[bluejak]

When a player is in a situation where there is no obvious call they can make because they do not have agreements for the calls they want, they have to improvise. I have noticed on previous occasions that people who post here and elsewhere assumes this never happens. Well, my experience is that it does, fairly frequently with some partners. I have just played with a partner in South Africa, and in eight consecutive days of bridge I may have made upwards of a dozen calls which were not agreed, because he is that sort of player. So I have had to improvise, leading to a number of good, fair and awful boards.

What happens if the opponents ask the meaning of a call? Well, my partner is always sure of what any call means. But they are not agreements in several cases: they are what he thinks. And our replies have to be legal, which is difficult.

The idea that you will not make a call which has no agreement seems naive to me: what do you do? Refuse to call at all?

Just because most posters to this forum have a lot of agreements with their partners does not mean everyone has. And those that do not have to guess the meanings, or what is best to bid, and hope it works out. It does not always.

[nige1]

Echognome, on May 21 2010, 12:35 PM, said:

My point is that if we are talking about addressing forgotten agreements, then we either need to carve out situations that don't count (good luck with that) or we need to apply these rules to these common, but innocuous cases as well as to what people consider more egregious behavior.  I personally think we just have to live with "rub of the green" lest we truly want to punish new partnerships.

On reflection, IMO, the law-book should mandate: When an opponent asks the systemic meaning of partner's call and you're unsure then :

• You may guess but, if you guess wrongly, then the director will treat it as misinformation.
  
• If you don't want to guess, then you may offer to leave the table, so that partner can explain the systemic meaning of his own call.
  
• If your partnersip agree to play the standard system, unembellished, then the director will be more lenient about partnership amnesia because your opponents can consult the book to find out what your call should mean.

I agree with Echognome that this isn't a perfect solution but it's a sensible protocol and better than current practice. Were it enforced, you would rarely encounter the currently popular "no agreement" and "unsure" mantras. Blackshoe would be relieved to discover that few players would ever need to leave the table. Miraculously and immediately, players' memories would undergo an enormous improvement

In the experience of Bluejak and Echognome, thoughtless players make meaningless calls that their partners can't understand. Such random disruptive calls can be quite effective (like the notorious Guessed 'em convention). If the new protocol mildly discouraged such ploys, that would be an additional benefit.

Some typos corrected. Thanks to David Burn (below)

This post has been edited by nige1: 2010-May-22, 18:30

[bluejak]

It is unnecessary to deliberately misquote people to make a point, and your comment "In the experience of Bluejak and Echognome, thoughtless players make meaningless calls that their partners can't understand." is completely untrue.

Players who are in difficult positions where there is no sensible call that they know partner will understand improvise by making a call that might solve their problem. That is what I said, and saying something completely different and ascribing it to me is an unacceptable way to make a point.

Furthermore, your "random disruptive calls" comment is another deliberate misstatement. I do not think telling untruths about what has been said makes your argument better.

I have a memory of you making such a call a few years back in a Gold Cup or Silver Plate match. Were you making a "random disruptive call"? Not in my view, but according to your statement here you were.

[dburn]

nige1, on May 21 2010, 08:55 PM, said:

On reflection, IMO, the law-book should mandate: When an opponent asks the systemic meaning of partner's call and you're unsure then :

• You may guess but, if you guess wrongly, then the director will treat it as unauthorised information.
  
• If you don't want to guess, then you may offer to leave the table, so that partner can explain the systemic meaning of his own call.
  
• If your partnersip agree to play the standard system, unimbellished, then the director will be more lenient about partnership amnesia because your opponents can consult the book to find out what your call should mean.

I agree with Echognome that this isn't a perfect solution but it's a sensible protocol and better than current practice. Were it enforced, you would rarely encounter the currently popular "no agreement" and "unsure" mantras. Blackshoe would be relieved to discover that few players would ever need to leave the table. Miraculously and immediately, players' memories would undergo an enormous improvement

In the experience of Bluejak and Echognome, thoughtless players make meaningless calls that their partners can't understand. Such random disruptive calls can be quite effective (like the notorious Guessed 'em convention). If the new protocol mildly discouraged such ploys, that would be an additional benefit.

I think you mean "if you guess wrongly, then the director will treat it as misinformation". That seems to me reasonable, for any statement to the effect that "we have such-and-such an agreement" is misinformation if in fact "we" don't, but if your guess is correct, the chances are that no harm will be done.

I do not agree at all with the notion that "if you don't want to guess, then you may offer to leave the table". Apart from the fact that this creates UI for partner, which is admittedly only a minor inconvenience since he is constrained not to act on it, there is no reason why you should have to guess even though you may opt to do so. If it really is the case that your partnership has no agreement as to the meaning of a call, that is what you should say, for that is all the information to which your opponents are entitled.

