[campboy]

It is difficult to see how much more evidence there could be for "no agreement" than both partners saying that that is the case.

The crucial point, however, is that law 75C does not apply to this decision anyway. It tells us to "presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary". Here we are not proposing to rule that 2NT was a "Mistaken Call", but rather that they had no agreement and South bid 2NT knowing this but hoping that North would work it out.

[mgoetze]

Rossoneri, on 2011-August-15, 01:38, said:

- W said he could make a cue of 3♦ if 2N was explained as minors, and felt he was unable to describe his hand in better detail after the 2N bid.

I fail to see how this is any more descriptive and what East might do differently if West bids 3♦ in place of the first double. How did you determine there was any damage?

As for whether there was any misinformation, well, it is the director's job to investigate whether there was an agreement, and, if so, what it was. You may of course go about this in a robotic manner like pran, but I'm pretty sure that is a minority position. Consider:

• This is not a position where casual partnerships usually have agreements
  
• Both players claimed to have no agreement
  
• North's bid indicates that she did not understand South's intention

If this all seems worthless to you, and instead you say, "what on Earth was South doing, trying to play bridge?! He is to bid like a robot and only use conventions he has agreed with his partner!" -- then OK, maybe there was misinformation.

But I still don't believe there was damage.

[paulg]

This kind of thing happens in my club all the time. Mainly intermediate players who all play something like the same system but make bids when they have the hand to do so.

In this auction, South remembers that 2NT often shows the minors and decides this is a good time to try this out. There is no agreement but they hope that partner will get it right. There is no malice aforethought, it's just how they play. If we gave South a balanced twenty points with a good heart stop, they would also bid 2NT to show this.

This is one reason that they are intermediate, essentially social, players. It strikes me that the pair in question are similar.

[Rossoneri]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-15, 03:00, said:

• This is not a position where casual partnerships usually have agreements
  
• Both players claimed to have no agreement
  
• North's bid indicates that she did not understand South's intention

• I wouldn't call NS a casual partnership, they've won tournaments together.
  
• Like I said, I was told that South said 2NT was minors after he put down dummy.
  
• I agree.

paulg, on 2011-August-15, 03:11, said:

This kind of thing happens in my club all the time. Mainly intermediate players who all play something like the same system but make bids when they have the hand to do so.

In this auction, South remembers that 2NT often shows the minors and decides this is a good time to try this out. There is no agreement but they hope that partner will get it right. There is no malice aforethought, it's just how they play. If we gave South a balanced twenty points with a good heart stop, they would also bid 2NT to show this.

This is one reason that they are intermediate, essentially social, players. It strikes me that the pair in question are similar.

Hm, no, South is definitely NOT an intermediate player!

This post has been edited by Rossoneri: 2011-August-15, 03:14

[bridgeboy]

I can't comment on my level of play. It varies.

Just a clarification on our agreements. We had not discussed this bidding before but I was dealt that hand and had to find a bid.

When I put down the dummy and West asked, my response was: "We have no agreement but I meant it to show minors"

When told about the ruling, I did mention that we had no agreement, although after that session, we discussed and have one now

Anyway, as mentioned, the ruling does not really affect anything. I'm just posting it to find out about how far out my understanding of the bridge laws (as a non TD) are. I think I have a pretty good idea now.

Thanks all for your advice.

[mgoetze]

bridgeboy, on 2011-August-15, 03:46, said:

We had not discussed this bidding before but I was dealt that hand and had to find a bid.

Personally I would have had no trouble whatsoever finding a description for this hand via "pass", but that is of course immaterial to the legal aspects.

[paulg]

Rossoneri, on 2011-August-15, 03:13, said:

Hm, no, South is definitely NOT an intermediate player!

In my defence, at my club all they ever say is ....

bridgeboy, on 2011-August-15, 03:46, said:

We had not discussed this bidding before but I was dealt that hand and had to find a bid.

[barmar]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-15, 10:09, said:

Personally I would have had no trouble whatsoever finding a description for this hand via "pass", but that is of course immaterial to the legal aspects.

My thoughts as well. If someone held a gun to my head and said I had to bid something other than Pass, I might bid 2NT to show the minors, although with 3 spades I would also consider double. But the latter also implies strength, whereas 2NT is just shape-showing.

[bluejak]

I find the pran approach curious. We have an obvious case of no agreement, no infraction here, and [if I have understood him correctly] he thinks we should rule an infraction because

[a] it is bad policy to believe players, and
[b] players are likely to have agreements really in situations where discussion is rare, and
[c] two players having completely different ideas indicates there was an agreement.

No, I don't understand.

