[Trinidad]

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

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).

Let me make it 100% clear:
During the play at the table the players are supposed to explain what they know. Supposedly they think they know what "Widget" means and, at that point, they don't know better than that they have an agreement with partner. An explanation of "Widget" (convention name only) is not allowed, so, at the table they will explain what they (think they) know the bid to mean in terms of distribution, strength, or whatever (e.g. "two suiter with spades and a minor").
If the Widgeteers end up declaring, the partner will have to correct, since he (thinks he) knows that "Widget" means something else (e.g. "three suited with short clubs"). One could say that the opponents are "entitled" to these explanations at the table, since as long as the Widgeteers follow the laws, they will have to provide this information. However, despite that both explanations are very informative and handy for the non-offenders, and that lawfully the non-offenders should always get these explanations when they are defending, both explanations are wrong. The correct explanation is: "We agreed to play Widget, but we don't agree what that means."

For the purpose of assigning an AS, the non-offenders are only entitled to know the agreement of the Widgeteers. The truth is that the Widgeteers have no agreement. They only have a disagreement. (They may have a partial agreement, e.g. Widget shows two suiter with spades and a minor vs spades and a red suit. Then the agreement is: "Two suiter with spades and a side suit that we don't agree on." But let's not complicate matters and keep things nicely black and white.) As long as there is no agreement, "no agreement" (or "We agreed to play Widget, but we don't agree what that means.") is the correct explanation. So that is what the TD is supposed to give the panel and base his AS on.

Rik

[gordontd]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-28, 11:28, said:

As long as there is no agreement, "no agreement" (or "We agreed to play Widget, but we don't agree what that means.") is the correct explanation.

You suggest that these two are virtually equivalent, yet the difference between the two is close to defining the difference between Frances' and my position, which is what led to this thread starting.

[Trinidad]

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.

No.

They are not entitled to the bidder's understanding of his call or what the bidder intended to show. They are only entitled to the agreement. (And that should be pretty clear from the last few posts before yours.)

If the bidder thinks "A" and his partner thinks "B" then the agreement is "we have a disagreement". So, you, as a non-offender, are only entitled to "we have a disagreement".

In practice, at the table, you will get "B", because it is inevitable. If you end up defending, you will usually get "A" too. (Though I find barmar's addition interesting: a TD should not give the non-offenders the bidder's thoughts about the convention. He should only give them the agreement, in this case: "no agreement".) If you end up declaring, you will not hear "A" until the hand is over.

For the purpose of an AS, we give the "virtual non-offenders" the correct explanation, which in this case is: "No agreement".

Rik

[Trinidad]

gordontd, on 2015-April-28, 11:46, said:

You suggest that these two are virtually equivalent, yet the difference between the two is close to defining the difference between Frances' and my position, which is what led to this thread starting.

Ok. I agree that the two are different. But it is a little bit difficult to "rule in the dark" without getting to see what the actual problem is. And it is silly to add complexity when it is not clear that this complexity is needed. But since it is, I will clarify my position:

The non-offenders are entitled to the agreement, which for me means:

• everything the Widgeteers ("happen to") agree on
  
• knowing that they have no agreements on anything else

So, they are entitled to know that:

• they play Widget
  
• they don't agree what it means.

If they agree on parts of Widget, then the non-offenders are entitled to the parts that they agree on. An example:
A= "a two-suiter with spades and a minor"
B= "a two-suiter with spades and a red suit"

The non-offenders are entitled to know:

• It is a two-suiter.
  
• One of the suits will be spades.
  
• The second suit is ambiguous, by agreement.
  
• The players disagree which suits this second suit might be, but they agree that they would use the bid for a spade-diamond two-suiter.
  
• They have no further agreements.

(For the purpose of assigning an AS) they are not entitled to know who of the two Widgeteers (the bidder or his partner) thought what.

Rik

[kevperk]

Nobody has brought this up yet. What if the opponents had looked at the card, saw Widget listed, knew what it is, and didn't ask any questions? What would the ruling be then? What information were the opponents entitled to?

[mikeh]

I've gone back to the OP, and confess that I think we need (or at least I need) a bit more information...information that would be available to the TD or committee.

Were screens in use?

Was a question asked by the defenders? If screens were in use, were both widgeteers asked?

