[campboy]

StevenG, on 2015-April-27, 09:16, said:

On that basis, neither partner seems to be aware that C is a possibility, so it cannot possibly be right. I know that saying "widget" is frowned upon, but in reality "widget", and nothing more, is the partnerhip (mis)understanding.

It doesn't matter what they are currently aware of. After all, if a player misexplains a bid because he has forgotten the agreement we rule MI, even though he was not aware of the correct explanation at the time. And for all we know both partners have read write-ups which specified that C is the correct meaning, but they have subsequently forgotten -- there is nothing in OP which says they haven't.

The one thing which I think is clearly wrong is the suggestion that opponents are not entitled to know what Widget is, simply because your discussion went no further than the name. They are entitled not just to a description of your understanding, but to one which uses terms they understand.

[nige1]

FrancesHinden, on 2015-April-27, 05:53, said:

You and your partner have agreed to play the Widget convention. You haven't discussed it any further than to say you are playing 'widget' and write 'widget' on your convention card in the appropriate place. You haven't discussed what the possible calls actually mean nor any continuations. Widget is not as universally played as Stayman (another convention where people don't discuss continuations) nor as obscure as the Allerton multi-way 2D rebid. It's been written up in a couple of magazines and covered in one book; a google search finds 7 write-ups and it's in the ACBL defensive database. It comes up at the table, and you make a Widget bid. It is absolutely clear that Widget applies here.
Subsequent investigation by the TD reveals that you think this bid has meaning A, your partner thinks it has meaning B and the write-ups of Widget unanimously say it has meaning C. Your opponents are certainly entitled to know that you have agreed to play Widget and have had no further discussion. Which, if any, of meanings A, B and C are your opponents (theoretically) also entitled to be told? Gordontd and I don't agree on this, which is unusual and worries me.

Directors need a simple agreed way of dealing with the scenario that happens everyday at every club: Partnerships agree a list of conventions by name e.g. "2/1, Short club, 4 transfers, Stayman, Smolen, Jacoby, Bergen, Splinters, 4SFG, UCB, 2-way check-back, Support and maximal doubles, Drury, 4031 RKCB, UNT, Michaels, 3/5, UDCA, and -- of course -- Widget"

IMO, opponents are entitled to know that your call is "Widget (undiscussed)" not what you actually hold (presumably "A"). If they go an to ask partner what "Widget" means, partner should divulge his belief ("B"). If partner is sure he knows what "Widget" means and imagines you share that knowledge then "No agreement" would be "economical with the truth" (at best).

Not bothering to learn the "Widget" convention properly is equivalent to misremembering it (unless the director is a mind-reader). In either case, the director should rule MI, so the director's task is easy.

IMO, your actual agreement is "C" -- as if you signed a legal contractual agreement, without reading it.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2015-April-27, 10:14, said:

IMO, opponents are entitled to know that your call is "Widget (undiscussed)" not what you actually hold (presumably "A"). If they go an to ask partner what "Widget" means, he should divulge his belief ("B").

But most RAs have decreed that just giving a convention name is not a proper answer. You must volunteer the explanation of what the call means. The answerer describes what he understands the meaning to be. If his partner thinks this is wrong, he corrects it at the appropriate later time.

C would only be relevant if the explanation were just "Widget" (because the opponents, who have read the official description of Widget, would assume this meaning). But if the players correctly describe the meanings as they each understand them, the official writeup is out of the loop. Once the misunderstanding comes to light, the partnership might be inclined to read the official writeup for future benefit, but it doesn't matter during this hand.

This is all a very grey area in the Laws. The use of the term "partnership agreement" assumes that the players actually agree.

[FrancesHinden]

Aardv, on 2015-April-27, 07:57, said:

Opponents are not entitled to have you tell them the contents of some online document you've never read.

wank, on 2015-April-27, 07:59, said:

C - you agreed to play the convention and you didn't bother to discuss it further so you implicity agreed to play the standard version thereof. publications define what the standard version is.

