[NemoJames]

I am having a lot trouble in the small club where I play with players who give misinformation during the auction. All lot of the time I will ask an opponent to explain his partner's bid and they tell me they are not sure or simply don't know. I know what is supposed to happen in this situation because on one occaison in a bigger club my partner's job was to teach tournaments directors. He said the player must leave the table so I can ask his partner to explain the call which sounds logical to me. The problem is I can't find this in the rule book so I can't insist on my right to have the call explained. Does anyone know where I find this rule ?

[Trinidad]

There is no rule that a player must leave the table.

The rule is that a player explains his partner's bids (and plays). He explains everything they have agreed on, beyond what bridge players generally will know. The agreements may be explicit, when they have been discussed, or implicit, when they have "grown" on the partnership.

It can obviously happen that a player has forgotten what was agreed. Then you call the TD. He will rule and no one else will.

One of the things a TD could decide to do is to send the forgetting partner away from the table and let the other player explain the agreements. But TDs have other options too.

One thing that the TD will do is to emphasize that the information that the player forgot the agreement is unauthorized for that side.

So, call the the TD. Let him handle it. It's his problem, not yours.

Rik

[NemoJames]

Thanks. That makes sense. The problem we have is there is no TD and to be honest no one who really understands the rules regarding misinformation.

[Vampyr]

NemoJames, on 2017-May-20, 13:20, said:

Thanks. That makes sense. The problem we have is there is no TD and to be honest no one who really understands the rules regarding misinformation.

I think that with no TD, you can suggest that the player who forgot leave the table while the partner explains the agreement. You could perhaps add this to the bylaws of your club.

The procedure is not in the laws, but the fact that you are entitled to know the opponents' agreements is. So this is a practical way to achieve this. I had it happen the other day, and instead of calling the director, who was very busy, the forgetting player left the table for a moments, as all four players were amenable to this.

I await the chorus of criticism.

[silvr bull]

NemoJames, on 2017-May-20, 01:41, said:

All lot of the time I will ask an opponent to explain his partner's bid and they tell me they are not sure or simply don't know.

I have a different viewpoint. I think you are allowed to ask only about information that BOTH opps know through their agreements. If one opp honestly forgot the previously agreed meaning of a bid by his partner (or never knew and can only guess), then I do not think you are entitled to know what the bidder meant. It is OK, of course, to ask the meaning of a conventional bid. If the responder opp answers that he does not know, then asking the bidder opp what he intended to say is the equivalent of ask that opp to show you part or all of his hand. Asking the responder opp to leave the table so you can ask the bidder opp what he meant is a request for more information about the bidder opp's hand than the responder opp can know.

This situation comes up often in an individual tournament where no agreements have been discussed. If RHO opens 1H and I call 2H in a BBO individual, opps will often click the 2H bid to ask what it means. Although partner and opps should assume it is Michaels (SAYC robot standard), if I have not discussed it with that partner before, then I respond: "No agreements so no information." Opps can only ask about bid meanings we have discussed and partner remembers, but are not entitled to know more information than partner knows.

[Gazumper]

Surely if you've forgotten the agreement then that is what you should state, opps aren't entitled to know what the bidder meant they are only entitled to know what his/her partner thinks it means based on agreements and if he's forgotten then no explanation can be given. That's my view.

[sfi]

Like so many things, this is not a matter of opinion. Law 20F states, in part:

Quote

He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding.

In short, the person is entitled to know about the opponents' agreements.

The fact that one person has forgotten what they are playing does not change that obligation. If the other side is damaged by this failure to explain it (or incorrect explanation), then the director should be awarding an adjusted score based on what would have happened had the correct explanation been given at the time requested.

The laws do not explicitly state the partner of the player must leave the table so the bid can be correctly explained. But neither does it forbid this action - it is perfectly acceptable for the director to require the player to leave for this to happen. And if you have no director, that is a reasonable way to solve this particular issue.

Yes, it means one person knows less about what is going on than the rest of them. Too bad - maybe they should have reviewed their system a bit better.

[silvr bull]

sfi, on 2017-May-21, 02:10, said:

Like so many things, this is not a matter of opinion. Law 20F states, in part:



In short, the person is entitled to know about the opponents' agreements.

