[awm]

As I understand it, the point of these regulations is to require that pairs have agreements at least in very simple and common auctions.

For example, if I open 1NT and opponents ask the range, and we respond "no agreement" that's kind of a cop-out. Surely there is some sort of expectation based on general experience. It's not reasonable to really have no idea what our opening bids mean. This kind of thing puts opponents in a very untenable position. Basically the situation is: partner almost surely knows what I have for my bid based on "general experience." For example, if I open 1NT in the US it's almost surely 15-17 if we haven't talked about it. Our opponents may have the same information, although this is less clear if they're from another part of the world (or are much less experienced players). But even if they do, it is very hard for opponents to know that they are on the same page. Suppose they've agreed to a method where double of strong 1NT is not for penalties. If I open a "no agreement" NT that is "probably 15-17" then is double penalty or not? Are they sure partner will be on the same page? This seems really unfair, since everyone at the table has an inkling of what opener actually has.

Similarly a pair shouldn't be able to have "no carding agreements." This might be okay if it was really the case that they played random spot cards (subject to not obviously giving up a trick with their plays). But most people don't do this. And if you've defended enough hands with someone you usually get an inkling of what their card plays mean, or which card they tend to lead from length.

I think a direct double of a preempt is a situation where you really must have an agreement about meaning. So if you make a double that's intended as penalty, you should really alert it as penalty. If you had filled out a card, something would be filled out there. It's not a "no agreement" double.

[luis]

awm, on Jan 27 2006, 09:55 PM, said:

I think a direct double of a preempt is a situation where you really must have an agreement about meaning. So if you make a double that's intended as penalty, you should really alert it as penalty. If you had filled out a card, something would be filled out there. It's not a "no agreement" double.

No, again you are one of the people that think that a player making a bid without an agreement should say what he has to the opponents and that doesn't exist.

[LH2650]

luis, on Jan 27 2006, 03:52 PM, said:

No no no and no.
The violation of rule 40E can lead to a procedural penalty, never to adjust a score. Not having a system, forgetting the system you play or not filling a CC might be violations and you are subject to a PP but in order to damage your opponents and adjust the score there has to be at least a case of missinformation and this is not one. It is true that without a CC when there is doubt you can be charged missinformation but this is not the case.

You might look at 12A1.

[FrancesHinden]

LH2650, on Jan 27 2006, 07:22 PM, said:

Law 40E gives the ACBL the authority to require a convention card.

The ACBL specifies a convention card, and requires that it be filled out.

This means that agreements required by the card must actually be made.

Nope. Doesn't say that in 40E that I can see anywhere.

[benlessard]

At first its seems clear that north south have no partneship agreement and that north X is a misbid. So they can be no misinformation (in the partnership agreement sense).



But what is annoying me is that

South knows or should knows its penalty just by looking at his hand.

and the bidding indicated hes sure its not TO (or hes a beginner) 4s a ridiculous bid if the x was TO and not a complete mistake if the x was penalty its a 65 with a void in opps suit after all.

Those who thinks south will/should X if they know North X is penalty do not live on the same planet as me (either forcing pass or bid)


So even if i honestly think NS are complete beginners and have no PA. The "SOUTH inconsistent bidding " would give me enough leeway to doubt the no-agreement approach protect the score. "Maybe north made many penalty X with cheese and south know he had to pull it off."


Directors should use some leeway to protect the field from hands like this.

Adjusted score for NS and EW (depending on the traveler scores) because i believe that the rules leave some judgement to the director on all deals to protect the field.




If its self-alerted i don't know the rulings about this 1.


When there is a close situation between no-agreement, mistaken agreement and forgotten agreement in close case i feel in favor of the non-offending side.


Ben

[awm]

luis, on Jan 27 2006, 08:29 PM, said:

awm, on Jan 27 2006, 09:55 PM, said:

I think a direct double of a preempt is a situation where you really must have an agreement about meaning. So if you make a double that's intended as penalty, you should really alert it as penalty. If you had filled out a card, something would be filled out there. It's not a "no agreement" double.

No, again you are one of the people that think that a player making a bid without an agreement should say what he has to the opponents and that doesn't exist.

Not exactly. My point is that there are certain bids about which it is not legal to have no agreement. If you make one of these bids, then you must indicate what your agreement is. If you have not actually discussed with partner, then you must indicate what you think your agreement should be based on general principles, or how you expect partner to take your bid. Of course, this only applies in very simple auctions where any reasonable convention card would indicate an agreement (and the laws do normally require a filled out convention card), or where it's basically impossible to play bridge if you have no idea what's going on. Examples include leads and carding, opening bids, and doubles of opponents openings.

