[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-12, 07:53, said:

No ER25 hand would ever open at the 3 or 4 level, or with 5 of a minor? The disclosure issues usually come in the line between preemptive calls and strong ones. If SB always chooses 2♣ when it qualifies over an alternative preemptive call then it actually makes his disclosure position very easy.

The whole purpose of SB using 2C is to keep the opponents out, and con them into passing, so he will always open 2C on an ER25 hand, the more pre-emptive the better. ♠J ♥2 ♦QJT98xxx ♣KQJ would be ideal, a hand that most would open 3D, 4D or 5D.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2017-January-12, 08:02, said:

The whole purpose of SB using 2C is to keep the opponents out, and con them into passing, so he will always open 2C on an ER25 hand, the more pre-emptive the better. ♠J ♥2 ♦QJT98xxx ♣KQJ would be ideal, a hand that most would open 3D or 4D.

If the opps are aware that any ER25 hand will be opened 2♣ then they will be less likely to be "conned", hence the importance of disclosing fully. But it is nice of you to admit that SB was trying for a con rather than merely using the letter of the Law to obtain an advantage, which is the more common MO. That would tend to support my position of throwing the book at him in this instance. Is the owner of this North London club really so desperate for every paying member as to continue to put up with this?

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-12, 08:09, said:

If the opps are aware that any ER25 hand will be opened 2♣ then they will be less likely to be "conned", hence the importance of disclosing fully. But it is nice of you to admit that SB was trying for a con rather than merely using the letter of the Law to obtain an advantage, which is the more common MO. That would tend to support my position of throwing the book at him in this instance. Is the owner of this North London club really so desperate for every paying member as to continue to put up with this?

SB would ONLY use the letter of the Law to obtain an advantage. In agreeing how to explain 2C he thought he was just following the Blue Book, and he is quite happy to switch to "any hand that meets ER25". The fact that opening 2C cons the opponents into passing is an added bonus from his point of view, and SB sees it as a perfectly legitimate tactic, like his psyche at a "no psyches" club in Wyoming. The last time the committee considered his membership, he had just donated a trophy for the Rabbits Cup, a novices event in which he does not play, and they voted 5-4 not to expel him.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-12, 00:14, said:

Yes, one strange aspect of the ruling was that the players had not discussed their requirements for a 2♣ opener, had not seen each other bid one and had not, in fact, ever played together before. Opener was not sure whether she had ever knowingly played Benjy previously. Yet the players were assumed to have an agreement.

As I've mentioned in numerous other threads, the laws on disclosure and MI are based on a presumption that pairs actually have reasonably firm agreements that can be disclosed. In individuals, or with pickup partners who have not had extensive discussion, their agreements are often vague to nonexistent. They'll frequently just agree to a convention by name, or check off a box on the CC as they fill it out, but that doesn't mean their understandings of it are consistent.

It's difficult to apply the same disclosure rules as we would for regular partners. And maybe it's not even fair to attempt to do so. The spirit of full disclosure is that the opponents should have about the same information as the partners, so if the partnership is not on the same page, the opponents are not really disadvantaged. Although when a player hears his partner's explanation, he'll be aware that they have a misunderstanding, while the opponents have no way of knowing that something is amiss. The laws say that he should eventually reveal that his partner made a misexplanation, but since they didn't actually have an agreement, he could avoid this by deciding that his bid was the mistake, not the explanation. As long as he doesn't use the UI from the explanation in his further bidding, it's probably all legal.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2017-January-12, 08:26, said:

The last time the committee considered his membership, he had just donated a trophy for the Rabbits Cup, a novices event in which he does not play, and they voted 5-4 not to expel him.

Timely donation, that.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2017-January-12, 09:57, said:

It's difficult to apply the same disclosure rules as we would for regular partners. And maybe it's not even fair to attempt to do so. The spirit of full disclosure is that the opponents should have about the same information as the partners, so if the partnership is not on the same page, the opponents are not really disadvantaged. Although when a player hears his partner's explanation, he'll be aware that they have a misunderstanding, while the opponents have no way of knowing that something is amiss. The laws say that he should eventually reveal that his partner made a misexplanation, but since they didn't actually have an agreement, he could avoid this by deciding that his bid was the mistake, not the explanation. As long as he doesn't use the UI from the explanation in his further bidding, it's probably all legal.

