[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2014-November-14, 08:48, said:

Counter-question: Is "I cannot give any description" really a description?

Or is it, as I tend to think, an infraction by failure to give a description.

(For this question I don't care about why he cannot give any description, only the fact that he cannot.)

Description of what? The laws require "description" of their agreements. If they don't have an agreement, there's nothing to describe.

 Vampyr, on 2014-November-14, 08:49, said:

Not per se, but regulations could define it as misinformation in order to protect opponents from damage.

I suppose they could, although I'm not sure that would be a legal regulation. In any case, I don't know of any jurisdiction that has such a regulation.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-14, 08:58, said:

Description of what? The laws require "description" of their agreements. If they don't have an agreement, there's nothing to describe.

Then why does a player make a call for which they have no agreement (express or implied)?

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2014-November-14, 09:00, said:

Then why does a player make a call for which they have no agreement (express or implied)?

Because he doesn't know how to play bridge?

I don't know, Sven, ask the guy who made the call.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-14, 08:58, said:

I suppose they could, although I'm not sure that would be a legal regulation.

I don't see why not. Anyway it seems like the perfect solution, as the 'NOS' are protected.

[nige1]

 lamford, on 2014-November-12, 05:14, said:

I think that "deemed misinformation" would be better than "unacceptable explanation". Imagine a game where all calls by a side were "undiscussed", and the other side had to guess at the meaning of every call, and have a whole system to cope with every "undiscussed" bid of the opponents. For example, 1S - (3C, undiscussed). Now I play with most partners that if 3C is natural, double is takeout, if 3C is Ghestem, double is looking for a penalty. If 3C is "undiscussed", I do not have a clue what to do.

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-14, 08:43, said:

One of the prerequisites for "damage" is that the opponents must have committed an infraction. Is "having no agreements" an infraction?

 Vampyr, on 2014-November-14, 08:49, said:

Not per se, but regulations could define it as misinformation in order to protect opponents from damage.

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-14, 08:58, said:

I suppose they could, although I'm not sure that would be a legal regulation. In any case, I don't know of any jurisdiction that has such a regulation.

Where are moderators when we need them? Anyway, I will add Lamfords suggestion to the poll in the "No Firm Agreement" topic in "Changing Laws and Regulations".

[barmar]

 pran, on 2014-November-14, 08:48, said:

Counter-question: Is "I cannot give any description" really a description?

Or is it, as I tend to think, an infraction by failure to give a description.

(For this question I don't care about why he cannot give any description, only the fact that he cannot.)

If there's nothing to describe, this is correct information. What is the infraction? The Law says you have to disclose your agreements, it doesn't say you have to HAVE an agreement.

Could the police charge a witness to a crime with obstruction of justice if he truthfully says he doesn't remember what the perpetrator looked like?

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-14, 09:03, said:

pran said:

Then why does a player make a call for which they have no agreement (express or implied)?

I don't know, Sven, ask the guy who made the call.

That is exactly what I want to find out whenever I have to handle such situations.

Fortunately this is very seldom a problem, maybe because the players I meet as director usually do not try to "hide" behind "no agreements" or "undiscussed" in order to conceal information from their opponents.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2014-November-14, 11:37, said:

That is exactly what I want to find out whenever I have to handle such situations.

Fortunately this is very seldom a problem, maybe because the players I meet as director usually do not try to "hide" behind "no agreements" or "undiscussed" in order to conceal information from their opponents.

I think, Sven, that you will find that's true of all, or almost all, directors. It's probably also true that most directors don't consider players to be cheats just because they say a particular call is undiscussed.

[mycroft]

 pran, on 2014-November-14, 09:00, said:

Then why does a player make a call for which they have no agreement (express or implied)?

Because it's not legal to just not call at your turn? Tell me you're never in "we're past our agreements, and none of our/conflicting meta-agreements apply" - because if you can, it's probably you and Meckwell.

[chrism]

 mycroft, on 2014-November-14, 12:33, said:

Because it's not legal to just not call at your turn? Tell me you're never in "we're past our agreements, and none of our/conflicting meta-agreements apply" - because if you can, it's probably you and Meckwell.

No, just you. A few years ago we played the Nickell team in the first (and, for us, last) round of the Spingold. Meckwell were at the other table and at one point about 3 rounds of bidding into the auction, Rodwell alerted and explained on the lines of "I'm not sure what that is - it isn't in our notes".

[barmar]

That's the great thing about this game. Even with 100 pages of system notes, there are still cases you can't cover.