered much as I obviously passed anyway, and don't even think of an scenario where I would want to bid.

[nige1]

Fluffy, on 2014-May-08, 16:15, said:

Today it went pass, pass, pass to me and I had a 4 count. is the fact that I know my partner uses to stick his honnor behind others meaning that she is the most likely to hold the missing HCP AI or UI to me?
Not that it mattered much as I obviously passed anyway, and don't even think of an scenario where I would want to bid.

Playing at a club in Agadir, we passed out the first board. My partner was embarrassed to discover that her four "1"s were, in fact, aces. Opponents suggested she take back her pass but she refused their generous offer. Everybody who bid on her hand achieved a minus score, so this board helped her to win the tournament,

[Hanoi5]

I'd say AI.

I was wondering (even though it's a nice story and everything) how helpful nige1 post is. But I also know that my post is even worse for pointing it out. But I'm sort of bitter these days.

[gnasher]

AI, but possibly also a CPU.

[blackshoe]

Not sure how this is AI.

[nigel_k]

blackshoe, on 2014-May-08, 21:30, said:

Not sure how this is AI.

16A1d: 'it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board'

[blackshoe]

nigel_k, on 2014-May-09, 00:21, said:

16A1d: 'it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board'

The knowledge that partner sorts his hand in a certain way is such knowledge. Seeing where he puts certain cards during a hand is not.

[kenrexford]

If knowledge a priori that partner is a dingbat is unauthorized, I can't play bridge any more, at least not with most of my partners. I could never bid, let alone pass, without being subject to possible adjustment.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2014-May-09, 07:20, said:

The knowledge that partner sorts his hand in a certain way is such knowledge. Seeing where he puts certain cards during a hand is not.

And what Fluffy describes in his post is in the first category, not the second.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2014-May-09, 11:46, said:

And what Fluffy describes in his post is in the first category, not the second.

is it? I didn't read it that way.

[nige1]

Hanoi5, on 2014-May-08, 17:47, said:

I'd say AI. I was wondering (even though it's a nice story and everything) how helpful nige1 post is. But I also know that my post is even worse for pointing it out. But I'm sort of bitter these days.

IMO: AI but disclosable. Hanoi is right that my first reply is irrelevant. Sorry, Fluffy.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2014-May-10, 14:53, said:

IMO: AI but disclosable. Hanoi is right that my first reply is irrelevant. Sorry, Fluffy.

I am not sure that it is AI, but I am sure that if it is AI it is of course disclosable. I am not sure how this disclosure should be made; possibly the opponents should be told at the beginning of the round when you tell them your basic system.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2014-May-10, 15:57, said:

I am not sure that it is AI, but I am sure that if it is AI it is of course disclosable. I am not sure how this disclosure should be made; possibly the opponents should be told at the beginning of the round when you tell them your basic system.

Whether and how it should be discosed is a matter of regulation. Spanish regulation, presumably.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2014-May-10, 17:07, said:

Whether and how it should be discosed is a matter of regulation. Spanish regulation, presumably.

Sure, but is there a regulation regarding information derived from how partner sorts her cards? Does the EBU have one? Somehow I doubt it.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2014-May-11, 01:04, said:

Sure, but is there a regulation regarding information derived from how partner sorts her cards? Does the EBU have one? Somehow I doubt it.

Why would we need that? The relevant facts are that Fluffy's partner might pass with a good hand, Fluffy knows that, and the opponents may not. All of these are covered by the existing rules.

It's an implicit partnership understanding. That doesn't require any regulation: it's simply what Law 40 tells us.

Having established that there is an understanding and what it is, we then look at the regulations to tell us how to disclose it. What do the regulations tell us about disclosing a pass that might be made on a good hand?

In England, partner's pass is alertable because it "is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning". It's also disclosable on the convention card (see Blue Book 3D, "Matters of Style").

In Spain, we would look and see what the rules tell us about disclosing this agreement, and act accordingly. It might be that we have to announce the agreement in advance, or to alert partner's pass, or to do nothing at all.

Obviously there are practical difficulties when the implict understanding arises from partner's age or disability, but there's no good solution to that: Fluffy's partner is entitled to be treated with respect and consideration, but the opponents are entitled to the same information as Fluffy has.

[blackshoe]

Seems to me if you're watching how partner sorts her cards, you're doing something wrong. I can't put my finger on a specific law or regulation right now, and I'm too tired for research, but something doesn't smell right.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-May-11, 18:25, said:

Seems to me if you're watching how partner sorts her cards, you're doing something wrong. I can't put my finger on a specific law or regulation right now, and I'm too tired for research, but something doesn't smell right.

You don't have to watch how partner sorts their cards. If you've had lots of auctions thay went strangely, and partner later explained that they mis-sorted, you'll eventually realize that this is a bad habit they have.

The problem I can see with pre-alerting that partner does this is that it will probably remind him to be more careful. That's good for the game, but now it's kind of MI to the opponents.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2014-May-11, 23:56, said:

The problem I can see with pre-alerting that partner does this is that it will probably remind him to be more careful. That's good for the game, but now it's kind of MI to the opponents.

Well, there is nothing wrong with adding the phrase "but since I now reminded him, it is less likely to occur" to the pre-alert.

Rik

[StevenG]

I suppose that under "Other Aspects of System Which Opponents Should Note" I should write "We frequently make inexplicable mistakes". That should do the trick.

[barmar]

StevenG, on 2014-May-12, 02:00, said:

I suppose that under "Other Aspects of System Which Opponents Should Note" I should write "We frequently make inexplicable mistakes". That should do the trick.

Shouldn't all novices wandering into the open game pre-alert this, too?