[awm]

A lot of the rules about psychs were made a long time ago. The principle is that as long as partner is as much in the dark as opponents, it is perfectly legal to misrepresent your hand.

This is all fine as far as it goes, and applies to psychs and forgets and misbids. The issue is that in the modern game dominated by established partnerships with hundreds of pages of notes and thousands of boards played as a pair, it is very rarely the case that partner will be as much in the dark as opponents.

Often it's the case that some conventional bid is made, but something about bidder's partner's hand or just the nature of the subsequent auction makes the agreed conventional meaning seem unlikely. If bidder's partner will ever make allowances for this, it seems to call the agreement into question.

For example, say partner opens 2♦ flannery. I bid 2♥ (to play). Now partner bids 3♦. This is not a discussed sequence, and seems a very weird action. I suppose (in principle) partner could have some very maximum 4-5-4-0 hand trying for game over my signoff.... but most of the time when I see this auction what's really happened is that partner has a weak two in diamonds. If I play partner for the weak two in diamonds, I'm effectively acknowledging that I know partner might "forget" about 2♦ flannery. Once I do this, I think the director is right to rule that our agreement wasn't really flannery (even if it says flannery on our convention cards and in our notes) -- our agreement was that 2♦ is "either flannery or a weak two in diamonds" and if I didn't disclose this initially (or if such an agreement isn't legal) then opponents are deserving of redress.

[blackshoe]

People keep referring to "the full disclosure laws". What laws are those, pray tell?

[ralph23]

awm, on Sep 5 2007, 06:12 PM, said:

For example, say partner opens 2♦ flannery. I bid 2♥ (to play). Now partner bids 3♦. This is not a discussed sequence, and seems a very weird action. I suppose (in principle) partner could have some very maximum 4-5-4-0 hand trying for game over my signoff.... but most of the time when I see this auction what's really happened is that partner has a weak two in diamonds. If I play partner for the weak two in diamonds, I'm effectively acknowledging that I know partner might "forget" about 2♦ flannery. Once I do this, I think the director is right to rule that our agreement wasn't really flannery (even if it says flannery on our convention cards and in our notes) -- our agreement was that 2♦ is "either flannery or a weak two in diamonds" and if I didn't disclose this initially (or if such an agreement isn't legal) then opponents are deserving of redress.

If partner's "misbid" 2♦ a few times and he had a weak 2♦ on those occasions, and not a Flannery hand, then there is a basis for finding that your partnership has a "tacit" agreement on the meaning of 2♦ opening, which may be a "multi" purpose usage.

If you and partner have sworn in blood to forego weak 2♦ and have both written up in bridge articles in your local club how virtuous Flannery is, and how dumb weak 2♦ is, and you gain a reputation in your club for being the "Flannery boys" and then, lo and behold, partner forgets it one time when he's had one too many at the pub... ..., -- well, then it's a misbid.

You don't have a tacit agreement on "multi purpose 2♦" in this case --- you both hate weak 2♦s and that's clear beyond cavil--, and it doesn't matter WHAT you do in response to his 2♦ bid or to his further bidding. Those actions don't retroactively create an agreement when none existed.

You either had or didn't have a multi-purpose agreement before you sat down. Nothing in the midst of the bidding can change that! All your later action constitutes is simply your acknowledgement that partner is human, gets snockered sometimes, and can forget. So, you guess that he forgot. You guessed well.

Are your opps entitled to redress? I don't know. I'm not a director. I don't want to be one.

All I do know for sure, simply because I speak English as my mother tongue and know how to use the word "agreement" in that language, is that you are not liable for failure to disclose a "multi purpose 2♦" agreement, because you didn't have such an agreement and therefore you cannot possibly be liable for failing to disclose something that did not exist.

Whether you have violated some other rule or propriety or should "in justice" be liable for Convention Disruption or whatever, I truly don't know. I just know you didn't have the multi-purpose agreement and can't be liable for failure to disclose something that didn't exist.

[ralph23]

blackshoe, on Sep 5 2007, 06:47 PM, said:

People keep referring to "the full disclosure laws". What laws are those, pray tell?