I think these two quotes nicely sum up the two points of view.

mikeh, on 2015-April-27, 09:18, said:

After all, unless widget is a destructive device, the odds are that a major misunderstanding will harm the users of the gadget more than the opps.

Those may be the odds, but as you will guess at the table the opponents were (arguably, hence the need for a ruling) harmed

nige1, on 2015-April-27, 10:14, said:

In either case, the director should rule MI, so the director's task is easy.

Not really. Yes, you can rule that there has been MI. But the question (which started this thread) is what 'I' should the opponents have been given?

[nige1]

FrancesHinden, on 2015-April-27, 10:32, said:

Not really. Yes, you can rule that there has been MI. But the question (which started this thread) is what 'I' should the opponents have been given?

Clarifying my view:

The correct information is "C", a proper description of the "Widget" convention that both agreed to play.

In practice, the best that partner can do is "Widget undiscussed" and if pressed divulge his understanding "B". He thinks that is what "Widget" means and imagines you share that belief.

That is MI, however. IMO their actual agreement is still "C".

[barmar]

nige1, on 2015-April-27, 10:56, said:

That is MI, however. IMO their actual agreement is still "C".

IMO they don't actually have an agreement. They think they do, but they're wrong. The fact that it would mean C to some other pairs doesn't mean that they have agreed to it.

[Trinidad]

mikeh, on 2015-April-27, 09:18, said:

I therefore think that all I ought to be saying is: 'we have not discussed this sequence, and it has never arisen before', and even the last part of that is probably surplus to requirements.

That is short of your agreement (which was: "We will play Widget")
And it is even further short of what you, in all likelihood, think you have agreed at the time that you are asked the question. Supposedly, you will only find out later that you and partner are not on the same page (actually not even in the same document). You can only explain what you think you have agreed on. (And "Widget" is unfortunately not good enough an explanation, since the name of the convention is not sufficcient.)

Rik

[nige1]

barmar, on 2015-April-27, 10:30, said:

But most RAs have decreed that just giving a convention name is not a proper answer. You must volunteer the explanation of what the call means. The answerer describes what he understands the meaning to be. If his partner thinks this is wrong, he corrects it at the appropriate later time. The partnership agreement" assumes that the players actually agree.

I agree. Opponents are entitled to your agreement -- here "Widget, undiscussed". A partnership should know their agreements and hence be able to describe them. Here, when an opponent asks you what "Widget" means, if you believe you know its meaning and imagine partner shares the same understanding, then you should disclose it. Arguably, I agree, you should divulge this, without prompting -- although you might be wary of volunteering speculation.

[MickyB]

I could imagine a scenario where the oppo were also entitled to be told A or B. That would be true if both players play the same bastardised version of Widget with a mutual partner, and one had merely forgotten what applied here.

If both players have their own, unusual ideas of what the sequence means, and no reason to know what the other thinks, then by agreeing widget they have agreed 'C', whether they realise it or not.

[MickyB]

For those that rule that oppo should be told 'A', how would you rule if B = C?

[mikeh]

I think I misunderstood the OP. I had thought that we were concerned with the followup to widget, a situation analogous to a 3-level response to a Jacoby 2N forcing raise of a major opening bid.

IOW, we had announced 'widget' the previous call and one of us had made a subsequent call, and the confusion set in then.

However, it seems to me that what Frances was describing is that we have misunderstood what widget is. We think we have agreed to play widget, but neither of us actually knows what widget shows, and we each have our own, mistaken, belief.

It's as if we have agreed to play Suction over their 1N, where a suit bid shows either the suit immediately above or the other two suits. However, our discussion was: let's play Suction over their 1N.

Then one of us bids 2♠, thinking that it shows spades and a lower, and partner thinks it shows just the minors.

I am a lawyer by training and while I appreciate that rules from one sphere don't always translate well into another, what springs to my mind is that what we have here is a case of mutual mistake. The two players thought they had an agreement, but in fact they never did...there was a fundamental misunderstanding as to what 'widget' meant.

They had no agreement.

