[Cascade]

 Bbradley62, on 2011-August-14, 23:22, said:

Is it a common occurrence for players to not know about rulings against them until the next day?

Far too common.

Recently in Australia I did not get a ruling until after two matches had been played the next day when I asked the director if he had made a ruling as we had not been informed.

This was far from the first time that I have not been informed about a ruling until asking.

[blackshoe]

Around here, there were for many years a couple of teachers who seemed to manage to keep introducing new players into the games. They would teach the ACBL "Standard American" course, and not much else. Those teachers have retired; there are one or two new ones trying to carry the torch. No one is, AFAIK, teaching anything more advanced, or another system (such as 2/1). There are a couple of games that cater to beginners, and one of them also has an "A" section. The beginners (even the ones who've been playing for several years) won't play in it.

[peachy]

 pran, on 2011-August-24, 06:34, said:

Sorry, I can't help one more comment:

If I guess how my partner intended his call you flatly state that I am infracting the law when I tell opponents my assumption; it doesn't matter whether my estimate of making a correct guess is 90%, 10% or any grade between?

In either case my explanation is still just a guess so the only correct explanation should be that I don't know (no agreement)??

To me this sounds ridiculous, particularly when I know that the purpose of disclosure is to protect opponents.

Let the opponents make their own guess. If I have partnership experience or prior occurrences to help me make the guess, then that "PARTNERSHIP EXPERIENCE" must of course be disclosed. You cannot go on playing with your percentage numbers - where are they taken from, or what information are they based on, and how calculated???? And is that calculation to take place at the table? How? It is a YES/NO case whether an AGREEMENT exists or does not exist. Giving MI never protects opponents.

[pran]

 peachy, on 2011-August-26, 15:25, said:

Let the opponents make their own guess. If I have partnership experience or prior occurrences to help me make the guess, then that "PARTNERSHIP EXPERIENCE" must of course be disclosed. You cannot go on playing with your percentage numbers - where are they taken from, or what information are they based on, and how calculated???? And is that calculation to take place at the table? How? It is a YES/NO case whether an AGREEMENT exists or does not exist. Giving MI never protects opponents.

That calculation is in the brains of the players.

Please tell me: Do players deliberatly make calls without the slightest idea on how partner will understand them or do they at least have some confidence that partner will understand the calls the way they are intended?

In the first case the confidence will obviously be zero or close to zero, in the latter the player should be able to estimate the probability that his partner will understand him correctly. His partner should similarly be able to estimate the probability that he has understood the calls as intended and can give a meaningful explanation if asked.

If you have a definite agreement this probability (confidence) is obviously 100% but if you guess the confidence will be less.

All I ask is where do you draw the borderline between what is so lousy a guess that it is not worth disclosing and so safe a guess that it for all practical purposes is equivalent to an agreement? 50%? 70%? 90%? 99%? Anywhere else?

[bluejak]

These percentages are meaningless - did someone else say that?

If you have some confidence that partner will understand it because of partnership experience then it is disclosable.

If you merely hope partner will understand it because of a lack of relevant partnership experience then it is not disclosable.

[pran]

 bluejak, on 2011-August-26, 18:50, said:

These percentages are meaningless - did someone else say that?

If you have some confidence that partner will understand it because of partnership experience then it is disclosable.

If you merely hope partner will understand it because of a lack of relevant partnership experience then it is not disclosable.

Fine.
So when you partner a player whom you have never partnered before and for whatever reason you have only discussed the most fundamental of system, but you know his background and are absolutely sure on how he will understand your (undiscussed) calls and equally sure how to understand his:

Do you disclose your understanding of his calls or do you state "undiscussed" or "no agreement"?

[campboy]

 pran, on 2011-August-27, 02:32, said:

Fine.
So when you partner a player whom you have never partnered before and for whatever reason you have only discussed the most fundamental of system, but you know his background and are absolutely sure on how he will understand your (undiscussed) calls and equally sure how to understand his:

This situation is impossible. How can I be absolutely sure without some reason to be absolutely sure? I have on several occasions made an assumption of how partner will take a call based on much better evidence than this and still been wrong.

[jnichols]

 pran, on 2011-August-27, 02:32, said:

Fine.
So when you partner a player whom you have never partnered before and for whatever reason you have only discussed the most fundamental of system, but you know his background and are absolutely sure on how he will understand your (undiscussed) calls and equally sure how to understand his:

Do you disclose your understanding of his calls or do you state "undiscussed" or "no agreement"?

Aren't we required now to disclose our understandings, not just our agreements. I suspect that the change in the word used in the Laws was made just to emphasize what pran is pointing out here.