What, precisely, was said in response to questions? If any question was answered: 'we play widget here' or words to similar effect, were followup questions asked and, if not, why not? I mean, we are all agreed that saying 'widget' isn't a proper answer. However, if a defender accepted that answer, what did that defender think it meant?

Assuming no screens, then the partner of the widget bidder would have given the B explanation, and the widget bidder would have known that this did not reflect what he intended, but would not have been aware that neither B nor his A accorded with the 'book' meaning.

Assume the widgeteers win the auction.It seems to me we have 3 possible situations.

1. (A) is sure that he has it right and that (B) has given the wrong explanation. Procedurally this is simple: (A) calls the TD and explains that (B) gave misinformation. The TD has to explore this, and will learn that there was no agreement as to what the bid meant. The opps are entitled to know that there was no agreement, but they are not entitled, I think, to know what (A) intended. There may well be penalties for failing to have an agreement. I don't know if the auction can be rolled back to the point at which the misinformation was given.

2. (A) was perhaps always a bit unsure that he had it right, he trusts (B) to know widget better than he does, so he accepts that he, (A) must have got it wrong and that B is the right explanation. Now, no misinformation has been given (if screens were in use, then (A) may have given misinformation and must announce it at this time, before the opening lead). If (A) hasn't given his explanation, then from his perspective there has been no misinformation.....he just got it wrong, and he accepts (incorrectly as it happens) that his partner's B must be right. Now he is under no obligation to say anything, and shouldn't.

3. (A) is simply unsure.....he realizes that he and B had no agreement and he just doesn't know which, if either, is the correct meaning of widget. This is the one where I really struggle. I think the correct approach is for (A) to announce, prior to the opening lead, that (A) doesn't think B is correct...that (A) thinks there has been misinformation. Again, I don't think (A) should volunteer his opinion as to the meaning of widget....I think it is up to the TD to investigate and, once more, the TD will discover that there was no agreement.

If this analysis is correct, then the opps are entitled to be told B during the auction (if screens are in use, one gets A and the other, B).

Then if no screens are in use, or (A) is otherwise told that B has been announced, (A) either says nothing at all, or calls the TD.

If nothing at all, then by the time play is over, if not before, the opps will see that (A)'s hand didn't correspond with B, and the TD will be called and will determine that there was no agreement.

So imo, to answer the OP, the opps are never entitled to C. They are entitled to B during the auction, and are never entitled to A (unless screens are in use, in which case one is entitled to A). They are, either before the lead or later, entitled to know that there was no agreement. There may be adjustments made due to the failure of the widgeteers to know their methods. There will have been, in most cases, a discovery that there was no agreement and that any explanation, be it A or B, was inaccurate.

If the widgeteers are defending, then nothing can be said by either until the hand is over, at which point the TD will again determine that no agreement was made, and that both explanations, if given, constituted misinformation, and can adjust on that basis....comparing the actual result to what the TD thinks would have happened or be deemed to have happened had the innocent players been told 'no agreement'.

Again, no basis for saying that C should have been announced.

Note that in the middle case, where (A) hears B and thinks that B must be correct, then nothing gets done until after the hand. However, the TD would probably be able to discover that there was no agreement, even tho (A) now thinks that B was probably correct.

[fromageGB]

The other pair is not entitled to know there is a disagreement if the partner of the widget bidder gave the explanation that they play widget but have not discussed what it means. Nobody knows there is disagreement. That issue only comes to light if the partner volunteers B, which some think he should not do.

[FrancesHinden]

I've deliberately kept this theoretical because it is a live appeal, and we aren't supposed to discuss live appeals online. I thought the theoretical problem (which is only part of the ruling) was abstract enough to post to gauge opinions. I wanted to discover if either gordon or I were in a minority of 1 and I think the answer is 'no'. The discussion is also helpful.

To address a couple of the questions:

This is live bridge without screens.
When you made your widget bid, your partner's interpretation (B) is not alertable, hence it wasn't alerted. The opponents did not ask about it, assuming it had the obvious (and only) non-alertable meaning.
Meanings A and C should both be alerted.

Widget was written on the card (by name only), but the opponents either did not look (no alert, no need to look) or also looked and assumed B

I can see three possible positions rather than the two I'd thought of so far:

- The Widgeteers genuinely have 'no agreement'. In that case the opponents have not in fact been misinformed as the Widgeteers had no agreement about the meaning of the bid, and the partner of the bidder was planning to treat it as not alertable; therefore it did not need alerting. The Widget bidder just made something up at the table with no basis in agreement i.e. a psyche or misbid. The logic makes sense to me but I hate the outcome. And it seems to go against assuming MI rather than misbid.