The fact that one person has forgotten what they are playing does not change that obligation. If the other side is damaged by this failure to explain it (or incorrect explanation), then the director should be awarding an adjusted score based on what would have happened had the correct explanation been given at the time requested.

The laws do not explicitly state the partner of the player must leave the table so the bid can be correctly explained. But neither does it forbid this action - it is perfectly acceptable for the director to require the player to leave for this to happen. And if you have no director, that is a reasonable way to solve this particular issue.

Yes, it means one person knows less about what is going on than the rest of them. Too bad - maybe they should have reviewed their system a bit better.

I almost agree, but not quite. I see the operative words in Law 20F to be: "where these are matters of partnership understanding." The opps are entitled to know all relevant information about our partnership understandings. Where there is no understanding, however, the opps are NOT allowed to demand that I tell them what my bid meant, or what my hand looks like. In an individual playing with a stranger that I have had no previous contact with, there obviously can be no 'understandings", and nothing for either of us to alert or disclose to the opps. I can hope that partner will have enough bridge knowledge and experience to correctly guess a possible meaning for my bid, but there is no rule I know of that requires my partner to "teach" general bidding theory to the opps in hopes they will then have enough bridge knowledge and experience to guess a possible meaning for my bid. Where there is no understanding, there is no obligation to disclose more than that there is no understanding.

Consider a hypothetical situation. By a lucky coincidence this morning, partner asked me what it would mean if I jump to 5M after he opens 1m. There are a few players who might not be sure what meaning to apply to that slightly unusual sequence, so I was happy to discuss it with him in some detail. Now playing an afternoon session, partner opens 1m and I pick up the perfect hand to fit our defined meaning of a jump to 5M, so that is my bid. Before the next opp can do anything, partner shouts ALERT! and he is fully ready answer any question about out agreements. Aren't lucky coincidences grand? But before the opp passes, or asks any questions, partner becomes seriously ill and must be replaced with a stranger that neither of us has had any contact with. The opps ask the substitute what my 5M bid means, but he can only shrug his shoulders and say he has no idea, so the opps call the director. I explain that I know exactly what my bid would have meant to my previous partner, but I have no guess how the substitute would interpret it. Can anyone seriously believe that the director would then tell the substitute to leave the table, and tell me to show my hand to the opps (or comparably tell the opps in detail about the meaning my previous partner and I would have understood)?

If my partner does not remember a convention that we may have discussed years earlier, then I think it would be reasonable (because partner may have memories that he cannot easily recall) for a director to tell me to leave the table, and then to ask my partner for his best guess about what my bid could have meant and about what approach he will use to respond to it. But there can not be any situation in which I must show my hand to the opps, especially if that is done in a way that disadvantages partner or us (by giving information only to the opps).

[blackshoe]

The only one who's talking about the director requiring you to show your hand to your opponents is you. However, the director can require your partner to leave the table and then require you to tell your opponents what your agreement is.

Aside from that, your hypothetical is nonsense. No one in his right mind would expect some guy pulled in off the street to fill your missing partner's seat, with no discussion and no prior experience with you, to have any idea whatsoever what your agreements with your missing partner are.

[RD350LC]

NemoJames, on 2017-May-20, 01:41, said:

I am having a lot trouble in the small club where I play with players who give misinformation during the auction. All lot of the time I will ask an opponent to explain his partner's bid and they tell me they are not sure or simply don't know. I know what is supposed to happen in this situation because on one occaison in a bigger club my partner's job was to teach tournaments directors. He said the player must leave the table so I can ask his partner to explain the call which sounds logical to me. The problem is I can't find this in the rule book so I can't insist on my right to have the call explained. Does anyone know where I find this rule ?

Mention was made of law 20F. Also, in the 1987 version of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, Law 75C states, in part:
"When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (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 general knowledge and experience."
When a player indicates that he is not sure or does not know, the simplest explanation is that we do not have any agreement. In my opinion, no further explanation is merited.
The laws have been revised a few times from the version that I have, but I believe that this portion has remained unchanged.
I hope this answers the question.