[pran]

 jnichols, on 2011-August-27, 05:54, said:

 pran, on 2011-August-27, 02:32, said:

Fine.
So when you partner a player whom you have never partnered before and for whatever reason you have only discussed the most fundamental of system, but you know his background and are absolutely sure on how he will understand your (undiscussed) calls and equally sure how to understand his:

Do you disclose your understanding of his calls or do you state "undiscussed" or "no agreement"?

Aren't we required now to disclose our understandings, not just our agreements. I suspect that the change in the word used in the Laws was made just to emphasize what pran is pointing out here.

Precisely!
At last one who appears to understand what disclosure is all about.

[blackshoe]

Oh, he's not the only one. You take it too far, though, Sven.

[bluejak]

We all understand that we have to disclose our partnership understandings: but you, pran, expect us to disclose our guesses and various other things that are not disclosable because they are not partnership understandings.

[axman]

 bluejak, on 2011-August-27, 08:31, said:

We all understand that we have to disclose our partnership understandings: but you, pran, expect us to disclose our guesses and various other things that are not disclosable because they are not partnership understandings.

As I comprehend the language of TFLB, Sven, and Stevenson the notions mentioned by Sven are encompassed within TFLB and do not necessarily extend to the limits prescribed by TFLB. In my view it is understandable that Stevenson has declared revulsion to Sven’s notions as perhaps I too feel revulsion [if not for the same reasons]; however, as Sven’s notions merely reflect TFLB, it is TFLB that is the source of the revulsion, not the messenger. As such, would it not be a better thing to direct the revulsion to where revulsion is due?

I find it notable that on Stevenson’s home turf, the EBU policies and regulation embrace the notions mentioned by Sven, and If I am permitted to editorialize- with immense vigor.

[campboy]

The laws are very careful to use the phrase "partnership understanding" throughout when talking about disclosure. You are required to disclose what your partnership understands by a call, not what you personally understand by it.

[pran]

The way I personally have always understood the laws is that the prime objective on disclusure is:

Your opponents are entitled to (at least) as much knowledge about the meaning of your auction as you have yourself.

The revision in 2007 simply served to clarify and enhance this objective.

"Partnership understanding" includes anything you understand within the partnership, whether it is based on explicit agreements (or discussions), knowledge of your partner's background or even qualified guesses.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2011-August-27, 12:40, said:

Your opponents are entitled to (at least) as much knowledge about the meaning of your auction as your partnership has itself.

FYP.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2011-August-27, 16:43, said:

FYP.

Law 40B6a refers to the player's knowledge, not to the partnership's knowledge.

[campboy]

 pran, on 2011-August-28, 01:08, said:

Law 40B6a refers to the player's knowledge, not to the partnership's knowledge.

Yes it does -- by saying that he need not disclose it!

[blackshoe]

Knowledge of what? Partnership understandings, of course.

[bluejak]

 axman, on 2011-August-27, 10:30, said:

As I comprehend the language of TFLB, Sven, and Stevenson the notions mentioned by Sven are encompassed within TFLB and do not necessarily extend to the limits prescribed by TFLB. In my view it is understandable that Stevenson has declared revulsion to Sven’s notions as perhaps I too feel revulsion [if not for the same reasons]; however, as Sven’s notions merely reflect TFLB, it is TFLB that is the source of the revulsion, not the messenger. As such, would it not be a better thing to direct the revulsion to where revulsion is due?

I find it notable that on Stevenson’s home turf, the EBU policies and regulation embrace the notions mentioned by Sven, and If I am permitted to editorialize- with immense vigor.

Absolutely not. Sven's views are at variance with the Laws. Being in the EBU is completely irrelevant. Sven believes you should disclose things that are not partnership understandings. Neither I nor the Law book agree.

[axman]

 axman, on 2011-August-27, 10:30, said:

As I comprehend the language of TFLB, Sven, and Stevenson the notions mentioned by Sven are encompassed within TFLB and do not necessarily extend to the limits prescribed by TFLB. In my view it is understandable that Stevenson has declared revulsion to Sven’s notions as perhaps I too feel revulsion [if not for the same reasons]; however, as Sven’s notions merely reflect TFLB, it is TFLB that is the source of the revulsion, not the messenger. As such, would it not be a better thing to direct the revulsion to where revulsion is due?

I find it notable that on Stevenson’s home turf, the EBU policies and regulation embrace the notions mentioned by Sven, and If I am permitted to editorialize- with immense vigor.

 bluejak, on 2011-August-28, 18:11, said:

Absolutely not. Sven's views are at variance with the Laws. Being in the EBU is completely irrelevant. Sven believes you should disclose things that are not partnership understandings. Neither I nor the Law book agree.

The EBU holds that a single instance of a player’s advance of his partner’s call** may establish that the partnership had a [pre-existing] CPU***- Q.E.D.

**particularly when the call can be described as a bluff

*** concealed PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDING