[johnu]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-19, 23:25, said:

Perhaps we should consider whether the concept of "full disclosure" as we know it now was not quite so fully evolved 50 or 60 years ago. The view attributed to Arturo Franco may well have been widely accepted, and acceptable, back then. Times have changed.

I'm guessing that the background to that statement was something like,

1♠ 3♠
4♠

where opener could have between 4 and 9 spades and could have a 7+ card side suit.

but I agree that full disclosure wasn't as full back in those days.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2015-July-19, 19:39, said:

I think that a problem has been revealed, and maybe it is a language thing. The phrases "no agreement" and "no discussion" seem to have become conflated.

Say a situation comes up where your partnership truly has no agreement. You explain to the opponents inferences available, what else partner could have bid, which hands are exclude etc. So far, so good.

You get the bid right, and everything proceeds smoothly.You now have an agreement, whether or not you ever discuss it. When the situation comes up again, you explain to the opponents the agreement that was created the last time.

It really is that simple.

A one time occurrence doesn't create an implicit agreement.

So, it really is more complicated.

And you really don't have an agreement if you play with a partner who wouldn't be able to understand this "agreement", whether explicit or implicit.

Rik

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2015-July-20, 00:19, said:

A one time occurrence doesn't create an implicit agreement.

So then the second time it happens it won't occur to you that the bid might be the same as last time? How many times does the same bid with the same meaning have to be made before it becomes an implicit agreement? Twice? Three times?

Anyway if you want to call the one-time occurrence an implicit agreement or just partnership experience, it must be disclosed.

[Vampyr]

johnu, on 2015-July-19, 23:50, said:

but I agree that full disclosure wasn't as full back in those days.

Was the statement really about disclosure and not just bidding? My partner and I used to play these transfer super-accepts where we could show xx or Hx in any other suit. Eventually we realised that all too often it is only the fact that a super-accept was made that matters to responder. So we changed to just one super-accept. Responder can still make a game-try if desired.

Before we were telling the opponents how to play the hand. Now we are not.

[blackshoe]

From the EBU White Book at 8.40.6, quoting a WBFLC minute: "an understanding may be created in the partnership by explicit discussion or by the implicit learning from repeated partnership experience out of which it may reasonably be thought the partner will recall and be influenced by earlier occurrences." (Emphasis is mine).

If your memory is so good that you will always "recall and be influenced by" one earlier occurrence, then I suppose you have an implicit understanding. Not everybody has a memory that good. Frequency matters, too. A situation repeated weekly is more likely to quickly form an implicit understanding than one which recurs monthly, or yearly, or once in a blue moon.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2015-July-19, 18:39, said:

IMO if a partnership have agreed to use LOTT when deciding what to bid, then they should divulge that fact.

Is LOTT really something partnerships "agree" on? I use it in every partnership, and I assume my partners do as well, but I don't think we've ever made agreements about when we should or shouldn't. It's just something we all learned by reading bridge books and columns, and other general discussions. IMHO, LOTT is a perfect example of General Bridge Knowledge.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-19, 19:06, said:

Hm. I have before, and will again, advocate that when opponents ask (as they should) "please explain your auction," both players of the partnership should explain what they have.....

.... gleaned about partner's hand..................

I do not think it is necessary, nor in some cases desirable, to explain the agreed written down somewhere (system card or notes) meaning of each and every call. It seems implicit in that method of explaining that inferences, including negative inferences ("he doesn't have a balanced hand because he didn't either open or rebid NT," for example) unless otherwise obviated (on the auction 1m-1R-1S, the last bid showing an unbalanced hand, you say "he has an unbalanced hand". The negative inference is now redundant). "Knowledge generally available to bridge players" is a tricky one, as I tried to point out in my earlier post. Maybe it would be best to get rid of it. But I'd want to hear why it was included in the first place before making that decision.

When people say this they rarely comprehend what it means. For one thing, it means that you are telling the opponents (and for that matter all whom are present)what you have in your hand- because what you glean from partner's bidding includes judgments predicated upon your own holdings.

