BBO Discussion Forums: No firm agreement - BBO Discussion Forums

nige1, on 2014-November-14, 21:51, said:

These, then again, are specific to the partnership and, hence, need to be disclosed.

Rik

Trinidad, on 2014-November-15, 01:17, said:

I gathered from Trinidad's previous post that he deemed inferences from analogous auctions and negative inferences from other agreements to be "General Bridge Knowledge" -- hence not disclosable. I'm glad I'm mistaken. An extreme example:

A few months ago, I played with an Englishman, whom I had just met at the table. Other tables had already played their first board but opponents kindly allowed us a couple of minutes to write out an SC with something like 2/1, strong notrump, 5-card Ms, 4 transfers, Smolen, Jacoby, Bergen, Gazzilli, 2-way checkback, Drury 2m, 3rd & 5th, UDCA.

Now, when our expert opponents asked us about a call, would it be OK just to say "We're strangers and have completed a card in your presence. Our conventions are familiar to you, so you know as much as we do."

IMO, that reply is inadequate. Opponents might not pick up on all available inferences, unless they take time to consider our complete system. IMO, we have a much stronger incentive to be aware of our system, as a whole. Hence, when appropriate, we should offer to provide further positive and negative inferences, however tentative. Obvious examples:
1♥ - 1♠ - 2♦ (Opener should be limited to less than 16 HCP because of Gazzilli).
1♦ - 1♥ - 1N - 2♠ (Responder should be exactly 4-4 in the majors, because of 2-way check-back).

In more complex auctions, more speculative inferences become available. IMO, all these are disclosable. With every board we play, our rapport increases, as we learn more about partner's predilections. Our opponents' informational disadvantage increases, so that "Undiscussed" or "No agreement" become increasingly blatant prevarication.

Trinidad might protest that all this is irrelevant. He is talking about when we genuinely have no agreement. (I hope he doesn't reject that assumption as a Strawman). I've tried to demonstrate that such situations are rare. Also, when a player claims "No agreement", it's hard to tell whether he is telling the truth The laws put pressure on a player to rationalise "No agreement" rather than risk giving UI. Instead of penalising only the honest player, I feel it would be better if the laws insisted that we all had to state our best guess.

nige1, on 2014-November-15, 14:24, said:

Interesting example. A few years ago I read (in George Rosenkranz' Our Man Godfrey) of this agreement, or inference, or whatever. The context was Godfrey, the expert, teaching his partner about two way checkback. He told her that "because of two way checkback, we play that this auction shows 4-4 in the majors." "Neat inference," I thought. Before I read the book, though, it would not have occurred to me. "Sounds like a reverse, partner must be 4=5," I would have thought. Of course, with that shape you can checkback, because you will find the 5-3 or the 4-4 fit (if they're there). But my thought process wouldn't have gone that far back then. Also, in those days I hadn't wrapped my head around Walsh, which is part of Godfrey's methods, at least. So I would have expected partner to rebid 1♠ with four of them, whatever his strength. I think Walsh is a great improvement now, so I like this method. But I don't think it's obvious, so I agree it should be disclosed. I also think it's something the partnership should discuss.

nige1, on 2014-November-15, 14:24, said:

A curious example, since your partner seems to have a rather wider General Bridge Knowledge than one might expect from a complete stranger. Had it been me, you would have been stuck with Benji (or 3 weak twos at a pinch) and 4-card majors and very little other clever stuff. (But of, course, considering the needs of players like me seems to be far beneath you.)

If, then, the first hand had gone 1♥ - (pass)- 4♣ (undiscussed), and you thought me an unsophisticated duffer, how might you explain the bid if asked?

StevenG, on 2014-November-15, 15:12, said:

My pick-up partner was an expert. I'm no expert but try to fit in with partner's preferences.

StevenG, on 2014-November-15, 15:12, said:

Good example -- in those circumstances, what would you do, StevenG? Assuming we have no explicit agreement about this 4♣ bid, under current EBU regulations, I would still alert. If asked, I would say "No agreement". It may be against the law, but I'd then offer to speculate. If my opponent took up that offer, I'd say "Most likely a splinter -- Short ♣, 4+ ♥, at least game values".

In case you haven't read my previous posts, my reason for offering this explanation is that: I play simple Benjy Acol with my regular partner and most Acol players employ splinters; StevenG and I are both BBO members, where that convention is widely advocated; I think it might be most the common agreement for this bid in the UK. My opponents, however, may unaware all this is the case. I agree, however, that it's hard to know what "General Bridge Knowledge" really is..