[Vampyr]

RD350LC, on 2017-May-21, 18:42, said:

Mention was made of law 20F. Also, in the 1987 version of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, Law 75C states, in part:
"When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (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 general knowledge and experience."
When a player indicates that he is not sure or does not know, the simplest explanation is that we do not have any agreement. In my opinion, no further explanation is merited.
The laws have been revised a few times from the version that I have, but I believe that this portion has remained unchanged.
I hope this answers the question.

No, there may be an agreement but one player has forgotten. Or the agreement may be implicit, based on what they play with other people, partnership experience etc.

Saying you do not have an agreement when you know you have one but can't remember what it is you are cheating and the only question is how long your ban from organised bridge in your NBO shall be.

By the way, the laws are available online. You do not have to use a 30-year-old copy.

[barmar]

RD350LC, on 2017-May-21, 18:42, said:

When a player indicates that he is not sure or does not know, the simplest explanation is that we do not have any agreement. In my opinion, no further explanation is merited.

If he doesn't think they have an agreement, it would be best for him to say so clearly, rather than hedge with "I'm not sure". The latter could mean that have an agreement but he's forgotten it.

For instance, my regular partner and I play Mexican 2♦ (opening 2♦ shows 18-19 balanced). We have 2 pages of notes on the continuations, but there are some (mostly involving minor-suit slam tries) that hardly ever come up. If partner made one of those bids, I could honestly say "We have an agreement, but I don't remember what it is." Luckily, I keep a printed copy of our notes with my convention card, so I could hand them to the opponent if this came up.

[silvr bull]

blackshoe, on 2017-May-21, 16:58, said:

The only one who's talking about the director requiring you to show your hand to your opponents is you. However, the director can require your partner to leave the table and then require you to tell your opponents what your agreement is.

Aside from that, your hypothetical is nonsense. No one in his right mind would expect some guy pulled in off the street to fill your missing partner's seat, with no discussion and no prior experience with you, to have any idea whatsoever what your agreements with your missing partner are.

We can agree that there is a lot of nonsense here. My bids always describe the 13 cards I am holding, and my bids always fully reflect our agreements. I am so predictable , but sometimes partner may not interpret my bids correctly or he may not understand them at all. Anyone who says that "the director can require your partner to leave the table and then require you to tell your opponents what your agreement is" must understand that translates to the director insisting that I give the opps full disclosure about any meaning for MY bids. Since my bids mean the 13 cards I hold, the only way I can give full disclosure about MY bids is to describe MY hand in as much detail as could have ever been possibly discussed with this partner. That is exactly the equivalent of forcing me to reveal part (perhaps all) of MY hand to the opps. Consider another nonsense example. On a Tuesday a decade ago, my current partner asked me to use a specific bid sequence to show a hand pattern of 6=1=4=2 with 17-19 HCP. He called it our Tuesday convention, and I remember it clearly because I was sure it would never come up. Two days later he asked me to use a different specific bid sequence to show a hand pattern of 5=2=5=1 with 19-20 HCP. He called it our Thursday convention, and I remember it clearly because I was sure it would never come up either. Today for the first time, I have a hand that is perfect for one of those two bid sequences and I bid it happy that I could remember it after not discussing it again for a decade. Unfortunately, partner answered opp questions with repetitions of "We may have discussed something like this many years ago, but I honestly cannot remember." Anyone who says the director can force ME to tell the opps with full disclosure the exact hand pattern and strength I have for MY bids is requested to show me the law that requires me to give that much information (which partner does NOT have) to the opps.

I am happy that you agree that it is nonsense in my earlier hypothetical example to expect a stranger to have any idea about the meaning of MY bids. I trust that you would also agree that it is nonsense for anyone to think the director should force ME to describe the meanings of MY bids (which cannot have ANY meaning to my stranger partner) to the opps.

[sfi]

silvr bull, on 2017-May-22, 00:55, said:

Anyone who says the director can force ME to tell the opps with full disclosure the exact hand pattern and strength I have for MY bids is requested to show me the law that requires me to give that much information (which partner does NOT have) to the opps.

That would be law 20F, as mentioned above. Just because your partner has forgotten you have an agreement doesn't mean you don't have that agreement.

The director has two choices - either act in a way that gives the opponents information about the correct agreement or let the hand play out and adjust after it is over. Either is supported by the laws.