The best standard for describing your communication of system is when the describing is done for an auction with no cards dealt.

[nige1]

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be..

Nigel in BLML, 2002 said:

Generic example 3. RHO asks you the meaning of partner's undiscussed bid. Given your other agreements, there are some things it cannot mean and other things it is more or less likely to mean. Many experienced players answer "no agreement" which usually ends interrogation. Ultra-suspicious opponents may persist with cross-examination; but some experienced players will stick to their guns. In the subsequent auction, the "no-agreement" partners usually guess better than opponents ... Even if the TD is called, BLML experts would not all agree on his correct ruling.

This one will run and run ... until the law-makers finally clarify what they mean by general bridge knowledge and inferences therefrom -- or -- much better -- law-makers expunge all reference to general bridge knowledge and stipulate the protocol advocated by blackshoe:

blackshoe, on 2015-July-19, 19:06, said:

Hm. I have before, and will again, advocate that when opponents ask (as they should) "please explain your auction," both players of the partnership should explain what they have gleaned about partner's hand. I do not think it is necessary, nor in some cases desirable, to explain the agreed written down somewhere (system card or notes) meaning of each and every call. It seems implicit in that method of explaining that inferences, including negative inferences ("he doesn't have a balanced hand because he didn't either open or rebid NT," for example) unless otherwise obviated (on the auction 1m-1R-1S, the last bid showing an unbalanced hand, you say "he has an unbalanced hand". The negative inference is now redundant). "Knowledge generally available to bridge players" is a tricky one, as I tried to point out in my earlier post. Maybe it would be best to get rid of it. But I'd want to hear why it was included in the first place before making that decision.

blackshoe, on 2015-July-19, 19:06, said:

The non-deterrent bit, as least, I would attribute largely to the reluctance, particularly at clubs, to enforce the rules. IOW, the rules aren't the problem. I think subjectivity may be necessary in some parts of the laws; I would preserve the director's authority to apply his judgement in at least some situations. Complexity, well, it's a complex game. That doesn't mean the rules have to be complex — look at go, for example — but given the complexity of the game keeping the rules simple is not at all easy. Incomprehensible. I'm largely self taught in this area. I did it the old fashioned way — I read the book. David Stevenson once said here that if he and I disagreed on a matter of law, he would expect that I would be right. (The shoe would be on the other foot in a matter of judgment. ) If I can understand the laws, any reasonably well educated individual ought to be able to do the same. That said, I am no where near as erudite as, say, David Burn, and if he and I disagree on something, as we have both here and on Bridge Winners, I make sure to take a very close look at my position. Also, I don't claim to fully understand all of them. Some are easier, some are harder.

I think the laws themselves are the problem. The laws are too complex and sophisticated. Ordinary players aren't as good at interpreting them as Blackshoe. I agree with Vampyr that some directors don't understand them. IMO, the underlying philosophy of the laws is mistaken. Take deterrence as a case in point. When a player carelessly breaks the law, most directors simply try to restore the status quo, occasionally giving the benefit of the doubt to the victim. But victims don't always call the director, which leaves the habitual law-breaker in profit. In theory, the director can impose a procedural/disciplinary penalty, as a deterrent. In practice, directors are reluctant to do this because players naturally object to being singled out in that way, Some senior directors have never imposed such a penalty -- if you exclude verbal admonition. IMO more deterrence, should be built into the basic rules.

[nige1]

axman, on 2015-July-20, 12:31, said:

When people say this they rarely comprehend what it means. For one thing, it means that you are telling the opponents (and for that matter all whom are present)what you have in your hand- because what you glean from partner's bidding includes judgments predicated upon your own holdings. The best standard for describing your communication of system is when the describing is done for an auction with no cards dealt.

I think what Sven Pran, Blackshoe, and I suggest is that you divulge information about partner's hand, derived from his calls in the auction (i.e. without reference to the contents of your own hand).