I think if he decides they really didn't have an agreement, he still needs, at the appropriate time, to call the director and explain that in his view they don't have an agreement. In fact, he should probably do that even if his hand matches his partner's explanation.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-12, 10:09, said:

I think if he decides they really didn't have an agreement, he still needs, at the appropriate time, to call the director and explain that in his view they don't have an agreement. In fact, he should probably do that even if his hand matches his partner's explanation.

Well, that's where it becomes difficult to decide what's actually going on. They agreed to play a particular convention. Does the explanation that disagrees with his bid mean they didn't actually have an agreement, or that one of them made a mistake in bidding or explaining? In two of those cases the opponents should get a corrected explanation.

[blackshoe]

Well, I suppose the bidder could think 'oh, yeah, we did agree to play <whatever>… If he goes on to think "and I've misbid" then he shouldn't say anything. If he goes on to think "but my understanding of <whatever> doesn't match what partner said" then he needs to correct the explanation. In the latter case, of course, the director may decide they really didn't have an agreement. What he should do in that case may depend on how the correction is worded. If the bidder just says "my understanding of <whatever> is blah, blah, blah", that's one thing. If he sticks in "we had 90 seconds to agree system, we agreed to play <whatever> by name, but did not discuss any further details" then he's essentially already told the opponents that they don't have an agreement.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-12, 10:26, said:

Well, I suppose the bidder could think 'oh, yeah, we did agree to play <whatever>… If he goes on to think "and I've misbid" then he shouldn't say anything. If he goes on to think "but my understanding of <whatever> doesn't match what partner said" then he needs to correct the explanation. In the latter case, of course, the director may decide they really didn't have an agreement. What he should do in that case may depend on how the correction is worded. If the bidder just says "my understanding of <whatever> is blah, blah, blah", that's one thing. If he sticks in "we had 90 seconds to agree system, we agreed to play <whatever> by name, but did not discuss any further details" then he's essentially already told the opponents that they don't have an agreement.

My general point is that when the partnership hasn't had extensive discussion, this can come up for many bids. Should they just stop explaining, since they don't have firm agreements about anything? But most opponents would feel aggrieved if they answered "no agreement" to so many requests for explanation.

You're not allowed to give just the name of a convention as the explanation. But isn't that what you're doing if you explain "We agreed to play <whatever>, but didn't discuss it any further"?

LIke I said, there's just this big disconnect between the presumptions in the disclosure laws and regulations, and feasibility among not-regular partners.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2017-January-12, 10:34, said:

My general point is that when the partnership hasn't had extensive discussion, this can come up for many bids. Should they just stop explaining, since they don't have firm agreements about anything? But most opponents would feel aggrieved if they answered "no agreement" to so many requests for explanation.

You're not allowed to give just the name of a convention as the explanation. But isn't that what you're doing if you explain "We agreed to play <whatever>, but didn't discuss it any further"?

LIke I said, there's just this big disconnect between the presumptions in the disclosure laws and regulations, and feasibility among not-regular partners.

Oh, I agree on the disconnect.

In the "didn't discuss it further" case, I think the bidder who has a difference of opinion with his partner on the meaning of the convention should provide his own opinion as to that meaning. It should be clear to the opponents or anyone else that the difference of opinion exists. It's also true that the bidder is telling everyone what he has in his hand, and normally he's not required to do that, but here I think perhaps he is.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-12, 10:40, said:

Oh, I agree on the disconnect.

In the "didn't discuss it further" case, I think the bidder who has a difference of opinion with his partner on the meaning of the convention should provide his own opinion as to that meaning. It should be clear to the opponents or anyone else that the difference of opinion exists. It's also true that the bidder is telling everyone what he has in his hand, and normally he's not required to do that, but here I think perhaps he is.

All of this is mildly interesting, but does not apply to the hand or ruling mentioned above, so perhaps belongs in a different thread.