I stand by my earlier post to the effect that this sort of screwup is the rub of the green, and the opps can be upset but not entitled to redress. However, if the conditions of contest so allow, I would strongly support a penalty against the widgeteers.

I have played in events in which this sort of error will get the TD telling the widget-players that widget is now struck from their convention card, and they cannot substitute any other convention in its place. In the notrump defence analogy, they are now playing natural overcalls. This would be in addition to any matchpoint, imp or VP penalty.

[nige1]

Previous topic on agreements

nige1, on 2014-November-16, 12:56, said:

Thank you Trinidad for the information. No, I didn't know. I haven't read Bergen's books. I don't like his convention. Luckily, the players, with whom I play what they call "Bergen", are equally ignorant. I suppose that this is another reason to explain what you understand by partner's bid, rather than to rely on the name of a convention.

Trinidad, on 2014-November-17, 03:26, said:

?!? You have an agreement to play the name of the convention. You have no agreement about what you understand by partner's bid. Why are you lying about your agreements?

This topic

Trinidad, on 2015-April-27, 08:59, said:

You are supposed to tell what you know about your partner's bid. In this case, the partner of the Widget bidder "knows" that the Widget bid shows B (at least he thinks so). He doesn't know any better than that this is the agreement. So, he is supposed to explain: "That is the Widget convention, partner is showing B."

While I have sympathy with both the above Trinidad views, superficially, they appear to be contradictory

[blackshoe]

mikeh, on 2015-April-27, 09:18, said:

There may be scope, if the conditions of contest or the rules in effect so provide, for some disciplinary penalty for playing an incompletely discussed gadget. However, in most events, at least in ACBLand, any harm done to the opps is the rub of the green. After all, unless widget is a destructive device, the odds are that a major misunderstanding will harm the users of the gadget more than the opps.

Quote

ACBL General Conditions of Contest, item 2 under 'Conventions and Convention Cards: A partnership is responsible for knowing its methods.

While this is a very poorly worded regulation, I think it does provide for some penalty, if only implicitly. That said, I confess I would be very surprised if any ACBL TD ever invoked this provision as a basis for one. At most, I'd expect "you're supposed to know your agreements" and no further action on that point.

[mikeh]

I had an analogous situation many years ago, in the round-robin of what was then the Rosenblum WC. I was playing a very complicated relay method. I don't remember the hand, but I held KQ10xx in spades, the heart K and a good hand.

Partner opened a natural 1♣ and I started the relay sequence with an artificial 1♦ response.

A very large number of calls followed, all alerted. My screenmate asked no questions until his last turn, when he asked for an explanation.

I told him that my partner had shown 3=3=1=6, with a specified number of controls, and either both the AK of clubs or neither of them, and so on. However, at one of his last calls he had shown me the heart K, a card at which I was looking, so I knew something had gone wrong.

As for my hand, I had shown nothing beyond the ability to keep relaying and, ultimately, the desire to play 6♠ opposite the hand shown by partner.

I volunteered, probably inappropriately, that I had reason to suspect that partner and I were not on the same page, but I refused to say which bit of information had alerted me to that, and he didn't push it.

In any event, partner put down 0=3=3=7, which left me with some problems in the trump suit....and we were missing a side Ace as well. Down 5, fortunately nv.

Why is this analogous?

Because neither my explanations nor my partner's bids (which he accurately described to his screenmate) were 'wrong'.

This was in 1998, before smartphones and so on. I had gone to Europe the week before the tournament, on business. He had changed the system notes the day after I left and, as was his wont, had simply emailed me replacement pages, the changes being to this one relay sequence of 1♣ 1♦.

Under the old notes, the only ones I had, he had indeed shown the hand I described, but under his notes, he had shown the 0=3=3=7. We'd not discussed the fact that he had made changes....he assumed I knew, and I was blissfully ignorant.

