[Phil]

blackshoe, on Jun 21 2010, 03:35 PM, said:

Define "straight answer". Is "I don't know" not a straight answer? How about "we haven't discussed it"?

Yes these are straight answers. Not particularly helpful, but certainly truthful.

I don't think matters are as clear as are others are suggesting. If I don't remember our agreements, but my hand tells me that pard's call means 'x' rather than 'y', then apparently I don't have to reveal this. If I cannot make an inference from my hand, then I'm at a bit of a loss and I'm supposed to dig back into that conversation we had at the coffee shop in 2004 about this jump to 3N.

What is bothersome is that if I can remember it after because my hand tells me it matches my memory, then I should be disclosing this to the opponents as well, and make a concerted effort to disclose as if I didn't have the benefit of staring at my own 13 cards.

If one of my regular partners made this call, and I held the AKQ of spades among my assets, I would know that they are horsing around without a spade stopper and would have no qualms explaining to the opponents what our agreement is.

[pran]

Without referring to any specific response to my post I read those responses that if I know we have an agreement but I have forgotten which of two (or more) alternative agreements we have, one of which is alertable another one is not, then it is perfectly OK for me to:

1: not alert my partner's call
and
2: if asked just answer: "I don't know".

Shall this be acceptable disclosure? To me action 1 is definitely not, (action 2 is of course acceptable except that I would prefer: "I have forgotten").

[mjj29]

pran, on Jun 22 2010, 01:40 AM, said:

Without referring to any specific response to my post I read those responses that if I know we have an agreement but I have forgotten which of two (or more) alternative agreements we have, one of which is alertable another one is not, then it is perfectly OK for me to:

1: not alert my partner's call
and
2: if asked just answer: "I don't know".

Shall this be acceptable disclosure? To me action 1 is definitely not, (action 2 is of course acceptable except that I would prefer: "I have forgotten").

Firstly there's a big difference between 1. Never discussed this at all, 2. We definitely have an agreement, but I've forgotten and 3. Technically we don't have an agreement, but it's basically the same as _this other situation_. The first one is the only one in which you should not alert.

The EBU has given guidence on this issue in the Orange Book:

OB5B10 said:

A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if tthe player's partner's actions are also consistent with that agreement

and also

OB5B4 said:

Alert any of parner's calls believed to be alertable even if the meaning cannot be explained

Now, I know some people criticised my position in this thread, but I still believe that if you cannot remember which of two meanings it is the opponents are entitled to have both meanings disclosed to them along with your uncertainty. If one of them is alertable, that means alerting it.

If you deduce which one it is because your hand makes the other impossible, then you should alert and explain the meaning - because it is your agreement and the opponents are entitled to know that however you remembered it. If you deduce that partner is deviating from your hand then the opponents are not entitled to know that, but insert the normal disclaimer about implicit agreements etc.

Going back to my three examples above, in case one don't alert and explain it as "we have no agreement" when asked. In case two alert it and say "we have an agreement, but I've forgotten what it is" and, if applicable, "it's one of these things, but I've forgotten which". In case three alert and say "technically we've not discussed this, but in this other situation it would mean this".

Matt

[blackshoe]

Which part of which law or regulation speaks to disclaimers?

[mjj29]

blackshoe, on Jun 22 2010, 03:19 AM, said:

Which part of which law or regulation speaks to disclaimers?

I meant "if you frequently deviate in this fashion then you may form an implicit agreement etc ...", just trying to avoid writing it out, given it's frequently expressed here

[Trinidad]

dburn, on Jun 21 2010, 11:30 PM, said:

pran, on Jun 21 2010, 07:21 AM, said:

Opponents are entitled to a complete and accurate description of a partnership's agreements.

A missing alert then literally means that this situation is discussed and the call is natural (or not alertable).

Consequently an udiscussed call should IMHO always be alerted and then (if asked) be described as undiscussed.

Remember that an alert means that the call may contain some unexpected meaning. A missing alert means that the call certainly not contains any meaning that should be artificial and/or unexpected.

The total number of possible legal bridge auctions is a rather imposing

128,745,650,347,030,683,120,231,926,111,609,371,363,122,697,557.

Now, suppose my partner and I have detailed agreements about a couple of million of these. Do you suggest that if any of the other

128,745,650,347,030,683,120,231,926,111,609,371,363,120,697,557

arises at the table, we should alert?

You didn't take into account the fact that the meanings change depending on the meaning of the bids by the opponents.

Not only did this mean that you missed a few. It meant that you missed the ones where in practice the partnership most often is on unfamiliar ground.



Rik

[pran]

mjj29, on Jun 22 2010, 08:06 AM, said:

Firstly there's a big difference between 1. Never discussed this at all, 2. We definitely have an agreement, but I've forgotten and 3. Technically we don't have an agreement, but it's basically the same as _this other situation_. The first one is the only one in which you should not alert.