- The Widgeteers agreement was to play Widget, with no further discussion. In a theoretical world, the Widget bid should have been alerted in line with C and there has been MI. Position 2a, the opponents should have been told C and C only (they may also guess B from the lack of alert but it's also possible the player didn't know the alerting rules). Position 2b, the opponents are told only what has been definitely agreed but they should be been alerted to the fact that the agreement was to play Widget only with no discussion and that (inferentially) some possibly meanings should have been alerted.

[mikeh]

FrancesHinden, on 2015-April-28, 14:34, said:

This is live bridge without screens.
When you made your widget bid, your partner's interpretation (B) is not alertable, hence it wasn't alerted. The opponents did not ask about it, assuming it had the obvious (and only) non-alertable meaning.
Meanings A and C should both be alerted.

Widget was written on the card (by name only), but the opponents either did not look (no alert, no need to look) or also looked and assumed B

I can see three possible positions rather than the two I'd thought of so far:

- The Widgeteers genuinely have 'no agreement'. In that case the opponents have not in fact been misinformed as the Widgeteers had no agreement about the meaning of the bid, and the partner of the bidder was planning to treat it as not alertable; therefore it did not need alerting. The Widget bidder just made something up at the table with no basis in agreement i.e. a psyche or misbid. The logic makes sense to me but I hate the outcome. And it seems to go against assuming MI rather than misbid.

- The Widgeteers agreement was to play Widget, with no further discussion. In a theoretical world, the Widget bid should have been alerted in line with C and there has been MI. Position 2a, the opponents should have been told C and C only (they may also guess B from the lack of alert but it's also possible the player didn't know the alerting rules). Position 2b, the opponents are told only what has been definitely agreed but they should be been alerted to the fact that the agreement was to play Widget only with no discussion and that (inferentially) some possibly meanings should have been alerted.

If (A) knew that his meaning, A, should be alerted then the failure to alert did two things.

One is that it informed (A) that there was a possibility of a misunderstanding having arisen, a possibility strengthened by (A)'s knowledge that they hadn't actually discussed widget.

The other is that the opps have been induced to think that whatever widget meant, it wasn't alertable, thus significantly narrowing what it might be.....perhaps natural.


Assume the widgeteers declare: (A) has to announce the failure to alert, whereupon in the usual course (B) would proffer the explanation that it was B and B didn't need alerting, making it clear to (A) that a misunderstanding had arisen. The TD would then learn that there was no agreement.

When there was no agreement in fact, then there can be no adjustment other than as a penalty for failing to know methods.

If the widgeteers are defending, then (A) says nothing until the end of the hand, altho it is possible that the declaring side will figure out a problem and start asking questions earlier. In any event, once again the TD discovers that there was no agreement. However, the TD will be aware that (A) ought to know that A should have been alerted, and will give heightened scrutiny to (A)'s conduct after the failure to alert, to determine whether, viewed objectively, there is any basis to conclude that (A) chose an action that would have been made more attractive by virtue of the non-alert. Regardless of that, there has been no express misinformation with because there had been no agreement. Adjustments would still be possible as a penalty.

What about the drawing of inferences by the defenders due to the non-alert? I think that is rub of the green as well. (B) didn't have an agreement that widget was alertable, if intended as he thought it was, so he didn't 'fail to alert' an agreement.

If (A) plausibly says he didn't know that A was alertable, the same analysis should apply, even to the extent of examining (A)'s conduct post widget, not because he might be lying but because objective facts must be looked at rather than subjective statements.

At the end of the day, I continue to think that it makes no sense to invoke C at any stage. Not one player at the table understood C to apply, and nobody used widget in that sense.

Since there was no agreement in fact as to what widget meant, and no explanations offered, there was no misinformation. One is never required to inform the opps about one's partner's misunderstanding...one only needs to explain one's agreements. Here, we had none...yes, we had said 'widget' but in doing so one of us thought it was a grape and the other a banana. Both meanings were conventions in the same sense as grapes and bananas are fruit, but when asked to describe what we meant, we'd give very different descriptions.

Again, that doesn't end the matter, since penalties can, in some circumstances, be levied.

