[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2015-March-15, 09:09, said:

That's only best if South was actually bidding in accordance to their agreements. Opponents aren't entitled to an explanation of the bid, only the agreements.

South obviously thought they had an agreement.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2015-March-15, 10:33, said:

South obviously thought they had an agreement.

So? What if South was wrong? If he explains what he thinks their agreement is, he's giving misinformation, even if it happens to be a correct description of his holding.

[lamford]

I (and others on ACs) have often used "21B1b The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." If a CC states that 2C is natural here, and South misbid, then that is just bad luck for EW. However, uncertain mumbling by the offenders, "Probably natural", "I am treating it as takeout", "I don't think we have discussed this" is generally treated as misinformation when the actual hand does not conform with the description, and the meaning of the call is not shown on the card or in system notes. Essentially, when your call is misexplained, the onus to prove mistaken call is heavily on the "offending" side. Such is the case here, and I would rule misinformation. West would still double, East would show the spade fragment and West would bid 3NT. One might give some percentage of other scores, but I would tend towards 100% of 3NT= by West.

[helene_t]

lamford, on 2015-March-17, 06:04, said:

However, uncertain mumbling by the offenders, "Probably natural", "I am treating it as takeout", "I don't think we have discussed this" is generally treated as misinformation when the actual hand does not conform with the description, and the meaning of the call is not shown on the card or in system notes.

But doesn't this give player an incentitive just to say "no agreement" instead of being helpful, unless they are 110% sure? Suppose that N had said "no agreement your guess is as good as mine" and then North happened to guess right (or make a succesful "safety play"), while EW either guessed wrong or had a misunderstanding because they made opposite assumpions. Would N get away with it? After all we would have little evidence against the "no agreement" assertion.

[lamford]

helene_t, on 2015-March-17, 07:19, said:

But doesn't this give player an incentitive just to say "no agreement" instead of being helpful, unless they are 110% sure? Suppose that N had said "no agreement your guess is as good as mine" and then North happened to guess right (or make a succesful "safety play"), while EW either guessed wrong or had a misunderstanding because they made opposite assumpions. Would N get away with it? After all we would have little evidence against the "no agreement" assertion.

An AC will investigate "no agreement". If there is an agreement, either on the card, or an implicit agreement, then "no agreement" could be deemed misinformation. "I tend to assume 2C is natural here" was worse than "no agreement".

If I were West, I would ask "have you agreed 1C (P) 1D (2D) to be natural, and what about 1C (P) 1H (2C) and 1C (P) 1H (2H)?" Maybe all of them are "no agreement", in which case North should just say that. One wonders how they did win a national league, however!

[pran]

helene_t, on 2015-March-17, 07:19, said:

But doesn't this give player an incentitive just to say "no agreement" instead of being helpful, unless they are 110% sure? Suppose that N had said "no agreement your guess is as good as mine" and then North happened to guess right (or make a succesful "safety play"), while EW either guessed wrong or had a misunderstanding because they made opposite assumpions. Would N get away with it? After all we would have little evidence against the "no agreement" assertion.

That is why I personally tend to rule that "no agreement" is misinformation if the following conditions are satisfied:

1: The player "happens" to understand (guess?) his partner's call successfully.
2: The partner's hand matches this understanding.
3: The partnership is unable to show hard evidence of "no agreement".

(I shall always be far more lenient with less experienced players, this has so far never caused me any problem.)

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-March-17, 06:04, said:

Essentially, when your call is misexplained, the onus to prove mistaken call is heavily on the "offending" side.

No. The onus to determine mistaken call or mistaken explanation is on the director. The only onus on the players of both sides is to provide the director with whatever evidence they may have which they think is germane to the question.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2015-March-17, 08:55, said:

3: The partnership is unable to show hard evidence of "no agreement".

How would a partnership do that?

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2015-March-17, 08:55, said:

3: The partnership is unable to show hard evidence of "no agreement".

blackshoe, on 2015-March-17, 10:21, said:

How would a partnership do that?

blackshoe, on 2015-March-12, 16:56, said:

It's in their system notes: "We have not discussed the meaning of 2♣ in the auction (1♣)-P-(1♦)-2♣". See page 9,342.

Sounds like pran had his irony detector switched off. That, and he expects pairs to carry around all 9000+ pages of their notes.

[helene_t]

In experimental psychology you have the "implicit association test" which you can use to find out if a subject associates specific skin colours with specific human qualities for example. Maybe you could use the same to see if a subject associates a particular partner with a particular bidding style. It is a bit tricky though as you need some negative reference. For example if you want to test if I associate gwnn with polish club you will combine that with an association between nongwnn and nonpolish club ..

[pran]

pran, on 2015-March-17, 08:55, said:

3: The partnership is unable to show hard evidence of "no agreement".

blackshoe, on 2015-March-17, 10:21, said:

How would a partnership do that?

I shall be most surprised if they can (although I know of a few ways).

[blackshoe]

Very well, keep your secrets. But so long as you do, the rest of us should just ignore this "principle".

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-17, 18:14, said:

Very well, keep your secrets. But so long as you do, the rest of us should just ignore this "principle".

Lacking imagination?

My "principle" is how I interprete Law 21B1b:
Self-serving statements to the effect that there is "no agreement" are very weak "evidence" against the evidence (fact) that the alleged misbid actually matched the hand and fortunately was apparently understood correct by partner who claims "no agreement".