The player has two choices as well - either comply with the director's instructions or not. Of course, choosing the second will result in a sizeable disciplinary penalty and, if the player continues to not do so, eventual expulsion from the event.

[Vampyr]

silvr bull, on 2017-May-22, 00:55, said:

Unfortunately, partner answered opp questions with repetitions of "We may have discussed something like this many years ago, but I honestly cannot remember." Anyone who says the director can force ME to tell the opps with full disclosure the exact hand pattern and strength I have for MY bids is requested to show me the law that requires me to give that much information (which partner does NOT have) to the opps.

Think of it this way. If the agreement was on your convention card, and the opponent picked up the convention card instead of asking, do you have the same objection? Or suppose they asked partner and partner said that he forgot, so the opponents look on the card. Do you have a problem with that? Perhaps you think that full disclosure applies only to players who have a properly filled out convention card, and others can conceal their agreements?

Think of screens or online. Everyone describes their own calls, and can have no knowledge of whether partner remembers. Do you object to that?

[NemoJames]

I must say I find some of the arguements here very confusing and illogical. I have now remembered the name of the tournament director who asked a player to leave the table was Eddie Williams whom I see on google is a UK national tournament director. So it must be assumed that it is the correct procedure. I remember at the time being immpressed with the logic because in the case of confusion one side is going to be disadvantaged, should it be the side who are unable to comply with the clear rule on explaining their bid or the side that is simply insisting on their clear right to have a bid explained ?

Either we are entitled to know what an opponent's bid is or we are not. Surely it is as simple as that? To say that there are serveral vague situations when an oppenent is entitled to keep me in the dark is to reduce the auction to a farce. It also makes it very easy to cheat. If it is to your advantage not to explain your partner's bid then just say you are not sure what it is.

To claim that a player should not be compelled to give opponents information about their hand also makes no sense to me when that is what we do all the time. You make a 2 heart transfer bid and your partner alerts and tells the oppenents that you have 5 spades, disclosure is made.

Considering the importance of the auction it surprises me there is such a lot of vagueness about the rules governing it. In the situation I was in, east made what looked like it was a tranfer bid (over an NT opening) and west said they thought it was a transfer but wasn't 100% sure. As my partner made a DONT overcall my hand put me in a perfect siutation to bid as long as I knew what East's bid meant. I asked West to leave the table and he refused point blank. I had to assume it was a transfer and ended up having to play game (doubled) with only three trumps because it turned out it wasn't a transfer. That result put them in first place.

My point is there are thousands of small clubs that either don't have a TD or do but they have only a basic knowledge. That is why it is so important to have the basic rules written somewhere clearly and simply so in a case like mine I can show them and in future the club can follow them so everyone is treated fairly. Of course there will always be unusual situations where only a TD can make a decision but in my experience this problem about misinformation is one of the most common problems and could be one of the simplest to solve. If a player can't explain his partner's bid he must leave the table, that seems reasonable and is something everyone can understand.

In the case above the pair in question have been playing together for years and are two of the best players in the club. I am not for a minute suggesting they are cheating, just that they are not clear about the rules and considering the differences in opinion in this post that is a common problem. In my case now when we play against this partnership there is no point in me asking them to explain a bid (this has happened several times before) I simply have to accept it and play in the dark and so am disadvantaged, particularly when my partner and I alert everything correctly.

[sfi]

NemoJames, on 2017-May-22, 03:31, said:

In the case above the pair in question have been playing together for years and are two of the best players in the club. I am not for a minute suggesting they are cheating...

Well, someone should. A pair who plays together for years surely knows what this means and, if they don't, they surely know their obligation to accurately inform the opponents of their system. They are cheating.

[silvr bull]

Vampyr, on 2017-May-22, 02:52, said:

Perhaps you think that full disclosure applies only to players who have a properly filled out convention card, and others can conceal their agreements?

Are suggestions of unethical behavior like that really necessary in an intellectual discussion?

I do not see what is so complicated about this. Full disclosure means that partner should tell the opps any relevant information about my bids and as much as he can, and I should tell the opps the comparable information about my partner's bids. Full stop.

