[mycroft]

---

Information:
- two-way Stayman and no transfers after 1NT. 4♦ explicitly doesn't exist.
- Jacoby/Texas transfers after (20-21) 2NT
- Partner forgot/didn't realize was on card Texas after 2NT-4♦ last week.
- No Gerber Ever, but splinters after 1M.

Without screens, so 1NT was announced, 12-14.
Your call?

If you do bid 4♥, what happens when the TD is called?

What would count as UI from 4♦ bidder that would convince you that opener is under any constraints?

[RMB1]

mycroft, on 2011-July-05, 12:40, said:

Information:
- two-way Stayman and no transfers after 1NT. 4♦ explicitly doesn't exist.
- Jacoby/Texas transfers after (20-21) 2NT
- Partner forgot/didn't realize was on card Texas after 2NT-4♦ last week.
- No Gerber Ever, but splinters after 1M.
Without screens, so 1NT was announced, 12-14.

I hope I gave some of this information when asked about 4♦ (more than "doesn't exist").

mycroft, on 2011-July-05, 12:40, said:

Your call?

4♥ looks OK

mycroft, on 2011-July-05, 12:40, said:

If you do bid 4♥, what happens when the TD is called?

At the end of the hand, the TD asks partner what was 4♦ and what partner thought the partnership agreement (if any) was. If partner thought 4♦ was Texas then the TD might find that your agreement/understanding was Texas and rule that opener's uncertainty was misinformation but opponents are unlikely to be damaged.

mycroft, on 2011-July-05, 12:40, said:

What would count as UI from 4♦ bidder that would convince you that opener is under any constraints?

Obviously all the usual suspects would count as UI (tempo, remarks, gestures) but it is difficult to know what would be suggest by unspecific UI to someone who thinks the bid does not exist.

Obviously remarks such as "we agreed 4♦ Texas partner" would suggest 4♥ and would put opener under some constraint.

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on 2011-July-05, 12:40, said:

---

If you do bid 4♥, what happens when the TD is called?

What would count as UI from 4♦ bidder that would convince you that opener is under any constraints?

Maybe an "oops" by the 4♦ bidder would count as UI. Otherwise I think opener is free to guess that responder was using Texas, or that he was kicking back for clubs, or that he had a lot of diamonds, or whatever he wants to guess.

If I bid 4H, without having received any extraneous information from partner's manner, and the Director is called for some reason not explained in the OP, I will sit there and listen to him, answer questions he might ask, and proceed with life.

[blackshoe]

You might consider including, in your explanation of 4♦, that the bid is anti-system in this case, but that you play Texas over 2NT openings, and last week, partner opened 2NT, you bid 4♦, and partner forgot that it was Texas. Particularly if you're going to bid 4♥.

Agree with Agua about what happens when the TD is called.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-05, 14:37, said:

You might consider including, in your explanation of 4♦, that the bid is anti-system in this case, but that you play Texas over 2NT openings, and last week, partner opened 2NT, you bid 4♦, and partner forgot that it was Texas. Particularly if you're going to bid 4♥.

• When this happens, I say "No agreement but I'll speculate if you want"
• But directors tell me that I'm breaking the rules: "If you don't know or are unsure, then you must not offer to speculate"

[aguahombre]

nige1, on 2011-July-05, 18:36, said:

• When this happens, I say "No agreement but I'll speculate if you want"
• But directors tell me that I'm breaking the rules: "If you don't know or are unsure, then you must not offer to speculate"

Maybe it is breaking the rules, but since partner is not allowed to use your speculation, I believe it is an honest attempt at disclosure and applaud the try.

Apparently you were asked a question, or you would not have done that.

[BunnyGo]

nige1, on 2011-July-05, 18:36, said:

• When this happens, I say "No agreement but I'll speculate if you want"
• But directors tell me that I'm breaking the rules: "If you don't know or are unsure, then you must not offer to speculate"

From Proprieties Law 75 C:

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.

So in particular, I think you are SUPPOSED to speculate if you have some experience reason to believe partner has something in mind.

[mrdct]

I'm not sure of the legal basis for it, but when this sort of situation has come up for me as a player I respond "it's undiscussed, but if we get the director over he might consent to partner leaving the table so I can elaborate on related agreements without giving too much UI away".

[mycroft]

What UI do you give by relating agreements?

Speculate is "I think it means this". That's neither required or allowed, especially if you get it wrong. That's the "what are you taking it as" answer.
Detailing the agreements so that the opponents can guess as well as you can is required. See the related agreements and experience I detailed in the OP. There is no speculation, just agreements.

I've seen "send partner away so I can explain our agreements that my partner has forgotten, and so can't explain my call herself" - that's different.

[nige1]

mycroft, on 2011-July-06, 14:16, said:

What UI do you give by relating agreements? Speculate is "I think it means this". That's neither required or allowed, especially if you get it wrong. That's the "what are you taking it as" answer. Detailing the agreements so that the opponents can guess as well as you can is required. See the related agreements and experience I detailed in the OP. There is no speculation, just agreements. I've seen "send partner away so I can explain our agreements that my partner has forgotten, and so can't explain my call herself" - that's different.

Although unsure about the meaning of a call, you may have a fair idea of what it's likely to mean. The practical problem with mycroft's suggestion is that in real-time, it can be hard to summarise and explain the related agreements, experience, and gut-feelings, that you use to reach your tentative conclusion. Also, if revealing your final conclusion is regarded as taboo, then there is no guarantee that opponents will be much the wiser.

mrdct, on 2011-July-06, 04:10, said:

I'm not sure of the legal basis for it, but when this sort of situation has come up for me as a player I respond "it's undiscussed, but if we get the director over he might consent to partner leaving the table so I can elaborate on related agreements without giving too much UI away".

Even better, the director can ask you to leave the table and ask partner to explain the systemic agreements related to his own call. I'm told that this protocol is common in Australia. It seems an excellent idea and should be explicitly recommended in the law-book.

[ggwhiz]

I would thaink the simple act of sending the 4♦ bidder away from the table would transmit UI unless he's not allowed to take his brain with him.

I REALLY like the Australian approach.

[Vampyr]

ggwhiz, on 2011-July-06, 21:05, said:

I would think the simple act of sending the 4♦ bidder away from the table would transmit UI unless he's not allowed to take his brain with him.

I REALLY like the Australian approach.

Why would the 4♦ bidder receive UI if he is sent away from the table, but not if partner is sent away from the table?

[mrdct]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-06, 21:08, said:

Why would the 4♦ bidder receive UI if he is sent away from the table, but not if partner is sent away from the table?

No more UI than he already has from the mere fact that partner isn't describing the meaning of 4♦ confidently and accurately.

[Vampyr]

mrdct, on 2011-July-06, 21:19, said:

No more UI than he already has from the mere fact that partner isn't describing the meaning of 4♦ confidently and accurately.

Well, quite.

[bluejak]

nige1, on 2011-July-06, 19:26, said:

Even better, the director can ask you to leave the table and ask partner to explain the systemic agreements related to his own call. I'm told that this protocol is common in Australia. It seems an excellent idea and should be explicitly recommended in the law-book.

It is also common in England.