[Vampyr]

Those who think that the information to be assumed for the purposes of a score adjustment are being pretty hard on the OS. If it is really no agreement, the bid could mean anything at all, so if the opponents would have been damaged by any possible meaning of the Widget bid, there will be a score adjustment in the opponents' favour. It seems to be that the only adjustment that should be available is as if the OS had explained (or correctly not alerted) B, when the agreement was "really" A.

[blackshoe]

mikeh, on 2015-April-28, 15:32, said:

Adjustments would still be possible as a penalty.

Huh? Under which law?

[nige1]

kevperk, on 2015-April-28, 12:11, said:

Nobody has brought this up yet. What if the opponents had looked at the card, saw Widget listed, knew what it is, and didn't ask any questions? What would the ruling be then? What information were the opponents entitled to?

Good question. IMO, opponents are entitled to assume "C", the correct meaning of the convention that the Widgeteers agreed to play.

IMO, if a partnership agree to play Widget then the law should treat the following, all the same way

• Not bothering to learn the convention or
• Assuming the wrong meaning for the convention or
• Learning the proper version and then muddling or forgetting it.

In each case, it is simple for the director to take their system-card as primary evidence of their agreement, even if that only names the convention. Any other course of action leaves the director with a complex decision that might favour players who are economical with the truth.

If you made an agreement, then you are bound by that agreement, whether or not you take the trouble to establish its import or ramifications.

[Trinidad]

FrancesHinden, on 2015-April-28, 14:34, said:

- The Widgeteers genuinely have 'no agreement'. In that case the opponents have not in fact been misinformed as the Widgeteers had no agreement about the meaning of the bid, and the partner of the bidder was planning to treat it as not alertable; therefore it did not need alerting.

I don't agree with the idea that "no agreement" means "do not alert", because it seems that this bid came in a situation where the opponents expect an agreement that the bid is natural.

Suppose two players agree to play "T-Walsh". Unfortunately, one of them has never heard of "T-Walsh" and thinks/assumes that it is the same as "Walsh" and they start to play. On board 2, he opens 1♣ and his partner responds 1♥ (meaning to show his four spades). Opener thinks that it shows hearts and doesn't alert.

Without an alert, the whole world will assume that they have an agreement that 1♥ showed hearts when in fact the agreement is that they disagree about the meaning of 1♥. I would think that the unexpected lack of agreement on the meaning of 1♥ deserves an alert. When the opponents ask, or for the purpose of an AS, the correct explanation would be "We have no agreement what it shows. It shows a four card major, but we disagree on which one it shows.". If the opponents bid 1♣-1♥ against you without alerts, and you would nevertheless, ask for the meaning of 1♥, would you ever expect that explanation? I think you would fall of your chair if this would happen.

Rik

[gordontd]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-29, 02:49, said:

I don't agree with the idea that "no agreement" means "do not alert", because it seems that this bid came in a situation where the opponents expect an agreement that the bid is natural.

Suppose two players agree to play "T-Walsh". Unfortunately, one of them has never heard of "T-Walsh" and thinks/assumes that it is the same as "Walsh" and they start to play. On board 2, he opens 1♣ and his partner responds 1♥ (meaning to show his four spades). Opener thinks that it shows hearts and doesn't alert.

Without an alert, the whole world will assume that they have an agreement that 1♥ showed hearts when in fact the agreement is that they disagree about the meaning of 1♥. I would think that the unexpected lack of agreement on the meaning of 1♥ deserves an alert. When the opponents ask, or for the purpose of an AS, the correct explanation would be "We have no agreement what it shows. It shows a four card major, but we disagree on which one it shows.". If the opponents bid 1♣-1♥ against you without alerts, and you would nevertheless, ask for the meaning of 1♥, would you ever expect that explanation? I think you would fall of your chair if this would happen.

Rik

The question isn't about alerting, nor is it about what explanation should be given at the table, but it is about the information that the pair are theoretically entitled to.

[Trinidad]

gordontd, on 2015-April-29, 04:57, said:

The question isn't about alerting, nor is it about what explanation should be given at the table, but it is about the information that the pair are theoretically entitled to.

I think I gave my opinion on your question in post #64. The post that you now replied to was a reply to Frances's post which actually was about alerting.

Rik

[pran]

gordontd, on 2015-April-29, 04:57, said:

The question isn't about alerting, nor is it about what explanation should be given at the table, but it is about the information that the pair are theoretically entitled to.