Actually, that's slang for a type of the Securities Laws in the US and securities lawyers talk about "FD".

I just used it informally in response to barman's use of the term. I take it loosely to mean the principle that opps are entitled to full disclosure of our system. But I generally call this type of thing a "principle" rather than a "law" because it's really at a higher level of abstration than a law.

[blackshoe]

Well, I dunno about "higher level of abstraction" - I'm an engineer, not a philosopher - but the principle of full disclosure is certainly not a law. Nor is it, in those jurisdictions of which I'm aware, a regulation.

"Convention disruption" is a silly idea put forth by Bobby Wolff. It has no force in law or regulation.

[ralph23]

blackshoe, on Sep 5 2007, 07:06 PM, said:

Well, I dunno about "higher level of abstraction" - I'm an engineer, not a philosopher - but the principle of full disclosure is certainly not a law. Nor is it, in those jurisdictions of which I'm aware, a regulation.

"Convention disruption" is a silly idea put forth by Bobby Wolff. It has no force in law or regulation.

Well, in the Netherlands, apparently they don't think it's so silly, as I can't imagine the real basis for their alleged "rulings" in this area other than CD -- can you??

Helene notes in her original post that "Berry Westra . . . thinks that there is a need to protect the game against the growing convention madness ("steeds verder oprukkende conventiegekte")." Madness, indeed!

The underlying basis for the policy is not articulated as such, of course, because CD clearly isn't "the law." Therefore, the makeshift rationale of the "failure to disclose your agreement" has to be sophistically warped to serve the desired end.

Lawyers call this giving the judge "someplace to hang his hat" -- fashioning a somewhat spurious rationale that allows him to make the "right" or "just" decision while still facially adhering to "the law".

[cherdano]

blackshoe, on Sep 5 2007, 05:06 PM, said:

Well, I dunno about "higher level of abstraction" - I'm an engineer, not a philosopher - but the principle of full disclosure is certainly not a law.

75C.  Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements
When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience.

Isn't this exactly full disclosure?

[han]

I think this is the same Berry Westra that used to play a 2C opening showing a weak hand with a 5-card suit (any) and then opened it without a 5-card suit. :-)

And of course full disclosure is a law. I'd say it is one of the fundamental laws of the game.

[blackshoe]

It's easy to say "full disclosure is a law". It's not so easy to be sure that what people who say that mean by "full disclosure" is precisely what the law requires and no more.

If we're going to point at law 75C as "full disclosure is a law" then we must consider that law 75C comes into effect only after an opponent has asked a question. OTOH, the main thrust of this thread has been whether one must disclose things even without such a question.

[cherdano]

blackshoe, on Sep 5 2007, 10:03 PM, said:

It's easy to say "full disclosure is a law". It's not so easy to be sure that what people who say that mean by "full disclosure" is precisely what the law requires and no more.

If we're going to point at law 75C as "full disclosure is a law" then we must consider that law 75C comes into effect only after an opponent has asked a question. OTOH, the main thrust of this thread has been whether one must disclose things even without such a question.

Yeah I guess I should have quoted 40B.

[awm]

You can't end discussion of our agreements with what's in our notes and on our CC. If I make a bid with a hand I'm "not supposed to have" according to the notes and partner then plays me for the hand I have and not our "agreement", I think it's reasonable to say that our agreement was not, in fact, what's in the notes. For example, say our card says 1NT "15-17" and I open 1NT on a ten count. Okay, maybe I forgot our methods. Maybe I misbid. Maybe I miscounted my points. Maybe I'm psyching. But now say partner passes my opening with a balanced 11-count. Ooh maybe he miscounted his points too? Maybe he "took a position" that game wouldn't make? After all our convention cards both say "15-17"?