I just wonder how often you can be (absolutely) sure that it is a case 1 and not a case 2 situation unless the partnership is rather new?

[blackshoe]

Nothing in life is "absolutely sure" except that death will come eventually.

If I have to alert every call of partner of whose meaning I'm not absolutely sure and of which I'm not absolutely sure the regulations do not require an alert, I'm going to be alerting about 99 44/100ths % of partner's calls.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Jun 22 2010, 02:00 PM, said:

Nothing in life is "absolutely sure" except that death will come eventually.

If I have to alert every call of partner of whose meaning I'm not absolutely sure and of which I'm not absolutely sure the regulations do not require an alert, I'm going to be alerting about 99 44/100ths % of partner's calls.

Are you seriouosly stating that you are unsure of your agreements in "about 99 44/100ths % of partner's calls"?

i don't believe you although that is what you claim.

[blackshoe]

At the moment, my one still living regular partner has been out of commission for several weeks, and will be for several more. The only scheduled (as opposed to pick up) game I have with anyone else is a once a month. Even after I review our CC, I will be unsure of many things, as my memory isn't nearly as good as I'd like it to be, not to mention what it used to be. You don't want to believe me, you go right ahead. You want to start a flame war (the traditional internet usage of statements such as yours) I decline.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Jun 22 2010, 02:26 PM, said:

At the moment, my one still living regular partner has been out of commission for several weeks, and will be for several more. The only scheduled (as opposed to pick up) game I have with anyone else is a once a month. Even after I review our CC, I will be unsure of many things, as my memory isn't nearly as good as I'd like it to be, not to mention what it used to be. You don't want to believe me, you go right ahead. You want to start a flame war (the traditional internet usage of statements such as yours) I decline.

I am sorry to learn that your regular partnership is (temporarily) out of comission, but distinctly remember saying something in my original post on this matter about unless the partnership is rather new.

In your situation (which was unknown to me) I certainly recognize the possibility, and even probability of more than 99% uncertainty.

[peachy]

pran, on Jun 22 2010, 01:40 AM, said:

Without referring to any specific response to my post I read those responses that if I know we have an agreement but I have forgotten which of two (or more) alternative agreements we have, one of which is alertable another one is not, then it is perfectly OK for me to:

1: not alert my partner's call
and
2: if asked just answer: "I don't know".

Shall this be acceptable disclosure? To me action 1 is definitely not, (action 2 is of course acceptable except that I would prefer: "I have forgotten").

If you know you discussed it but can't remember what you agreed and one of the two or more possible agreements is alertable, then Alert. If you have not discussed it, and you don't have an implicit agreement (never came up before), then don't alert. Anyway, this is correct under ACBL regulation; where the question came from; where the situation is explicitly spelled out in the ACBL regulation.

What Norwegians do, really is not relevant to the OP question and I am getting to the point where I wish I had an "enemy" button in the forums - not interested in continuously seeing "In Norway we do this" in threads that have nothing to do with Norway and nothing to do with changing laws/regulations.

If this is too abrasive, or I become subject to moderator sanction because I said this, then I am guilty.

[pran]

peachy, on Jun 23 2010, 03:21 PM, said:

pran, on Jun 22 2010, 01:40 AM, said:

Without referring to any specific response to my post I read those responses that if I know we have an agreement but I have forgotten which of two (or more) alternative agreements we have, one of which is alertable another one is not, then it is perfectly OK for me to:

1: not alert my partner's call
and
2: if asked just answer: "I don't know".

Shall this be acceptable disclosure? To me action 1 is definitely not, (action 2 is of course acceptable except that I would prefer: "I have forgotten").

If you know you discussed it but can't remember what you agreed and one of the two or more possible agreements is alertable, then Alert. If you have not discussed it, and you don't have an implicit agreement (never came up before), then don't alert. Anyway, this is correct under ACBL regulation; where the question came from; where the situation is explicitly spelled out in the ACBL regulation.

What Norwegians do, really is not relevant to the OP question and I am getting to the point where I wish I had an "enemy" button in the forums - not interested in continuously seeing "In Norway we do this" in threads that have nothing to do with Norway and nothing to do with changing laws/regulations.

If this is too abrasive, or I become subject to moderator sanction because I said this, then I am guilty.

I can't remember saying anything about Norwegian routines in this thread?

However, my memory isn't so perfect that I can say whether I never discussed a particular situation with my partner or if I might have forgotten what we agreed upon or established as "partnership understanding" long time ago.

How you can safely distinguish between "never discussed, no agreement" or "I may have forgotten" is in most cases beyond me.

And I do not feel for "transferring auction problems" to opponents with a more or less correct statement "undiscussed, no agreement". For that statement to hold water you, rather than your opponents, should in the long run (statistically) be at disadvantage in the auction.

So why has "undiscussed" become so popular? Is it because players deliberately choose calls for which they do not have any agreement, or is it because it is an easy escape from giving correct description of agreements when they feel unsafe?

I suspect the latter.