You might mean something quite different and my misinformation might damage opponents, for which the director might provide redress. Anyway, If we declare, then you would correct any misexplanations, before the opening lead.

nige1, on 2014-November-15, 15:57, said:

I would think that Gerber is far and away the most commonly played meaning for that bid in the UK.
If I played with a stranger, I would expect Gerber if I thought that player weak, and a splinter otherwise. I would not wish to explain my reasoning in public.

nige1, on 2014-November-15, 14:24, said:

You were mixing up things in your post. The first item in your list was an obvious case of GBK. The others were partnership related.

nige1, on 2014-November-15, 14:24, said:

?!? Have you ever heard of the KISS principle? Do you know just how many uncertainties you put in your system because people play these conventions in different ways? They say that it is better to play one bad system than to play two different good systems. This list is disaster waiting to happen.

nige1, on 2014-November-15, 14:24, said:

A typical example: Some play that this sequence shows 4-4 and forces to game. Others play that it shows 4-4 and is invitational. Again others play that it shows 4-4 and is forcing for one round (i.e. at least invitational). Then there are, of course, those who play that this sequence shows 4-5 (GF, INV, or INV+), because 4-4 major fits can be found with 2-way checkback. And then we shouldn't forget the pairs who simply don't use this sequence, since 2 way checkback solves all their problems or the players who would never show a 4-4 since opener's 1NT rebid denied four spades.

If you explain this as "exactly 4-4 in the majors, because of 2 way checkback" your explanation is certainly wrong. It is either overinterpreting "we play 2 way checkback" and drawing too strong a conclusion or it is underinterpreting since it isn't even explaining what the strength of the bid is. My explanation would be: "We have agreed to play 2 way checkback, but we didn't have time to discuss what hands will go through a checkback variation and what hands will be bid naturally." I will not explain that I am certainly not going to pass 2♠, not even with a dead minimum and 4 spades (even if that would be the correct action if partner intended it as invitational only). The fact that it is a good idea to treat undiscussed bids as forcing is GBK.

nige1, on 2014-November-15, 15:57, said:

But you did have an agreement about 1♥-4♣! You agreed to play Bergen Raises: 4♣ is a balanced 3 card heart raise with 16-18 HCPs. All splinters would go through 3♠. At least that is what Bergen wrote in his book on the subject. (And I guess he would know.)

Summarizing, the only agreements you had were that you played this list of conventions. Any explanation founded on the assumption that your partner would play those conventions in the same way as you do is misinformation, since you never agreed (neither explicitly nor implicitly) to the level of detail you are offering.

Rik

I offered the opinion in another thread that "no agreement" should be deemed misinformation. I have changed my view, and I think that "no agreement" over a call which should be announced should be deemed misinformation, as there is an infraction of failing to announce as required by the Blue Book in England, and presumably in other countries. That puts the onus on even a pick-up partnership to agree a basic system, but "no agreement" is acceptable for other calls. The partnership still has an obligation to disclose implicit agreements, of course. The stronger and more regular the partnership, the more that other understandings which should be disclosed will reveal the likely meaning.

Trinidad, on 2014-November-15, 17:17, said:

I bow to Trinidad's superior expertise but in the popular version of 2-way check-back, that i've been taught, after
1♦ - 1♥
1N -

• With 4-4 in the majors and an invitational hand, you bid 2♠ non-forcing.
• With 4-4 in the majors and game vales, you bid 2♣ to puppet 2♦ and follow with 3N (the impossible puppet).

If I felt partner was likely to play similar primitive methods, then that is the way I would explain such bids, when asked to speculate.

Trinidad, on 2014-November-15, 17:17, said:

I would treat this 2♠ bid as nonforcing. IMO, this is a good illustration that what is GBK to one person can come as a surprise to another. StevenG makes a similar point.

Trinidad, on 2014-November-15, 17:17, said:

StevenG was talking about simple Benjaminised Acol. Bergen raises.were not mentioned.

Trinidad, on 2014-November-15, 17:17, said:

• Under current laws, I would simply offer to speculate about likely inferences. I flatter myself that I would guess right, almost all the time. Hence, when opponents acquiesce, they would probably benefit from correct information.
• Under the suggested change in the law I would be obliged to state a meaning, again to opponents' likely benefit.

StevenG, on 2014-November-15, 16:30, said:

You might be right.