I think any reasonable director or committee has to rule that our agreements aren't what it says on our card, and that we should be penalized for improper disclosure (above and beyond possibly adjusting the result of the board). It certainly doesn't seem reasonable for director to rule that we "both misbid" and our opponents are out of luck.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps it's a minor nit, Adam, but there's a difference between "agreement" and "understanding". In the scenario you posit, I think it's reasonable to conclude that your agreement is that 1NT shows 15-17, but you apparently have an understanding with your partner that you might psyche with a ten count. Since both agreements and understandings are disclosable - and since in this case disclosure of the understanding is specifically required by Law 40A and/or 40B - I agree that failure to disclose it should lead to penalty and possibly to score adjustment.

[blackshoe]

40B requires one to consider what makes a partnership understanding "special". I'm not sure I know the answer to that. Would someone care to take a stab at it?

[cherdano]

blackshoe, on Sep 5 2007, 11:38 PM, said:

40B requires one to consider what makes a partnership understanding "special". I'm not sure I know the answer to that. Would someone care to take a stab at it?

The "special" in "special partnership understandings" is just to emphasize the difference to "general bridge knowledge or experience". All partnership understandings must be disclosed. Full Disclosure, eh, Ok?

[helene_t]

ralph23, on Sep 6 2007, 02:23 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Sep 5 2007, 07:06 PM, said:

[.....] "Convention disruption" is a silly idea put forth by Bobby Wolff. It has no force in law or regulation.

Well, in the Netherlands, apparently they don't think it's so silly, as I can't imagine the real basis for their alleged "rulings" in this area other than CD -- can you??

Helene notes in her original post that "Berry Westra . . . thinks that there is a need to protect the game against the growing convention madness ("steeds verder oprukkende conventiegekte")." Madness, indeed!

There are two kinds of "infractions" under discussion here, I think.

One is when someone forgets a convention. Of course if his p fields the oops without any further evidence but presumably only (or largely) because he knows that his p often forgets that convention, the disclosure was inappropriate. But the Dutch AC goes further: even when his p does not field the oops, opps are still entitled to compensation if they were damaged, for example because this "Ghestem" 3♣ bid "psyched" them out of a major suit fit.

Another is when someone uses his judgement to deviate from the formal requirements and, say, opens Muiderberg on a 6-bagger. While this is a heated discussion as well, I think it's a completely different issue.

[blackshoe]

cherdano, on Sep 6 2007, 12:46 AM, said:

The "special" in "special partnership understandings" is just to emphasize the difference to "general bridge knowledge or experience". All partnership understandings must be disclosed. Full Disclosure, eh, Ok?

Not if you're including "general bridge knowledge or experience" in "all partnership understandings."

[hrothgar]

Interesting comment from Grattan that raises a very real question:

To what extent does a ruling from an AC establish any kind of precedence and how does this impact the consistant application of the Laws.

>> the position of the AC
>> seems to be that misbids related to conventions are always

>> infractions ...... Hans van Staveren wants to mobilize Dutch
.>> TDs to action against the AC and mentioned (in a talk with

>> Grattan Endicott at the open Europeans in Antalya) the
>> possibility of TD strike (!).
>

> I believe that the laws should be followed by any AC, regardless
> of its opinion on their correctness.
>
<

+=+It was not only Hans who came to talk to me. I heard
something of one particular case from both sides of the debate.
Although it was evident the matter was causing feelings to
become aroused, I did not fully grasp the background position
as it is suggested to be in this correspondence.
If the national AC is not prepared to listen to Ton Kooijman
on the subject I do not see why it should listen to me. But what
I read is bizarre. Case by case, one at a time, ACs can decide
lawfully that there is a misexplanation rather than a misbid. The
facts must be assessed since the laws do not provide for a blanket
ruling that every case of a hand failing to comply with the disclosed
meaning of a bid can be automatically ruled a misexplanation when
that bid is conventional. There is no authority in the laws for that,
and if that were the basis of a ruling sufficiently affecting a win/lose
situation to incur referral externally to a Committee of Arbitration
for Sport (CAS) it would seem wholly unlikely that the AC ruling
could stand. At the least one would expect the ruling to be referred
back to the AC for reconsideration of the facts in relation to a
correct understanding of the laws of the game.
Since the Dutch, in my experience, are meticulous observers
of the ethics I can hope that the basis of the ruling is in truth other
than as has been asserted in this thread.

