[avoscill]

Vampyr, on 2015-July-18, 19:16, said:

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

With exception of a few, people here seems to not being able to differentiate between "making inferences available to the opponents" and "telling one's own inferences to the opponents". Nowhere I said that I hide (or want to) information to the opponents, yet everybody implies I do it (or would like to find excuses for doing it). To Karlson I say: we open 4♠-6♦ hands in spades, and yes, we inform our opponents about this treatment.

Arturo Franco states that one of the principles upon which is based the Blue Team Club bidding system is: Don’t tell the opponents how to play the hand. In the ♠opening - 1NT overcall - 3♦ rebid example, West led a spade, and when he later had to decide the continuation, he felt he had the right to know the exact number of my spades, and therefore to know whether he can play a spade for East to ruff. Sorry West, but we like to follow the above Blue Team Club precept. I must conclude that in this forum the prevailing view is just the opposite: you are obliged by the Law to tell the opponents how to play the hand. I you don't need to define a bid (because partner don't need this information), never mind, you still must define it, because the opponents may need this information. But maybe we are playing different games (or speaking different languages).

Since I have exhausted my arguments (much cited, but not rebuted), greeting to all.

This post has been edited by Vampyr: 2015-July-19, 19:47
Reason for edit: Too confrontational

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-18, 11:29, said:

What of "he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players"?

Many players, including TDs, use this seemingly innocuous law to rationalise prevarication. Perhaps I've lived a sheltered life, but after the hand, the "general bridge knowledge" usually comes as an unexpected revelation. Another rule that adds no value and should be dropped. Under current law, however, I sympathise with avoscii's predicament.

[Vampyr]

avoscill, on 2015-July-19, 06:09, said:

I must conclude that in this forum the prevailing view is just the opposite: you are obliged by the Law to tell the opponents how to play the hand. I you don't need to define a bid (because partner don't need this information), never mind, you still must define it, because the opponents may need this information. But maybe we are playing different games (or speaking different languages).

Since I have exhausted my arguments (much cited, but not rebuted), greeting to all.

The "prevailing view" in this forum is not people's opinions; we really do know what your obligations are according to law. LOL we may not know much, but this we do know.

[helene_t]

avoscill, on 2015-July-15, 11:28, said:

North, who is generally interested in precise point count (but only for the opponents, as can infer from his present overcall!), this time wanted to know the exact length of my suits, and got quite upset when my pard could'nt satisfy him (simply because he didn't know).

It is probably general bridge logic that the 3♦ bid shows ten cards in the pointed suits (unless dbl would have shown something specific so that you might have to make this bid with some strong hands with only 9 cards in the pointed suits).

But it is not obvious at all whether it could be 4-6 or 5-5 or 6-4 or two of the three patters or all three. It is also maybe not entirely obvious that it is strong. So to the extent that p knows any of those things he has to disclose it.

If your partner doesn't know any of these things then obviously all he can say is the it shows diamonds in addition to the spades. I don't think he has to tell opps that it won't be a 13-count with 4-4 in the pointed suits.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2015-July-19, 06:56, said:

The "prevailing view" in this forum is not people's opinions; we really do know what your obligations are according to law. LOL we may not know much, but this we do know.

I think you are wrong on many levels.

• You are wrong in your assertion that a pair must have an agreement, if not the first time they use a bid, then at least the second time. (Post #29).
  
• You are very wrong in implicitly calling avoscill a cheat. (Post 34)
  
• You are clearly wrong that BBF knows what avoscill's obligations are according to law.
  
• You are definitely wrong for not apologizing to avoscill for number 2 in this list.

Avoscill needs to explain what he knows about his partner's hand and his partner needs to explain what he knows about avoscill's hand. It is allowed to have bids that have little meaning (though the fact that none of the other bids were made does carry meaning). A typical example is the defense that you sometimes see against strong club systems: After a 1♣ opening a 1♠ overcall is automatic and without meaning. (There is no agreement about any other calls and if they would exist they are extremely rare.)

Rik

[kevperk]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-18, 17:21, said:

It does? Which law says so?

Who said it had to be a law that says so? I was just saying you can't have a lengthy discussion. I meant more along the lines of how you explain, in my hypothetical, if you had all the time in the world, you might take a lot longer to be sure the fillin understands. In a real world situation, you would try to be as brief as possible, as long as you were sure the opponents understood. And I would stress SURE.

