[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2015-April-28, 01:09, said:

Well yes, but the question is how will it be "corrected" by the TD when it comes to light? What information will be assumed to be the correct information for the purpose of adjusting the score?

It seems to me that the correct information should be the understanding of the person who made the bid (A?), because without this information the opponents were bidding in possession of MI; also this is the information they will need for the play of the hand.

For those who say the pair had "no agreement", well, whatever, but the player was showing a hand with a bid, and the opponents are entitled to know what hand he was showing.

[gordontd]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-28, 01:16, said:

They don't have an agreement.

We can agree to play that 2♣ is Stayman after 1NT. But if one of us is sure that Stayman asks for a four card minor and the other that it asks for the point count of the 1NT bidder, we have no agreement.

Yes, but this doesn't answer the question. When their opponents ask for a ruling based on mis-information because they were told that 2♣ was Stayman, what correct information will you assume they were entitled to when you consider what would have happened without the mis-information?

[paulg]

gordontd, on 2015-April-28, 02:46, said:

Trinidad, on 2015-April-28, 01:16, said:

They don't have an agreement.

We can agree to play that 2♣ is Stayman after 1NT. But if one of us is sure that Stayman asks for a four card minor and the other that it asks for the point count of the 1NT bidder, we have no agreement.

Yes, but this doesn't answer the question. When their opponents ask for a ruling based on mis-information because they were told that 2♣ was Stayman, what correct information will you assume they were entitled to when you consider what would have happened without the mis-information?

I believe that they are entitled to know that the Widget call was conventional, but there is no agreement what it means.

[helene_t]

Surely the two players will have some vague idea about what "widget" means. It may be that one of them think that it means that a 2♣ response to a 1NT opening is a GF relay while the other think it is a INV+ relay. But I don't think it is likely that one of them think it is a GF relay while the other think it is psychosuction.

So they should tell the opponent that they have agreed to play widget which means that a 2♣ response to a 1NT opening is some kind of asking bid (but it is not standardized exactly which hands would use that bid), or that it is a puppet to 2♦ (but again, it is not standardized....) or whatever the range of possible meanings it might have.

I don't believe that just about any conceivable convention might be called "widget". In that case they wouldn't have agree to play "widget".

Of course if this takes place in a club where everybody knows what "widget" means then the propper disclosure is effectively the same as just saying "widget, full stop".

[sfi]

A concrete example might be that Widget is a set of agreements about overcalling the opponents' NT. Overcaller bids 2D believing it to show the majors. Partner believes 2D is a transfer to hearts in Widget. The actual write-up, which neither of them has ever read, is that 2D shows spades or both red suits. To complicate matters, Widget is not played by anyone else in the area, so there is no local assumed knowledge.

[chrism]

I would extend the presumption of "misexplanation rather than misbid" to "misexplanation [only] rather than both" in this case, and for that the "correct" information to which the opponents are entitled is A, the explanation including the hand of the bidder. If the player who believed A had chosen this moment to psych with a hand corresponding to none of A, B and C then I would probably still have to say A if there were any way to determine reliably what A actually is.

I wouldn't argue with other interpretations, though.

[chrism]

On reflection, and thinking about the earlier Michaels case, I would say that "no agreement" is the correct explanation.

In the Michaels case, bidder believed A, explainer explained B, and all the world would have understood "Michaels" as B.

[Trinidad]

gordontd, on 2015-April-28, 02:46, said:

Yes, but this doesn't answer the question. When their opponents ask for a ruling based on mis-information because they were told that 2♣ was Stayman, what correct information will you assume they were entitled to when you consider what would have happened without the mis-information?

Sure it answers the question:

The information they were entitled to is that player A has just made a bid and that A and B don't have an agreement what it means. So, if you need to adjust the score, you need to use your judgement (i.e. a panel) to figure out what the opponents would have bid had they heard the explanation: "We don't have an agreement."