Full disclosure does NOT mean that I should describe my hand to the opps, and it does not mean that partner should describe his hand to the opps, and it absolutely does not mean that the opps deserve to gain an advantage over us by learning more than we know about the hand. Why do people make such a simple concept so complicated? If partner is not sure about the meaning of my bids, he should ask me to leave the table (the director and opps could also ask that) so he can tell the opps his best guesses about what my bids mean without telling me what he is uncertain about. How can anyone think that in a F2F game that I could be obligated to tell the opps anything about MY bids or MY 13 cards? The full disclosure that the opps deserve is my partner telling the opps what he knows or can guess about my bids, and me telling the opps what I know or can guess about my partner's bids. There is good reason why there is no self alerting in F2F games. In addition to waking a sleepy partner, self alerts would create a situation in which a player must tell the opps something about his own hand, and that is not what bridge is about.

It does not matter whether or not I like the self alerting feature of BBO online. It is what it is. I comply with the letter and the spirit by telling the opps what my agreements are relative to my bids. When I have no agreements or discussions with an online partner, then I answer questions about situations in which we have no agreements with "No agreements so no information."

Again I ask, why is this so difficult for people to understand? FYI, a few hours ago, I asked ACBL for clarification of this situation. I hope ACBL will post their view here.

[Zelandakh]

As others have already explained, the duty is for the agreement to be explained. If there is no agreement then "No agreement" is all that the opps are entitled to know. However, "No agreement" is not an appropriate response if the same, or a related, situation has come up before. In that case the experience of the pair needs to be disclosed even if there is no formal agreement (implicit partnership agreement).

One perhaps more interesting case is where you do not know what your partner's bid means but you know it is one thing or another. For example, 1♦ - 1♠; 2♣ - 3♥. Perhaps we have not agreed anythign here but I can be fairly sure it shows 5-5 in the majors even if the strength is a mystery. Or 1NT - (X) - 2♦, if we have discussed an artificial method (Exit Transfers, Helvic, etc) then I need to disclose this even if I am not sure whether we actually agreed it ot decided to stick with natural. This is a bit of a grey area in the laws and regulation comes to the fore. A good rule of thumb, as suggested by the EBU, is to alert if one or more of the potential meanings is alertable. So you might alert the 2♦ escape (it might be hearts (alertable) or it might be diamonds (not-alertable)) but not the 2♥ example (assuming that neither an invitational natural jump nor a GF natural jump would be alertable).

In the end the basic concept here is that the opps should have all of the information at their disposal that the partner of the bidder does. That includes partnership experience and discussions as well as explicit agreements made. Memory should not come into it - if it is part of your agreements then the opps are entitled to know it, so if you forget (or worse, deliberately do not disclose) and the opps are damaged then they are usually entitled to redress.

[GrahamJson]

The Laws of Duplicate Bridge have just been revised and I have checked what the new, 2017, version has to say on this. In fact there seems to be no change. You are entitled, when it is your turn to call, to ask the meaning of any bids made, or not made, by the opposition during the auction. The explanation should normally be given by the partner who made the bid. If his partner believes that a wrong explanation was given he must say nothing until the end of the auction at which point he should call the tournament director, who can award an adjusted score. The partner must also not take advantage of the mistaken explanation and must continue as if the correct one had been given. For example, if he makes a natural 3C overcall and his partner mistakenly describes it as "majors" he must assume that any bid his partner makes is as if it were opposite a natural 3C.

National bodies can add to these requirements, for example by requiring a specific convention card to be completed. If you go to the English Bridge Union website it has a large section on Laws and Ethics, including detailed reports on appeals. These give a good indication of how the Laws are interpreted in practice. For example, in the 2014 report there is a case in which a player bid 3D, intending it to be fourth suit forcing. However it was not alerted as such and the opposition were subsequently awarded an adjusted score when they did not cash two diamond tricks early, fearing they would be setting up a side suit.

One other think that the EBU requires it that certain bids are "announced" by the bidder. These include the range of 1NT openings and a few other common bids.

http://www.ebu.co.uk...ok-2017-ebu.pdf
http://www.ebu.co.uk...ppeals-2014.pdf
http://www.ebu.co.uk...ments-table.pdf