[Zelandakh]

Trinidad, on 2015-July-19, 08:04, said:

Avoscill needs to explain what he knows about his partner's hand and his partner needs to explain what he knows about avoscill's hand.

He does...but it is quite clear from the responses that he does not agree with this. I would say that BBFers are amongst the more system-aware group, esepcially in comparison with regular club players. I doubt anyone here can give an accurate description of the hands that could be held as known to the OP's partner. I think if I were playing in this club a hand might take 30 minutes as I would be inclined to ask supplmentary questions about every call along with further questions about alternative calls that were not made. That the actual opponents are unwilling to go through this procedure is not surprising.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2015-July-19, 06:56, said:

Many players, including TDs, use this seemingly innocuous law to rationalise prevarication. Perhaps I've lived a sheltered life, but after the hand, the "general bridge knowledge" usually comes as an unexpected revelation. Another rule that adds no value and should be dropped. Under current law, however, I sympathise with avoscii's predicament.

The fact that some bit of knowledge is "generally available to bridge players" does not imply that every bridge player has made himself aware of that knowledge. In effect then, the law says that if something is "generally available" to you, but you are not aware of it, that's not your opponents' problem, it's yours. For example, the knowledge of how to strategize at matchpoints is "generally available" — it's in Kit Woolsey's book (not to mention Hugh Kelsey's). The latter may be out of print and thus hard to come by, but the former has just been published. LOTT is another example. It seems quite a few players don't really know how it works. Nonetheless, that information is widely (i.e., generally) available. Should players be required to disclose that their partnership has agreed to use LOTT in deciding what to bid? I'm not suggesting they should or should not, I'm asking.

As for the laws changes you keep talking about, come up with a revised version of the laws, post it somewhere folks can get at it, and then maybe we'll have something to discuss.

[blackshoe]

kevperk, on 2015-July-19, 10:50, said:

Who said it had to be a law that says so? I was just saying you can't have a lengthy discussion. I meant more along the lines of how you explain, in my hypothetical, if you had all the time in the world, you might take a lot longer to be sure the fillin understands. In a real world situation, you would try to be as brief as possible, as long as you were sure the opponents understood. And I would stress SURE.

Fair enough.

[blackshoe]

There has been a sub thread here along the lines of "who's a cheater?" amongst the posters here. Not appropriate. I have disapproved the posts involved — they will not be visible until re-approved (if they are re-approved). I have sent a PM to Vampyr about this. Others whose messages are no longer visible, please have patience.

[Trinidad]

Zelandakh, on 2015-July-19, 11:16, said:

He does...but it is quite clear from the responses that he does not agree with this.

I may be wrong, but that is not what I read.

He agrees with you that he and his partner need to explain their agreements. He does not agree wirh you that they need to have an agreement. (And he quotes the Blue team that you shouldn't have agreements where the information is more useful to the opponents than to partner.) If they don't have an agreement, there is nothing to explain. (Or if they have little agreement, there is little to explain.)

And, for the record, he is entirely correct about that. There is no law that says that you have to have an agreement about a call or how detailed the level of your agreements needs to be.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

No Rik, I think you are wrong here. Take #28 for example. Here he agrees that his partner has more information about shape than the opponents but says this is ok because it is a matter of style. Sorry, but you cannot hide behind GBK, "no agreement" and "style" to get around providing opponents with full disclosure. That is already true of a natural system but it is even more important when you play something highly unusual. Implicit agreements need to be disclosed just as much as explicit ones. I think the OP believes that implicit agreements are different and do not need to be disclosed and this is the source of his confusion.

There is also something to be said for the tone of the presentation within this thread even back on the first page. It has become all to common on BBF for a new poster to come here and ask a reasonable sounding question, then for the thread to turn sour once the response is not a particular way. It is making these forums a depressing place to hang out.

I hope avoscill learns something from the responses here and comes back as an active and constructive BBF contributor. Sarcasm as a response to posters trying to be helpful is rarely a good way to start out in a community. Hopefully the next thread will go more smoothly.

[blackshoe]

Style must be disclosed.

[nige1]

TFLB L40B6a said:

When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to opponent's enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

blackshoe, on 2015-July-19, 14:33, said:

The fact that some bit of knowledge is "generally available to bridge players" does not imply that every bridge player has made himself aware of that knowledge. In effect then, the law says that if something is "generally available" to you, but you are not aware of it, that's not your opponents' problem, it's yours. For example, the knowledge of how to strategize at matchpoints is "generally available" — it's in Kit Woolsey's book (not to mention Hugh Kelsey's). The latter may be out of print and thus hard to come by, but the former has just been published. LOTT is another example. It seems quite a few players don't really know how it works. Nonetheless, that information is widely (i.e., generally) available. Should players be required to disclose that their partnership has agreed to use LOTT in deciding what to bid? I'm not suggesting they should or should not, I'm asking.