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-20, 08:36, said:

From the EBU White Book at 8.40.6, quoting a WBFLC minute: "an understanding may be created in the partnership by explicit discussion or by the implicit learning from repeated partnership experience out of which it may reasonably be thought the partner will recall and be influenced by earlier occurrences." (Emphasis is mine).

If your memory is so good that you will always "recall and be influenced by" one earlier occurrence, then I suppose you have an implicit understanding. Not everybody has a memory that good. Frequency matters, too. A situation repeated weekly is more likely to quickly form an implicit understanding than one which recurs monthly, or yearly, or once in a blue moon.

Well, yes. A second time is, after all, a repeat, but if it was a very long time ago it is possible to have forgotten it, unless you have explicitly agreed to add it in your system. But if you do remember it and say that you have no agreement, you are lying. The above regulation appears to stipulate that it is not an agreement until the third time. But that would be bizarre, so I think that the first time the situation comes up again it is repeated.

Now the OP, in a couple of his posts, was not talking about memory issues; he believed that he could not make the agreement explicit and still hide behind "no agreement".

Anyway, I guess in a way neither the regulation not the OP's contention matters very much, because even if you did say "no agreement" you would be obliged to add "but this did come up before, and the bid showed Z". Now the agreement has become explicit.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2015-July-20, 14:08, said:

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.. This one will run and run ... until the law-makers finally clarify what they mean by general bridge knowledge and inferences therefrom -- or -- much better -- law-makers expunge all reference to general bridge knowledge and stipulate the protocol advocated by blackshoe: I think the laws themselves are the problem. The laws are too complex and sophisticated. Ordinary players aren't as good at interpreting them as Blackshoe. I agree with Vampyr that some directors don't understand them. IMO, the underlying philosophy of the laws is mistaken. Take deterrence as a case in point. When a player carelessly breaks the law, most directors simply try to restore the status quo, occasionally giving the benefit of the doubt to the victim. But victims don't always call the director, which leaves the habitual law-breaker in profit. In theory, the director can impose a procedural/disciplinary penalty, as a deterrent. In practice, directors are reluctant to do this because players naturally object to being singled out in that way, Some senior directors have never imposed such a penalty -- if you exclude verbal admonition. IMO more deterrence, should be built into the basic rules.

Just want to note that I upvoted because of the deterrence issue and GBK. As far as the laws being too complex and sophisticated, I am not sure that further simplification is possible.

Except in the language. So many threads on here are a result of different interpretations of what the laws actually say/mean, not to mention the WBFLCminutes, which to my knowledge are not disseminated very well, or rather, at all. Others (particularly the North London Club threads) illustrate that we all "know" what a law means, even though what it says is something very different or even opposite.

Note to Nigel: actually what you have done here is dishonest, because my comment about poorly-educated directors was in another thread, and I never said or implied that it was relevant to this discussion. And for me the issue is what I said it was, that some directors are poorly-educated, not that the laws are too complex for them to understand. It's like saying that if a person has the misfortune of being illiterate, reading is too hard and should be eliminated from the world.

The EBU Club Directors' course is four full days long. The County course is a weekend of more intensive work. I do not know what National Directors do, but I know they have additional training and regular discussions about issues. And I am sure that I am not the only person in Englamd who has held seminars for untrained players to enable them to volunteer as directors at a club. I am sure that there are many countries that do not have this level of training, and in fact maybe so little that their senior directors have had about as much director education as the directors I have trained myself. And the latter have backup from more experienced and qualified directors at the club and even more experienced and qualified people by telephone.

[axman]

Vampyr, on 2015-July-20, 23:04, said:

Just want to note that I upvoted because of the deterrence issue and GBK. As far as the laws being too complex and sophisticated, I am not sure that further simplification is possible.

Except in the language. So many threads on here are a result of different interpretations of what the laws actually say/mean, not to mention the WBFLCminutes, which to my knowledge are not disseminated very well, or rather, at all. Others (particularly the North London Club threads) illustrate that we all "know" what a law means, even though what it says is something very different or even opposite.