[aguahombre]

No, I think you do understand

[mrdct]

bridgeboy, on 2011-August-15, 03:46, said:

When I put down the dummy and West asked, my response was: "We have no agreement but I meant it to show minors"

Makes no difference here, but I think you should've done that at the end of the auction before the opening lead.

As for bridgeboy's credentials as a player, refer to recent BBO News item, Singapore goes to the Bermuda Bowl - BridgeBoy and Krobono.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-August-15, 18:53, said:

I find the pran approach curious. We have an obvious case of no agreement, no infraction here, and [if I have understood him correctly] he thinks we should rule an infraction because

[a] it is bad policy to believe players, and
[b] players are likely to have agreements really in situations where discussion is rare, and
[c] two players having completely different ideas indicates there was an agreement.

No, I don't understand.

Do you understand Law 75C ?

[gnasher]

pran, on 2011-August-16, 01:43, said:

Do you understand Law 75C ?

Yes, he understands Law 75C.

The explanation given was "no agreement". There is evidence that the partnership had no agreement: North's statement to that effect, South's failure to dispute that statement, South's actual hand, and North's action. Therefore there is not an "absence of evidence to the contrary", so there is no legal basis for assuming that the explanation was incorrect.

[Rossoneri]

gnasher, on 2011-August-16, 02:10, said:

Yes, he understands Law 75C.

The explanation given was "no agreement". There is evidence that the partnership had no agreement: North's statement to that effect, South's failure to dispute that statement, South's actual hand, and North's action. Therefore there is not an "absence of evidence to the contrary", so there is no legal basis for assuming that the explanation was incorrect.

Quite right. The ruling was made under the mistaken premise that NS had some agreement on the 2NT bid, but in light of the fact that they did not, that there was no meta-agreement as well, I have overturned my original ruling.

(This is more of an FYI to everyone here, the concerned parties are well aware of this already.)

[pran]

Rossoneri, on 2011-August-16, 03:21, said:

Quite right. The ruling was made under the mistaken premise that NS had some agreement on the 2NT bid, but in light of the fact that they did not, that there was no meta-agreement as well, I have overturned my original ruling.

(This is more of an FYI to everyone here, the concerned parties are well aware of this already.)

Maybe I have overlooked something, but I still do not see why the evidence is that South was in error assuming that there was an agreement rather than that North was in error assuming that there was no agreement?

Was there any documentation to the fact, or was the final ruling just based on (self-serving) statements?

[mgoetze]

Rossoneri, on 2011-August-16, 03:21, said:

Quite right. The ruling was made under the mistaken premise that NS had some agreement on the 2NT bid,

And even under that premise I still don't understand how you concluded there was any damage.

[campboy]

pran, on 2011-August-16, 03:44, said:

Was there any documentation to the fact, or was the final ruling just based on (self-serving) statements?

How can there be documentation? They didn't discuss it, and when they didn't discuss it they wrote down the discussion they didn't have?

Anyway, you appear to have missed my previous post explaining why 75C is irrelevant. In this case we rule based on the balance of probability (85A1).

[Rossoneri]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-16, 04:22, said:

And even under that premise I still don't understand how you concluded there was any damage.

I wasn't entirely convinced there was, but my colleagues thought so. I should also add that East told me yesterday that he thinks that they would have still ended up in 3SX either way.

[PeterAlan]

pran, on 2011-August-16, 03:44, said:

Maybe I have overlooked something, but I still do not see why the evidence is that South was in error assuming that there was an agreement rather than that North was in error assuming that there was no agreement?

What makes you suppose that South assumed there was an agreement? South has said that he made the bid to show the minors, and inferentially he hoped that that was how N would interpret the bid, but that's not the same thing at all as South assuming that an agreement existed between him and North about it.

[pran]

PeterAlan, on 2011-August-21, 05:45, said:

pran, on 2011-August-16, 03:44, said:

Maybe I have overlooked something, but I still do not see why the evidence is that South was in error assuming that there was an agreement rather than that North was in error assuming that there was no agreement?

Was there any documentation to the fact, or was the final ruling just based on (self-serving) statements?

What makes you suppose that South assumed there was an agreement? South has said that he made the bid to show the minors, and inferentially he hoped that that was how N would interpret the bid, but that's not the same thing at all as South assuming that an agreement existed between him and North about it.

The very fact that South made his call is evidence that he must have had some reason for believing, or at least hoping that North would understand the bid the way South intended.

Such reason can hardly be anything else than a partnership understanding (at least implicit if not explicit).

So to counter this evidence we need some evidence better than just (self serving) statements to the effect that there was no understanding.