What would the ruling have been, had they sought redress? After all, they could have doubled, tho we might then have run to 6N, the contract at the other table (yes, in WC play they reached 6N off 2 Aces....but that was better than our result )

[Vampyr]

I find it rather weird that some people say that the correct information is C. Who cares what the write-ups say? The name "Widget" is not an appropriate explanation anyway, and as was seemingly agreed in a recent thread about Michaels, calling a convention by a specific name does not mean you are necessarily playing the convention that other people understand by that name.

The case will be ruled as MI, "corrected" at the appropriate time.

[sfi]

FrancesHinden, on 2015-April-27, 05:53, said:

It comes up at the table, and you make a Widget bid. It is absolutely clear that Widget applies here.
Subsequent investigation by the TD reveals that you think this bid has meaning A, your partner thinks it has meaning B and the write-ups of Widget unanimously say it has meaning C.

Your opponents are certainly entitled to know that you have agreed to play Widget and have had no further discussion.

Which, if any, of meanings A, B and C are your opponents (theoretically) also entitled to be told?

I choose 'none of the above'. Your opponents are entitled to your actual agreement, which is 'Widget, but we have not discussed it any further and in fact have different understandings of the convention'. This is, in effect, 'no agreement'. If this explanation was actually given, I don't believe the other side would be entitled to either person's private understanding of the convention.

Of course you'll never give that explanation - you will say what you believe it to mean and your partner will correct it at the appropriate time. So anything you say is likely to lead to both UI to your side and MI to their side. Good luck landing on your feet .

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-27, 17:32, said:

The case will be ruled as MI, "corrected" at the appropriate time.

Well yes, but the question is how will it be "corrected" by the TD when it comes to light? What information will be assumed to be the correct information for the purpose of adjusting the score?

Unfortunately several posts have been made telling us how they think the players should explain their (dis)agreement at the table, but that isn't the question that was asked.

[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2015-April-27, 12:47, said:

Previous topic on agreements This topic While I have sympathy with both the above Trinidad views, superficially, they appear to be contradictory

They are superficially contradictory.

The difference is in the boundary conditions.
In the Widget case, you agreed to play Widget, thinking that partner plays it the same as you, because you don't know any other version.
In the Bergen case, you agreed to play Bergen, but at the point where you need to do the explaining, you must realize that there are x different versions of Bergen ("everybody knows that"), and you never discussed which one to play.

And to be more precise, the Bergen case was about a bid that you thought was undiscussed (but wasn't if you played Bergen raises according to Bergen) where you guessed an explanation anyway (not the Bergen one).

In the Widget case, nobody is guessing an explanation. They know the explanation... They just know it wrong.

Rik

[Trinidad]

gordontd, on 2015-April-28, 01:09, said:

Well yes, but the question is how will it be "corrected" by the TD when it comes to light? What information will be assumed to be the correct information for the purpose of adjusting the score?

They don't have an agreement.

We can agree to play that 2♣ is Stayman after 1NT. But if one of us is sure that Stayman asks for a four card minor and the other that it asks for the point count of the 1NT bidder, we have no agreement.

Rik

[Aardv]

gordontd, on 2015-April-28, 01:09, said:

Well yes, but the question is how will it be "corrected" by the TD when it comes to light? What information will be assumed to be the correct information for the purpose of adjusting the score?

Unfortunately several posts have been made telling us how they think the players should explain their (dis)agreement at the table, but that isn't the question that was asked.

OK, the correct information. The partners have agreed to play Widget, as defined by their shared knowledge and experience. And they plainly haven't agreed to play what's written in a document somewhere neither of them has seen.

Their opponents are therefore entitled to know that they've agreed to play Widget (there's no requirement to give the name), and to have the shared knowledge and experience of the convention revealed to them.

In this case the shared knowledge and experience would presumably include the motivating considerations behind the convention, and any points of agreement between A and B, and the fact that there is expected to be agreement about any points on which they in fact disagree. It does not include information as to which partner believes what.

eg.
Explanation: "we use 2NT in this sequence to distinguish between forcing and competitive bids at the three level, with one range going through 2NT and the other bidding directly"
Follow-up question: "which is which?"
Answer: "no agreement"