As to "the standard system", that - whether em (not im) bellished or otherwise - is pie in the sky. It is hard enough to remember one's own methods, without having to remember the extent to which they might deviate from some "standard" or other. Even Paul Erdos was wise enough to know that he had to meet the Supreme Fascist before being permitted to read The Book.

[nige1]

nigel1 said:

Presumably when partner chose to bid 4N, he thought it was subject to agreement or that you could work out its meaning.

Echognome, on May 21 2010, 12:35 PM, said:

This is assuming a rationality that just isn't there.  People choose bids all the time without working through all the consequences.

bluejak, on May 22 2010, 03:57 PM, said:

It is unnecessary to deliberately misquote people to make a point, and your comment "In the experience of Bluejak and Echognome, thoughtless players make meaningless calls that their partners can't understand." is completely untrue. Players who are in difficult positions where there is no sensible call that they know partner will understand improvise by making a call that might solve their problem.  That is what I said, and saying something completely different and ascribing it to me is an unacceptable way to make a point.

I don't mean to misrepresent Echognome or Bluejak; but Bluejak is right that I should quote verbatim.

bluejak, on May 22 2010, 03:57 PM, said:

Furthermore, your "random disruptive calls" comment is another deliberate misstatement.  I do not think telling untruths about what has been said makes your argument better.  I have a memory of you making such a call a few years back in a Gold Cup or Silver Plate match.  Were you making a "random disruptive call"?  Not in my view, but according to your statement here you were.

I don't remember the incident but if I improvised by making a call that might solve my problem but that I knew my partner would be most unlikely to understand, then it would be "a random disruptive call" (as I define the term).

[nige1]

dburn, on May 22 2010, 05:24 PM, said:

I do not agree at all with the notion that "if you don't want to guess, then you may offer to leave the table". Apart from the fact that this creates UI for partner, which is admittedly only a minor inconvenience since he is constrained not to act on it, there is no reason why you should have to guess even though you may opt to do so. If it really is the case that your partnership has no agreement as to the meaning of a call, that is what you should say, for that is all the information to which your opponents are entitled.

Earlier, you may have agreed the systemic meaning of a call (implicitly or explicitly) -- even if, now, you are unaware of it. In that case, aren't opponents entitled to know what your agreement is? Partner, who chose to make the call, is likely to know that systemic agreement, if there is one. I believe that some Australian directors do ask the bidder to explain his own call if his partner doesn't know their agreement.

dburn, on May 22 2010, 05:24 PM, said:

As to "the standard system", that - whether em (not im) bellished or otherwise - is pie in the sky. It is hard enough to remember one's own methods, without having to remember the extent to which they might deviate from some "standard" or other. Even Paul Erdos was wise enough to know that he had to meet the Supreme Fascist before being permitted to read The Book.

That is why the director may be tolerant of misexplanations by epsilons (or pick-up partners), who attempt to play the standard system.

[bluejak]

Who on earth said "would be most unlikely to understand"?

[nige1]

bluejak, on May 22 2010, 06:10 PM, said:

Who on earth said "would be most unlikely to understand"?

I did

[bluejak]

Ok, fine, but it is not responsive. We were discussing calls made when a player is not sure what to do so improvises. That is not calls that partner "would be most unlikely to understand". Nor are they "random disruptive calls". They are merely a reasonable effort to play bridge to the best of one's ability in a difficult circumstance.

[nige1]

bluejak, on May 22 2010, 06:30 PM, said:

Ok, fine, but it is not responsive.  We were discussing calls made when a player is not sure what to do so improvises.  That is not calls that partner "would be most unlikely to understand".  Nor are they "random disruptive calls".  They are merely a reasonable effort to play bridge to the best of one's ability in a difficult circumstance.

If partner is likely to work out the intended constructive meaning of my call then I don't think I'm making a random disruptive call (as I define the term). Instead, we probably have an implicit understanding. IMO, if asked, we should divulge that understanding rather than claim "no agreement".

[blackshoe]

So you would not allow a player, finding himself in unfamiliar territory, to take a call in the hopes his partner might get it right? What then is he to do? Refuse to call at all?

[peachy]

nige1, on May 22 2010, 06:36 PM, said:

If partner is likely to work out the intended constructive meaning of my call then I don't think I'm making a random disruptive call (as I define the term).

If partner is likely to get it, so are the opponents! Best not to pass on a guess as the agreement, just say there is no agreeement if that is the truth. Presenting a guess (and not saying it is a guess) is MI and deprives opponents the chance to figure out what the bid means, or might mean, absent agreement.