IMO if a partnership have agreed to use LOTT when deciding what to bid, then they should divulge that fact. I think L40B6a has a pernicious influence on disclosure. On the contrary, the law-book should stipulate that, if opponents ask, then you must tell them what your partner's calls have revealed about his hand (shape, strength, and so on). Unfortunately, this information is often cumulative from several calls and might also involve general knowledge and inferences (positive and negative). Of course, I accept that this law-change would would require law-makers to revise their philosophy and it might radically alter the game.

blackshoe, on 2015-July-19, 14:33, said:

As for the laws changes you keep talking about, come up with a revised version of the laws, post it somewhere folks can get at it, and then maybe we'll have something to discuss.

I think it's hard for an expert committee to write watertight rules, even for a game. For an individual, it's harder still. Anyway, judging from the feedback from discussion groups like this, my specific suggestions would be unwelcome -- but I like some of the suggestions proposed by others. I think the current laws are so subjective, complex, non-deterrent, and incomprehensible, that almost any simplification would be an improvement.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2015-July-19, 18:39, said:

IMO if a partnership have agreed to use LOTT when deciding what to bid, then they should divulge that fact. I think L40B6a has a pernicious influence on disclosure. On the contrary, the law-book should stipulate that, if opponents ask, then you must tell them what your partner's calls have revealed about his hand (shape, strength, and so on). Unfortunately, this information is often cumulative from several calls and might also involve general knowledge and inferences (positive and negative). Of course, I accept that this law-change would would require a change of philosophy by law-makers and radically alter the game.

Hm. I have before, and will again, advocate that when opponents ask (as they should) "please explain your auction," both players of the partnership should explain what they have gleaned about partner's hand. I do not think it is necessary, nor in some cases desirable, to explain the agreed written down somewhere (system card or notes) meaning of each and every call. It seems implicit in that method of explaining that inferences, including negative inferences ("he doesn't have a balanced hand because he didn't either open or rebid NT," for example) unless otherwise obviated (on the auction 1m-1R-1S, the last bid showing an unbalanced hand, you say "he has an unbalanced hand". The negative inference is now redundant). "Knowledge generally available to bridge players" is a tricky one, as I tried to point out in my earlier post. Maybe it would be best to get rid of it. But I'd want to hear why it was included in the first place before making that decision.

nige1, on 2015-July-19, 18:39, said:

I think it's hard for an expert committee to write watertight rules, even for a game. For an individual, that is a harder task. Anyway, judging from the feedback from discussion groups like this, my specific suggestions would be unwelcome but I like some of the suggestions proposed by others. I think the current laws are so subjective, complex, non-deterrent, and incomprehensible, that almost any simplification would be an improvement.

Oh, it's definitely hard.

I don't think all your suggestions would be rejected, but certainly some of them would be. That's the nature of debate.

The non-deterrent bit, as least, I would attribute largely to the reluctance, particularly at clubs, to enforce the rules. IOW, the rules aren't the problem. I think subjectivity may be necessary in some parts of the laws; I would preserve the director's authority to apply his judgement in at least some situations. Complexity, well, it's a complex game. That doesn't mean the rules have to be complex — look at go, for example — but given the complexity of the game keeping the rules simple is not at all easy. Incomprehensible. I'm largely self taught in this area. I did it the old fashioned way — I read the book. David Stevenson once said here that if he and I disagreed on a matter of law, he would expect that I would be right. (The shoe would be on the other foot in a matter of judgment. ) If I can understand the laws, any reasonably well educated individual ought to be able to do the same. That said, I am no where near as erudite as, say, David Burn, and if he and I disagree on something, as we have both here and on Bridge Winners, I make sure to take a very close look at my position. Also, I don't claim to fully understand all of them. Some are easier, some are harder.

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2015-July-19, 15:33, said:

I may be wrong, but that is not what I read.

He agrees with you that he and his partner need to explain their agreements. He does not agree wirh you that they need to have an agreement. (And he quotes the Blue team that you shouldn't have agreements where the information is more useful to the opponents than to partner.) If they don't have an agreement, there is nothing to explain. (Or if they have little agreement, there is little to explain.)