"No agreement" fits all the characteristics of partnership understandings that must be alerted (according to most alert regulations).

So if a player knows that he eventually will answer "no agreements" (or words to that effect) if asked about a call then IMHO he is deliberately giving misinformation if he doesn't alert that call.

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-28, 12:10, said:

So, they are entitled to know that:

• they play Widget
  
• they don't agree what it means.

If they don't agree what it means, then I think the name of the lack-of-agreement is totally irrelevant. The fact that the name "Widget" was mentioned in their discussion is just trivia, and does not affect the meanings of their bids.

[barmar]

kevperk, on 2015-April-28, 12:11, said:

Nobody has brought this up yet. What if the opponents had looked at the card, saw Widget listed, knew what it is, and didn't ask any questions? What would the ruling be then? What information were the opponents entitled to?

I was wondering something similar when I wrote my post yesterday about a pair explaining "no agreement" for every box they'd checked on the CC. Just giving a convention name in response to a question is not considered sufficient disclosure. But if an opponent tries to learn your agreements by looking at your CC, that's essentially what they'll get. This suggests that an opponent should not expect to get sufficient explanation of many of your agreements just from your CC, they should always ask for an explanation -- the CC is just a convenient summary.

However, a request to look at the opponent's CC is not, AFAIK, considered equivalent to a request for an explanation of a bid (especially since it doesn't even specify the bid whose explanation is sought). So I guess it's the information-seeker's responsibility to ask a real question, not assume that their interpretation of the CC matches the full details of the opponents' agreements.

For example, the CC might say that certain bids are game forcing (2/1 response, 4th suit). But some partnerships play that "game forcing" actually only means to the 4 level, so you don't have to bid game in a minor (let's not get off on a tangent about whether this is playable, just accept that it exists), but there's no place on the card to mark this. Although I'm not sure I've ever actually heard someone volunteer this when they explain that a bid is game forcing, either -- you'd probably have to ask a specific question to gleen it. (but maybe I've just never played against someone with that agreement, either).

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2015-April-29, 08:37, said:

If they don't agree what it means, then I think the name of the lack-of-agreement is totally irrelevant. The fact that the name "Widget" was mentioned in their discussion is just trivia, and does not affect the meanings of their bids.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that it was of great relevance that they thought they were playing "Widget". But the question was "What are the opponents entitled to know?" (not "What would be relevant?"). And they are entitled to know that piece of trivia.

Rik

[mikeh]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-29, 11:05, said:

I certainly didn't mean to imply that it was of great relevance that they thought they were playing "Widget". But the question was "What are the opponents entitled to know?" (not "What would be relevant?"). And they are entitled to know that piece of trivia.

Rik

No they are not 'entitled to know' that the opps think, mistakenly, that they are playing widget, anymore than it would be correct for the widgeteers, if asked to explain the bid, to say: 'widget'.

The opps are entitled to know the agreement, if any, as to what an action means.

Now, if the opps had looked at the card and had mistakenly thought that the widgeteers had the same understanding of widget as did the opps, then that raises new issues. Now there has been some passing of information to the opps, by virtue of the opps reading the CC. Interesting issues arise about what responsibility, if any, the opps have to ask questions when an apparent widget situation arises.

That didn't happen here, so it is completely irrevelant.

Despite the vast volume of posts, the issue seems pretty clear to me: the opps are never entitled to anything more than an accurate description of the agreement. When there is no agreement, and no explanation sought or offered, then there can be no misinformation, and no harm.

We are told that no alert was given. Were an alert to have been given, because, say, (B) thought that the widget call was alertable, but (A), who made the call, thought it was natural and non-alertable, then we have a different fact pattern again, and the outcome might well be different.

In chaos theory, to the very limited extent I can claim to understand it, minor changes in initial conditions can cause dramatic differences in outcome, and this appears to be the case in TD calls such as the one generating this thread

That doesn't mean that there cannot be procedural penalties levied against the pair for playing a convention without agreement or common understanding as to its meaning. Whether such a penalty is available will depend on the conditions of contest, but I have played in events in which such penalties exist. As long ago as 1994, in the World Mixed Pairs, my wife and I were assessed a 1/4 board penalty for one of us forgetting a conventional action, but no corresponding benefit flowed to the opposing pair.