[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-June-13, 09:10, said:

Also, you should make darn sure that before you leave the site (and preferably before the next round) you discuss this with your partner and come to a firm agreement, and then remember that agreement. If it later turns out that you keep forgetting it, replace it with an agreement you can remember.

We have two pages of notes on continuations after our Mexican 2♦. The stuff on the first page contains the most common situations; they've come up enough that we generally remember them. The stuff on the second page comes up about once a year. Every now and then I reread it in the hope that it will stay in my memory, but I'm pretty sure I'll forget it if it comes up.

We probably should just get rid of that page, but I'm sure that if we do, we'll miss a slam the next week that we could have found using one of those bids.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2017-June-13, 08:44, said:

What difference does it make to the UI whether he says "I've forgotten" or "I don't know"? Either way, partner has UI that he doesn't know what the meaning is.

None, but if you have to add: "I don't think it is natural." it does make a difference.

Rik

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2017-June-13, 09:10, said:

It seems to me you are bound to provide your opponents MI no matter what you do, even if you do nothing.

But wouldn't it be good to have a regulation that tries to minimize the amount of UI, rather than one where you also need to indicate that you think it isn't natural?

Rik

[pran]

Misinformation exists whenever opponents are not correctly informed about (relevant) partnership agreements/understanding - period.

Examples include (but are not Limited to):
Missing alert where alert is required.
Giving incomplete information.
Giving incorrect information.

According to this "We have no agreements about this call" could be correct information if it is true, but "I do not know" is always misinformation.

(It might be true that you do not know, but no partnershijp can ever have an agreement or understanding that the players do not know. The correct information in such cases could be "we have no agreement".)

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2017-June-13, 14:15, said:

But wouldn't it be good to have a regulation that tries to minimize the amount of UI, rather than one where you also need to indicate that you think it isn't natural?

Sure, but part of my point was that if the setup is such that if you don't alert your opponents can assume it's natural, then if you do alert, then saying you don't think it's natural is redundant and you shouldn't have to say it.

[RMB1]

The EBU think their regulation ("no agreement" is alertable / adjust on the basis that "no agreement" is the correct explanation) is supported by the new laws.

Law 75 : 2017

Quote

D2. It is a condition of any partnership agreement that both players possess the same mutual understanding, and it is an infraction to describe an agreement where the same mutual understanding does not exist. If the Director determines that the misleading explanation was not based upon a partnership agreement, he applies Law 21B.

D3. When there is an infraction (as per B1 or D2) and sufficient evidence exists as to the agreed meaning of the call, the Director awards an adjusted score based upon the likely outcome had the opponents received the correct explanation in a timely manner. If the Director determines that the call has no agreed meaning, he awards an adjusted score based upon the likely outcome had the opponents been so informed.

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-June-13, 14:46, said:

According to this "We have no agreements about this call" could be correct information if it is true, but "I do not know" is always misinformation.

True, but if it's a truthful statement then you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. What are you supposed to do?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-June-13, 15:52, said:

Sure, but part of my point was that if the setup is such that if you don't alert your opponents can assume it's natural, then if you do alert, then saying you don't think it's natural is redundant and you shouldn't have to say it.

"Alert"
"Please explain"
"I don't know what it means" or "We have no agreement"
"Then why did you alert?"
"Based on general principles, I don't think it's natural, and the alerting regulations require artificial bids to be alerted in this context"

[blackshoe]

People will ask questions even when they ought to be able to figure out the answer for themselves. Or when they ought not to care.

FWIW, in answer to opponent's second question I would probably say "it seemed like a good idea at the time."

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-June-14, 12:26, said:

True, but if it's a truthful statement then you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. What are you supposed to do?

If "I do not know" is a truthful statement then "(to my knowledge) We have no agreements" is also true.

Whatever explanation you give to opponents passes UI to your partner (unless screens are in use), so what you are supposed to do is "know your agreements".

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-June-15, 00:46, said:

If "I do not know" is a truthful statement then "(to my knowledge) We have no agreements" is also true.

Not necessarily. It could be equivalent to "It's in our notes, but I don't remember what it says."

Like the 2nd page of my aforementioned 2♦ followups.

[blackshoe]

In one of Rosenkranz' later books, his character Godfrey is teaching some convention or other to a student. He goes through responses up to say 3♦, and his student asks "What about higher responses?" Godfrey says "Let's not worry about those right now; they hardly ever come up!"

[weejonnie]

Even if you cannot explain the meaning of partner’s call, you should still alert (or announce) it
if you believe that is required.

4 A 6

If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that the call does not fall
within an alertable or announceable category, through either explicit or implicit
understanding. See also 2D2

(EBU Blue book).

"I think it is natural but am not sure" - means you cannot explain partner's call. (Is that any better than "I am taking it as natural"?)

So if you think it is natural but are not sure then I think you should alert, as you would if you think the call is conventional but it might be natural.

[lamford]

I agree with all that cashing the ace of hearts is not SE, just a poor play. One other point - South's 2D should not be explained as Michaels and not as majors either, but as hearts and spades. I explained it as majors in Montecatini and the [Chinese] opponents did not understand but when I drew a ♥ and ♠ and wrote 5+-5+ they got the message!

[blackshoe]

If you and your opponents have a common language with which everyone is comfortable, I don't think "both majors, weak, at least 5-5 (or 5-4 if you play it that way)" is wrong. If you need to draw pictures, then sure, do so.

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-June-15, 07:54, said:

Not necessarily. It could be equivalent to "It's in our notes, but I don't remember what it says."

Like the 2nd page of my aforementioned 2♦ followups.

And that is still misinformation because the true agreemenet/understanding is not disclosed.

[blackshoe]

If you have the notes at the table you can offer them to the opponent. Whether he accepts them or not, you are not guilty of providing MI.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-June-19, 08:31, said:

If you have the notes at the table you can offer them to the opponent. Whether he accepts them or not, you are not guilty of providing MI.

Good point, I usually do have them.

There's still some UI if I tell them that the reason I'm giving them the notes is because I don't remember. But that's partner's problem, not mine, and conveying UI is better (not an infraction if unavoidable) than giving MI.

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-June-19, 08:49, said:

Good point, I usually do have them.

There's still some UI if I tell them that the reason I'm giving them the notes is because I don't remember. But that's partner's problem, not mine, and conveying UI is better (not an infraction if unavoidable) than giving MI.

Indeed