[nige1]

peachy, on May 23 2010, 12:05 AM, said:

If partner is likely to get it, so are the opponents!  Best not to pass on a guess as the agreement, just say there is no agreeement if that is the truth.  Presenting a guess (and not saying it is a guess) is MI and deprives opponents the chance to figure out what the bid means, or might mean, absent agreement.

Even in a new partnership, after a few boards, a player is usually better at interpreting the meaning of partner's call than an opponent.

Some of the posts, here, are discussing the interpretation of current disclosure rules but this is the forum for proposing and constructively criticising suggested rule Changes.

I am never certain about anything, in Bridge -- or in life. For example, I've sometimes been wrong even when I was pretty sure what partner's call meant. IMO, the range between near certanty and total uncertainty is an open interval.

Hence, I feel it is wrong to frame disclosure laws that require players and directors to cut-off explanations at some ill-defined level of confidence. Subjective judgement is frail and fickle and encourages players to rationalise.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on May 23 2010, 04:24 AM, said:

Even in a new partnership, after a few boards, a player is usually better at interpreting the meaning of partner's call than an opponent.

Interesting assertion. Is it true?

[peachy]

nige1, on May 23 2010, 03:24 AM, said:

peachy, on May 23 2010, 12:05 AM, said:

If partner is likely to get it, so are the opponents!  Best not to pass on a guess as the agreement, just say there is no agreeement if that is the truth.  Presenting a guess (and not saying it is a guess) is MI and deprives opponents the chance to figure out what the bid means, or might mean, absent agreement.

Even in a new partnership, after a few boards, a player is usually better at interpreting the meaning of partner's call than an opponent.

Some of the posts, here, are discussing the interpretation of current disclosure rules but this is the forum for proposing and constructively criticising suggested rule Changes.

I am never certain about anything, in Bridge -- or in life. For example, I've sometimes been wrong even when I was pretty sure what partner's call meant. IMO, the range between near certanty and total uncertainty is an open interval.

Hence, I feel it is wrong to frame disclosure laws that require players and directors to cut-off explanations at some ill-defined level of confidence. Subjective judgement is frail and fickle and encourages players to rationalise.

If my comment was not clear to you, let me say it more clearly: I am strongly opposed changing the laws so that one must pass on a Guess as "an Agreement".

A guess is not an agreement, unless it is an implicit agreement by prior experience; but if so, then it would not be a guess any more.

You also said:
"Even in a new partnership, after a few boards, a player is usually better at interpreting the meaning of partner's call than an opponent."

I doubt that. Opponents are equally well equipped if they know your relevant agreements and basic system. But as said before, the opponents are left bouncing in the wind with no chance if they are given false answer [a Guess] instead of Agreement, or No Agreement, as an answer.

[nige1]

nige1, on May 23 2010, 04:24 AM, said:

Even in a new partnership, after a few boards, a player is usually better at interpreting the meaning of partner's call than an opponent.

blackshoe, on May 23 2010, 05:29 AM, said:

Interesting assertion. Is it true?

Yes, I believe so. Anyway, I've argued for a way of coping with with uncertain agreements (the topic of this thread and, IMO, the most common kind of agreement).

For example, the undiscussed auction (2♥) 2♠, where the 2♠ overcall may be conventional -- based on system discussion and limited experience.

Above what confidence level, should the overcaller's partner alert? 20%? 50%? 80%? Or what alternative protocol would Blackshoe (or peachy) recommend?

[blackshoe]

I think a lot depends on how much discussion has gone on, how good the player is at reading people, and probably several other factors. I suspect that your assertion, Nigel, is true a lot less often than you think it is. Hell, half the time I'm not even sure what I'm thinking, much less what my partner is!

I think when you're not sure what partner's call means, but think that it may be alertable, you should alert. In fact, the ACBL alert regulation says specifically "when in doubt, alert", which is probably closer to 1% confidence than 50% — although I wouldn't want to try to put a number on it (I think people rely too much on numbers for things like this, as if putting a number on it ropes and ties it — it doesn't).

Then there's the problem with the actual explanation. "I'm taking it as..." doesn't cut it. At the other end "undiscussed" doesn't cut it either when there is relevant experience or other information. The problem, as has been demonstrated somewhere here recently (maybe even in this thread) is knowing what's relevant, or perhaps more importantly what your opponents, the director and maybe the AC will consider relevant.

The worst thing we could do for the game though would be to treat "forgets" as harshly as Bobby Wolfe seems to want to do, at least at most levels. Maybe in world championships "convention disruption" should be dealt with harshly, but if you do that at club level, or even local tournament level, you'll just drive people away from the game — or else end up with a game where everyone plays the same vanilla system, there is no innovation, no differences. I don't know about anyone else, but that would bore the hell out of me. Might as well just play Whist.