[helene_t]

 newmoon, on 2015-May-02, 21:46, said:

South explained that he took it as non-forcing and passed, and that this situation had never occurred before in their short partnership.

So there are two possible answers to the "forcing?" question, now that it is obvious that S didn't take the bid as forcing:

1) It is nonforcing
2) South isn't sure but decides to take it as nonforcing.

So the question is not obsolete. W could reason that if 2♠ is nonforcing it may be good to reopen while if 2♠ is undiscussed it is better to pass in case NS have a misunderstanding.

[aguahombre]

 helene_t, on 2015-May-06, 08:10, said:

So there are two possible answers to the "forcing?" question, now that it is obvious that S didn't take the bid as forcing:

1) It is nonforcing
2) South isn't sure but decides to take it as nonforcing.

So the question is not obsolete. W could reason that if 2♠ is nonforcing it may be good to reopen while if 2♠ is undiscussed it is better to pass in case NS have a misunderstanding.

West could reason as you stated; however, he should not in the OP case. He already took direct action over the 2H bid, and his partner has already said "no, thank you.". It cannot be good to reopen and, in the process, overstate what he stated the first time.

BTW: if North's 2S was a psyche, "My" East would have exposed it. Double by East would not be takeout --- just as (1H) X (1S) x would not be takeout of 1S.

[blackshoe]

Misinformation arises from an explanation, or an alert, or lack of an alert. It does not arise from the auction itself.

[billw55]

IMO south's explanation is an accurate and complete description of their (lack of) agreement. West's bid didn't work out. Tough luck, but there was no MI. Result stands.

[lamford]

One question which does not seem to have been addressed by any of the eminent posters on here is whether North's bid of 4♥ used UI. If South had answered, "forcing", North would have concluded that South had taken a view with an unsuitable minimum. If South had answered "constructive but non-forcing", North would still have UI. When South answered, "I took it as non-forcing, and that this situation had never occurred before in [our] short partnership", North knows that South has passed because she did not regard it as forcing, rather than because she had decided to pass a constructive or even forcing bid. For example, say North had KQxxx AK xxx Qxx, then the 4H bid would be taking advantage of the UI.

[barmar]

 aguahombre, on 2015-May-05, 21:09, said:

I believe they do have to tell to whether it is an explicit agreement or whether it is an agreement the person asked surmised (and is thus unsure). I don't believe "I take it as...." quite does that.

Which Law says this? 20F1 says

Quote

During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding.

Where does it say that he's entitled to know how the agreement came to be (explicit or implicit)?

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2015-May-07, 09:26, said:

Which Law says this? 20F1 says

Where does it say that he's entitled to know how the agreement came to be (explicit or implicit)?

I think you missed my point. "I take it as..." could mean we have an agreement (explicit or implicit) or it could mean we have no agreement but I am making up what I think it means --- out of my own experience alone.

The opponents might not be entitled to know how our agreement came to be; but they certainly are entitled to know whether it is an agreement or a SWAG. That is how we know whether we are getting a 20F1 disclosure.

[barmar]

 aguahombre, on 2015-May-07, 09:58, said:

I think you missed my point. "I take it as..." could mean we have an agreement (explicit or implicit) or it could mean we have no agreement but I am making up what I think it means --- out of my own experience alone.

The opponents might not be entitled to know how our agreement came to be; but they certainly are entitled to know whether it is an agreement or a SWAG. That is how we know whether we are getting a 20F1 disclosure.

If you're totally guessing, you're not supposed to tell the opponents that at all -- their guess is presumably as good as yours.

But where is the line between a guess and an implicit agreement? If this is an experienced partnership, a guess will be substantially biased by tendencies you may have picked up subconsciously. And even in a new partnership, you may know quite a bit if you've played in the same bridge circles with each other. When you say what you're "taking it as", you're basically disclosing what you think your implicit agreement is.

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2015-May-07, 23:46, said:

If you're totally guessing, you're not supposed to tell the opponents that at all -- their guess is presumably as good as yours.

But where is the line between a guess and an implicit agreement? If this is an experienced partnership, a guess will be substantially biased by tendencies you may have picked up subconsciously. And even in a new partnership, you may know quite a bit if you've played in the same bridge circles with each other. When you say what you're "taking it as", you're basically disclosing what you think your implicit agreement is.

I won't be convincing you, apparently. I don't assume that the opponent knows the difference between agreements and a guess. When he says "I take it as..." I still don't know if he is describing an agreement. Neither do you. Just because he is not supposed to tell me about his pure guesses does not mean he isn't doing that.

[barmar]

 aguahombre, on 2015-May-08, 00:46, said:

I won't be convincing you, apparently. I don't assume that the opponent knows the difference between agreements and a guess. When he says "I take it as..." I still don't know if he is describing an agreement. Neither do you. Just because he is not supposed to tell me about his pure guesses does not mean he isn't doing that.

My point is that it the specific wording doesn't matter. You would know or not know exactly the same thing if he said "That shows ...".

The way you can usually tell how sure the player is about the agreement is by how quickly they describe it. If they alert late and then do some thinking before coming up with the explanation, it's almost certainly not a firm agreement.

[mycroft]

I tend to imply my implied agreements. I tend to teach this as an effective, ethical strategy.

"No agreement, but <list of explicit agreements that apply here>." Possibly followed by, or solely, <meta-agreements that apply>.

If they're very new, or if the agreements are very unusual (we're likely the only pair that plays Keri for 800km in any direction, for instance), I may lead them one more step down the garden path of my logic.

That should make it clear what's going on. Nobody seems to mind, except for the people who complain if their opponents can't explain everything. Many of those are prime users of the "no agreement" clause themselves (often with a smile), so I have little sympathy.