StevenG, on 2014-November-15, 16:30, said:

Fair enough. StevenG asked how I'd explain 4♣ when playing with him. I think his (undiscussed) 4♣ would be likely to be intended as a splinter -- for the nebulous reasons that I mentioned. If opponents asked me to speculate, that's what I'd say..

nige1, on 2014-November-15, 19:48, said:

You can draw all these conclusions from agreeing to play 2-way checkback?

In the Netherlands TDs have an expression for this type of explanations: They say that you have an agreement with yourself (but not with your partner).

Rik

nige1, on 2014-November-15, 19:48, said:

Fine, and what would you have explained if your English stranger would have jumped this auction (1♥-Pass-4♣) on you?

You know, of course, that -according to Bergen- it shows the 16-18 balanced 3 card raise. But you also know that few players have read Bergen's book and many think that Bergen raises are only about the responses of 3m.

Rik

As I learned it, two way checkback stayman is one of four ways to ask opener about his 1NT rebid, and is completely analogous to two way stayman over a 1NT opening. This business of using 2♣ as a relay is not two way checkback. Max Hardy called it "modified two way stayman".

Regarding "no agreement for calls which should be announced" presumably if you have no agreement you have no agreement that should be announced, so calling "no agreement" MI in this case is a non-starter. Also, I think that if you have no agreement but think the call could have one of several possible meanings, not all of which require an announcement, you should alert, not announce. Announcements are a specific modification to the alert procedure intended to save a few seconds of time in very specific situations. When you don't know what partner's bid means, you're not in any of those situations.

Trinidad, on 2014-November-16, 02:40, said:

We had such an auction and when opponents asked I said "splinter, ♣ shortage, 4+ ♥s, game+ values". Miraculously, that turned out to be what partner meant On another occasion, exclusion key-card came up, undiscussed, but we both guessed correctly

Trinidad, on 2014-November-16, 02:40, said:

Thank you Trinidad for the information. No, I didn't know. I haven't read Bergen's books. I don't like his convention. Luckily, the players, with whom I play what they call "Bergen", are equally ignorant. I suppose that this is another reason to explain what you understand by partner's bid, rather than to rely on the name of a convention.

lamford, on 2014-November-15, 18:04, said:

With the possible exception of undiscussed calls that should be announced, would Lamford advocate any changes to disclosure rules?

nige1, on 2014-November-14, 21:51, said:

What about the combined strength needed to bid game? Does that vary? (Hmm, Meckwell routinely bid 3NT with 23 HCP, most of us prefer to have at least 25.)

Sometimes we describe a bid as "invitational", and opponents will press for a point range. Assuming they already understand what strength range you've shown, we shouldn't have to give a bridge or math lesson to explain what it takes for partner to invite game.

barmar, on 2014-November-16, 16:16, said:

From previous discussions, it seems that many share Barmar's views of GBK.. Paradoxically, however, I feel that Barmar's example reinforces rather than undermines the argument that, as far as matters of bidding-understanding are concerned, there's little common ground. e.g. If Rodwell opens 1N showing a balanced 14-16, and an opponent asks about Meckstroth's response, then "invitational" might be an inadequate explanation, for an opponent who was unaware how different their idea of game values were from his. Perhaps, they should condescend to give opponents what Barmar calls a "bridge lesson" but I deem to be information, to which opponents are legally entitled.

nige1, on 2014-November-16, 12:56, said:

?!? You have an agreement to play the name of the convention. You have no agreement about what you understand by partner's bid.

Why are you lying about your agreements?

Rik

Rik, if you asked that question at the table, I would give you a zero tolerance penalty.

He's got a good point though - I mean I regularly have auctions where undiscussed bids are made with a partner I've played with for 3 years. I always try and disclose where there is an analogous situation we have discussed, but in heavily contested/preempted auctions, particularly when a multi meaning or artificial bid was made at some point, it can often be really hard to know for sure. We perpetrated this horrible auction 2C-(2D)-X-3H-3S-4C-4NT-7H and neither of us were sure what trumps were (2C was weak diamonds or weak spades or strong) because we'd never discussed if the jump to 3H set trumps in a comptetive auction after partners action double.

When asked I disclosed that in an uncontested auction that it did, but the specific auction at hand was undiscussed.

Its just not possible to discuss the many and multitudinous possible contested auctions so often you are not going to have a specific agreement, but will infer from analogous situations. It seems ridiculous that you want to ding me for MI when I say 'This exact situation is undiscussed, but in this related situation the bid means X'