[ralph23]

helene_t, on Sep 6 2007, 04:48 AM, said:

There are two kinds of "infractions" under discussion here, I think.

Yes, I agree and think perhaps there are 3 classes. The latter two bleed into each other to some degree -- but I still think it's useful to consider three classes.

Class 1. A true "oops." Someone just made a mistake. No devious purposes. Just a boo-boo.

I deal, and it goes Pass Pass to partner, who opens 1♠.
Pass to me, and I bid 2♣.

1a. We play Drury, but I screwed up!! I really have ♣, not ♠s ! Partner alerts 2♣ and explains our agreement properly and bids 2♠. I feel like a dolt but it happens. No foul. Of course I now hold UI as a result of partner's alert and must act accordingly.

1b. We play Drury, and this time I have a limit raise with 4♠. But partner screws up and fails to alert it! And he passes. Sigh. Well, this was a failure to alert infraction, but since we're playing a 2♣ contract with a 8-9 card ♠ fit, the opps are not going to complain about the result.

1c. We don't play Drury, but I screw up and think we do! I'm confused because I'm playing with Jack instead of with Jill. I bid 2♣ to artificially raise ♠ as a passed hand, partner properly keeps quiet and passes. No foul. I just misbid.

1d. We don't play Drury, but partner gets confused and thinks we do! She's used to playing with Randy, and not Ralph, and she and Randy play it; I don't. She alerts it and bids 4♠. A foul for a bad explanation, but we'll get a poor result - I just have long ♣ and 10 points.

Class 2. I stretch or take liberties. Not gross and extreme liberties, but some. I do violate our partnership agreement in doing so, however.

I open a weak 2♥ in 2nd seat on a 5-bagger with ♥A9873 and nothing else but a stray Jack somewhere, when it's all white. That's outside our partnership agreement standards. Partner is asked about my bid and properly explains our agreement: say our agreement is, that it's a 6-bagger with 3 of the top 5, or 2 of the top 3 (disciplined), and 6-10 HCP. And she properly states our agreement. Later they get upset because I didn't have my bid.

No foul. I just got frisky. It never happened before and may not happen again. If we got a good result, call me lucky.

Class 3. I psych. Pass Pass to me, and I open 1♠ on short ♠ and 6 HCP, none of them in ♠. Partner doesn't expect this and neither do they. We'll see what happens. But not a foul.

[awm]

What if someone deliberately psychs?

For example, say we agree that 1♠-3♣ shows diamonds and hearts, but I decide on purpose to bid 3♣ with diamonds and clubs. This talks the opponents out of a 4-4 heart fit, and even worse they misplay their 3NT contract because of the assumption that hearts are breaking 5-0.

Obviously I just "got lucky" that partner didn't have very many hearts and thereby didn't hang me. Our agreement (3♣ diamonds and hearts) was correctly explained and partner's bids were normal assuming I had the described hand.

Are opponents entitled to redress? Does it matter if my purposeful psych is replaced by an accidental misbid (I thought 3♣ was minors when I bid it)? Or am I simply not allowed to psych conventional overcalls like this?

[hrothgar]

awm, on Sep 6 2007, 10:17 PM, said:

What if someone deliberately psychs?

For example, say we agree that 1♠-3♣ shows diamonds and hearts, but I decide on purpose to bid 3♣ with diamonds and clubs. This talks the opponents out of a 4-4 heart fit, and even worse they misplay their 3NT contract because of the assumption that hearts are breaking 5-0.

Obviously I just "got lucky" that partner didn't have very many hearts and thereby didn't hang me. Our agreement (3♣ diamonds and hearts) was correctly explained and partner's bids were normal assuming I had the described hand.

Are opponents entitled to redress? Does it matter if my purposeful psych is replaced by an accidental misbid (I thought 3♣ was minors when I bid it)? Or am I simply not allowed to psych conventional overcalls like this?

Many regulatory authorities have passed rules that bar players from psyching conventions, neatly sidestepping the issue at hand.