And, for the record, he is entirely correct about that. There is no law that says that you have to have an agreement about a call or how detailed the level of your agreements needs to be.

Rik

I think that a problem has been revealed, and maybe it is a language thing. The phrases "no agreement" and "no discussion" seem to have become conflated.

Say a situation comes up where your partnership truly has no agreement. You explain to the opponents inferences available, what else partner could have bid, which hands are exclude etc. So far, so good.

You get the bid right, and everything proceeds smoothly.You now have an agreement, whether or not you ever discuss it. When the situation comes up again, you explain to the opponents the agreement that was created the last time.

It really is that simple.

[blackshoe]

Hm. Is memory a factor here? To cite a perhaps extreme case, I used to have a partner who was a brain cancer survivor. She was in her forties, and had been diagnosed in her twenties, and had the cancer surgically removed. This affected her memory. Her long term memory was fine. Her short term memory was not. We would agree something or other, and she would forget. We would discuss it, she would agree (again) and she would forget (again). At one point, having forgotten not only an agreement we had made, but all discussion of it, she said to me, somewhat angrily, "If I tell you I don't know something, then I don't know it!" Clearly this was true whether or not she had known it yesterday or last week. We went back to the methods she had learned as a child, and that solved that problem — but disclosure in the interim was somewhat difficult, to say the least. Anyway, I can imagine a similar problem even without the brain cancer thing. People get old, memories are hard to hang onto.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-19, 21:03, said:

Hm. Is memory a factor here?

You found a solution that worked, and for others with different memory problems maybe playing a simpler more intuitive system, or just adding no further agreements would work. But when a new bit is added to a system, players without brain cancer have an obligation to at least try to remember it. And if the new bit was added, say, to plug a previously-unknown system hole, it'll probably stick in the mind. I find it frustrating when a poster says "we play convention PDQ, but partner often forgets, should I disclose this to my opponents?" My first question is, of course, why are you playing PDQ? And are you, in fact, really playing it?

There are so many problems with this, because if the opponents have seen PDQ on the CC, they will not realise that they need to know how to defend against [PDQ or EFG]. And [PDQ or EFG] may not even be legal, and if it is it may be pre-alertable in jurisdictions with pre-alerts, and required to be written in a prominent place on the card in others. The Laws do not deal very well with this issue.

But the OP has said that most of his auctions eventually wander into "no agreement" territory. Are all of these situations unique in a duplicate session, or a multi-session event, or a few months of playing regularly? Can he be forgetting newly-minted agreements from one hand to the next?

I don't know, I can't remember the last time a "no agreement" bid came up in any of my partnerships, even with infrequent partners. And in fact it would be unusual for it to happen in a first-time partnership, because a lot of our agreements will be implicit or assumed.

Yet to others it happens all the time? Really?

[johnu]

avoscill, on 2015-July-19, 06:09, said:

With exception of a few, people here seems to not being able to differentiate between "making inferences available to the opponents" and "telling one's own inferences to the opponents". Nowhere I said that I hide (or want to) information to the opponents, yet everybody implies I do it (or would like to find excuses for doing it). To Karlson I say: we open 4♠-6♦ hands in spades, and yes, we inform our opponents about this treatment.

Arturo Franco states that one of the principles upon which is based the Blue Team Club bidding system is: Don’t tell the opponents how to play the hand. In the ♠opening - 1NT overcall - 3♦ rebid example, West led a spade, and when he later had to decide the continuation, he felt he had the right to know the exact number of my spades, and therefore to know whether he can play a spade for East to ruff. Sorry West, but we like to follow the above Blue Team Club precept. I must conclude that in this forum the prevailing view is just the opposite: you are obliged by the Law to tell the opponents how to play the hand. I you don't need to define a bid (because partner don't need this information), never mind, you still must define it, because the opponents may need this information. But maybe we are playing different games (or speaking different languages).

Ridiculous. An ethical BTC player would pre-alert the canape tendencies, and alert the 3♦ bid and when asked, say something like "usually 15-16 HCP, 4+ spades, 5+ diamonds, diamonds longer than spades" or whatever their agreement was (I don't remember that particular auction ever coming up, but that's what I would expect). Not many players know how BTC canape works and I would never "expect" anybody to work it out based on inferences.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps we should consider whether the concept of "full disclosure" as we know it now was not quite so fully evolved 50 or 60 years ago. The view attributed to Arturo Franco may well have been widely accepted, and acceptable, back then. Times have changed.