If this wasn't the case, you could go into a major tournament with an expert partner. Suppose you have many partners in common, but you specifically make sure not to discuss anything before the event. Now you don't alert any bids, respond to all questions with "no agreement" but yet somehow you are miraculously always on the same page. Isn't this a failure to disclose methods? Doesn't it give you a huge advantage over the field?

[hrothgar]

awm, on Jan 31 2006, 01:08 AM, said:

If this wasn't the case, you could go into a major tournament with an expert partner. Suppose you have many partners in common, but you specifically make sure not to discuss anything before the event. Now you don't alert any bids, respond to all questions with "no agreement" but yet somehow you are miraculously always on the same page. Isn't this a failure to disclose methods? Doesn't it give you a huge advantage over the field?

Comment 1: Focusing on the practical... Issues like this one crop up when one member of a partnership is floating arround out in left field and the remainder of the table is clueless about what's going. A player who believes that a penalty double is "standard" after a weak 2 bid won't have a clue about appropriate alert proceedures. Accordingly, regulations which force these types of bids to be accompanied by an alert aren't going to do anything to decrease the number of infractions.

Comment 2: Focusing on theory... Alert regulations require that players explain their agreements. In this case, there was clearly no agreement. (South would never bid 4♠ opposite a partner who was willing to penalty double 2♥)

You're welcome to make assumptions and even assertions that players must have agreement about common sequences, but it doesn't make it so. You are assuming a level of competence for the players that simply isn't justified. (Your anaolgy regaridng the two experts falls apart based on this fact alone).

I find it incredible to assert that players "must" have an agreement when all the facts indicate that they don't... I suspect that any legal structure founded on convenient assumptions regarding the way the world should be will prove problematic.

[benlessard]

Quote

South would never bid 4♠ opposite a partner who was willing to penalty double 2♥

Quote

Every reasonable player plays the double as takeout and south took the double as takeout and bid accordingly

i have to strongly disagree with both of you.



South hand is

Scoring: IMP

---

Penalty X even at low level tend to show points not 6 or 7 trumps . So 4s is reasonnable and should show slam aspiration and should probably be forcing.

responding 4s with south hand on a TO double is one of the the worst underbid i have ever seen and ive seen plenty.


Ben

[Sigi_BC84]

hrothgar, on Jan 30 2006, 11:28 PM, said:

I suspect that any legal structure founded on convenient assumptions regarding the way the world should be will prove problematic.

"Common Law", anyone? Certainly does exist and is taken for granted by legal systems (it might make those systems problematic in areas where common law applies, but you made it sound to me like the concept is totally out of the question).

If this applies to Bridge (which is a closed system with already existing fairly precise rules) is a different matter.

EDIT: On second reading I'm not sure if my "common law" anology holds at all. Maybe it holds to the degree that one might assume a common law which says that there always are certain agreements between players (see below).

I agree with awm when he says that it would be very hard to believe a pair who claim that they have "no agreements at all". Only total beginners to the game, who know hardly more than the Laws of Bridge could credibly make such a claim. In all other cases there are implicit agreements (of varying complexity).

--Sigi

[Blofeld]

Sigi_BC84, on Feb 3 2006, 10:26 AM, said:

I agree with awm when he says that it would be very hard to believe a pair who claim that they have "no agreements at all". Only total beginners to the game, who know hardly more than the Laws of Bridge could credibly make such a claim. In all other cases there are implicit agreements (of varying complexity).

But what if the players disagree about what the implicit agreements are?

Saying 'no agreement' seems a valid route here. You haven't discussed anything. You have a decent hope that your partner will understand you, but it is nothing more than hope, and your opponents should be in the same position as your partner here.

[sfbp]

hrothgar, on Jan 27 2006, 12:38 PM, said:

2. Players are banned from describing method XYZ on their convention card

Too bad! XYZ is my favourite convention

Stephen

[joshs]

hrothgar, on Jan 27 2006, 02:38 PM, said:

2. Players are banned from describing method XYZ on their convention card

Well I usually check the 2-way checkback box, and in the space next to it write in XYZ.

Oh, thats not what you meant?

Josh

[cherdano]

hrothgar, on Jan 27 2006, 09:38 PM, said:

For example, many regulators in the EBU and the ACBL use Law 40D to justify an amazing variety of personal whims...  In a similar fashion, if seen ACBL notables attempt to apply the following logic:

1. In order for players to use a convention/treatment, it must be documented on a convention card. 

2. Players are banned from describing method XYZ on their convention card.

Richard, pleeease tell use this isn't true. Please.

Arend

[DelfinoD]

I would never adjust this one.

I wouldn't even adjust it if N alerted and explained as take out.

N was just lucky and director is not a person who should make everyone equally lucky