I could imagine that a more accurate description of the agreement might, e.g., be: "We don't have an agreement, but it isn't natural." because there may be some context. But for the purpose of an AS the opponents are not entitled to A, B or C, since neither of them reflects their disagreement.

Rik

[VixTD]

gordontd, on 2015-April-28, 01:09, said:

Well yes, but the question is how will it be "corrected" by the TD when it comes to light? What information will be assumed to be the correct information for the purpose of adjusting the score?

Unfortunately several posts have been made telling us how they think the players should explain their (dis)agreement at the table, but that isn't the question that was asked.

I think this is the wrong approach:

Trinidad, on 2015-April-27, 08:59, said:

You are supposed to tell what you know about your partner's bid. In this case, the partner of the Widget bidder "knows" that the Widget bid shows B (at least he thinks so). He doesn't know any better than that this is the agreement. So, he is supposed to explain: "That is the Widget convention, partner is showing B."

Now, the Widget bidder thinks that his partner has misexplained. At the appropriate time, the Widget bidder is supposed to call the TD and tell him: "We agreed to play Widget, but my partner got confused and he thought it showed B, but -quite obviously- it shows A."

I hope I'm not misunderstanding Trinidad's reply, but I can understand how some people might reach the conclusion that the director should rule as if the opponents asked about the bid, were given answer "B" by responder and that this was then corrected to "A" by the Widget bidder at the appropriate time. This would not happen if playing with screens, nor if playing online, and in any case the opponents aren't entitled to misexplanations by anyone, even if they might sometimes get them and be able to profit from them in encounters at the bridge table.

I still think that the opponents are entitled either to "no agreement", or possibly to "A" (based on the none-too-solid foundation of law 75C, rule MI rather than misbid unless there is evidence to the contrary).

[nige1]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-28, 01:10, said:

They are superficially contradictory.

The difference is in the boundary conditions.
In the Widget case, you agreed to play Widget, thinking that partner plays it the same as you, because you don't know any other version.
In the Bergen case, you agreed to play Bergen, but at the point where you need to do the explaining, you must realize that there are x different versions of Bergen ("everybody knows that"), and you never discussed which one to play.

And to be more precise, the Bergen case was about a bid that you thought was undiscussed (but wasn't if you played Bergen raises according to Bergen) where you guessed an explanation anyway (not the Bergen one).

In the Widget case, nobody is guessing an explanation. They know the explanation... They just know it wrong.

I accept that Trinidad knows what he meant and for him, his two statements aren't contradictory. I brought up the old case because it closely resembles the OP case:

The auction starts 1♥ - 4♣ (alerted). Undiscussed but you've agreed to play "Bergen". SteveG asked: how would you explain the 4♣ bid? In fact, this very auction had come up in a first-time partnership where we'd agreed "Bergen". I explained that we had no precise agreement but offered to speculate. When my opponent took up that offer I went on: Most likely a splinter -- Short ♣, 4+ ♥, at least game values.

Trinidad pointed out: Bergen defines 4♣ as something quite different. I was unaware of this. Luckily, partner suffered from the same misconception that I did, so my explanation correctly described his hand.

[WellSpyder]

VixTD, on 2015-April-28, 06:55, said:

I still think that the opponents are entitled either to "no agreement", or possibly to "A" (based on the none-too-solid foundation of law 75C, rule MI rather than misbid unless there is evidence to the contrary).

I like VixTD's approach. Obviously you won't get "no agreement" at the table since both players thought they had an agreement, so everyone will rule MI. But it seems clear that there isn't an actual agreement at all, so that is all oppo are entitled to know (though I assume there is agreement that the bid is conventional, so that should be disclosed). If they are told "A" then they will draw the wrong conclusions about what responder has got and could be entitled to redress - I think there is sufficient evidence to the contrary that the presumption in favour of MI rather than misbid is irrelevant. If they are told "B" they will have the wrong idea about what the Widget bidder has got, and could be entitled to redress. "C" forms no part of the agreement in any meaningful sense and is, I think, irrelevant. I would prefer both A and B to be disclosed, and I hope that is what the Widget bidders would prefer, too, but I don't think that can be the basis on which the TD decides on the appropriate adjustment for MI.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-28, 01:48, said:

For those who say the pair had "no agreement", well, whatever, but the player was showing a hand with a bid, and the opponents are entitled to know what hand he was showing.

Are they? They're entitled to know the partnership agreement, but here there isn't one. It's been said before that they're not entitled to know what's in the bidder's hand.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on 2015-April-28, 03:26, said:

Of course if this takes place in a club where everybody knows what "widget" means then the propper disclosure is effectively the same as just saying "widget, full stop".

"If 'everybody knows' such-and-such, then it ain't so". -- Lazarus Long

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-28, 08:29, said:

Are they? They're entitled to know the partnership agreement, but here there isn't one. It's been said before that they're not entitled to know what's in the bidder's hand.

Whatever has been said, it seems clear to me that the opponents are entitled to the bidder's understanding of what his bid showed.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-28, 08:49, said:

Whatever has been said, it seems clear to me that the opponents are entitled to the bidder's understanding of what his bid showed.

Yes, but at the appropriate time - which will be either after the final pass, or after the play is completed, because partner's explanation will not match what the bidder thinks is their agreement.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2015-April-27, 11:23, said:

Arguably, I agree, you should divulge this, without prompting -- although you might be wary of volunteering speculation.

But you don't realize it's just speculation. The fact that you didn't bother discussing the details of Widget suggests that both of you think it's a well-defined term, and you each think your understanding is the standard meaning.

When I sit down with a new partner, we check off lots of boxes on the CC without discussing them in detail -- we just assume that we're talking the same language. When they come up, we don't say "undiscussed" for all of them, we explain what we think the normal meaning is, because that's what we assumed we agreed. I don't consider it "speculating", although every now and then you get surprised that partner's understanding is different from yours.

The situation in the OP is particularly weird. It's pretty unusual that there will be 3 meanings: yours, mine, and the "real" meaning. Usually it's just one of you that's confused. Or a convention comes in multiple variants, and you each assumed a different variant. When I know a convention is like that, I make sure to qualify it; e.g. when we agree Unusual/Unusual, I always ask if they prefer low=low or low=opener's suit.

[barmar]

sfi, on 2015-April-27, 20:18, said:

I choose 'none of the above'. Your opponents are entitled to your actual agreement, which is 'Widget, but we have not discussed it any further and in fact have different understandings of the convention'. This is, in effect, 'no agreement'. If this explanation was actually given, I don't believe the other side would be entitled to either person's private understanding of the convention.

Of course you'll never give that explanation - you will say what you believe it to mean and your partner will correct it at the appropriate time. So anything you say is likely to lead to both UI to your side and MI to their side. Good luck landing on your feet .

While that may be the actual agreement, I think it would be a violation to actually give it as the explanation. You're supposed to explain what you believe your agreement is -- it's only double dummy that you actually have no agreement.

Otherwise, a pick-up partnership could, after having gone through the CC and checked off dozens of boxes with no detailed discussion, say "no agreement" for every box they checked. That's obviously far from the truth, and clearly the opposite of the spirit of full disclosure.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-28, 08:49, said:

Whatever has been said, it seems clear to me that the opponents are entitled to the bidder's understanding of what his bid showed.

I don't think the opponents are entitled to this -- they're only entitled to the pair's agreements. But it's also a violation not to give what you think is the correct explanation (even if it turns out to be wrong).

The precise wording of Law 20F5b, though, is interesting. It says that when a player believes his partner gave an incorrect explanation, he should call the TD (at the appropriate time) and inform the opponents that the explanation was incorrect, but it doesn't actually say that he should offer the corrected explanation. While I think only a SB would interpret it this way, I'm not sure it's important; if the corrected explanation is not given, the TD will take that into account when adjusting the result.

[Vampyr]

Give us upvotes for mods!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-28, 10:00, said:

Give us upvotes for mods!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I asked the other admins about this, they said they still don't think it's a good idea.