The law is host to nearly countless complex and convoluted principles; and merely arranging the words to clearly express complex and convoluted principles does not really achieve simplification. Identify sound principles and clearly express them so as to not be in conflict- that brings simplification that is worthwhile.

regards
axman

[barmar]

Several posts have suggested getting rid of the GBK reference, or questioned why it's there.

As I understand it, the point of that is that you don't have to "teach bridge" to the opponents. For instance, the combined strength required to bid game or slam is not a matter of partnership agreement, it's something we're all taught as part of learning the game. Although if your partnership has agreed to bid games very aggressively, that would be disclosable.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2015-July-20, 23:04, said:

Note to Nigel: actually what you have done here is dishonest, because my comment about poorly-educated directors was in another thread, and I never said or implied that it was relevant to this discussion. And for me the issue is what I said it was, that some directors are poorly-educated, not that the laws are too complex for them to understand. It's like saying that if a person has the misfortune of being illiterate, reading is too hard and should be eliminated from the world.

The EBU Club Directors' course is four full days long. The County course is a weekend of more intensive work. I do not know what National Directors do, but I know they have additional training and regular discussions about issues. And I am sure that I am not the only person in Englamd who has held seminars for untrained players to enable them to volunteer as directors at a club. I am sure that there are many countries that do not have this level of training, and in fact maybe so little that their senior directors have had about as much director education as the directors I have trained myself. And the latter have backup from more experienced and qualified directors at the club and even more experienced and qualified people by telephone.

I apologise, Vampyr, I had no intention of misrepresenting you. Arguably, solo-study is not enough but judging by discussion groups like this, directors who attend many courses still disagree both on what the laws mean and on how they should be interpreted in particular cases. I suppose that more and longer courses, based on minutes and commentaries like the white book, might help directors to acquire a better consensus. I still hope the rules become simple enough for the ordinary player to read and understand and I think that aspiration is achievable.

[nige1]

barmar, on 2015-July-20, 09:05, said:

Is LOTT really something partnerships "agree" on? I use it in every partnership, and I assume my partners do as well, but I don't think we've ever made agreements about when we should or shouldn't. It's just something we all learned by reading bridge books and columns, and other general discussions. IMHO, LOTT is a perfect example of General Bridge Knowledge.

By agreement, some of my partnerships have used LOTT as a guide to pre-emptive raises. If asked about a raise, we'd divulge that fact, among others. 40 years ago, our agreement came as a surprise to experts. In my experience, "GBK" changes with time and place, as theories come into and go out of fashion. It is hardly ever as "general" as is claimed.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2015-July-21, 18:38, said:

By agreement, some of my partnerships have used LOTT as a guide to pre-emptive raises. If asked about a raise, we'd divulge that fact, among others. 40 years ago, our agreement came as a surprise to experts. In my experience, "GBK" changes with time and place, as theories come into and go out of fashion. It is hardly ever as "general" as is claimed.

The phrase in the current law book is "knowledge generally available to bridge players". Knowledge of the LOTT, how it works, and how to use it at the table fits that bill, and has for at least the last 20 years (Cohen's first book on the subject was published in 1992). Whether any particular player, or pair of players, is aware of that ability or being aware of it, has taken advantage of it, is a question not addressed in the laws.

Yes, this interpretation says that "I didn't know about the LOTT", or any other generally available knowledge, does lead to 'oh, and your opponents didn't tell you about it? Sorry, they've done nothing wrong'. Whether that's good or bad for the game is another question.

[Zelandakh]

Zar Points and Binky Points are also "knowledge generally available to bridge players" under this definition but I would imagine the use of them would be part of any description. It is not as if it is difficult to say something along the lines of "That shows about 5 trumps adjusted slightly according to how offensive or defensive the hand seems to be". The LoTT itself does not need to come up explicitly to explain the types of hands that might be held.

[barmar]

A few years ago a new player showed up in our club one evening. She'd played Bridge Whist, but had never played Contract Bridge before. She decided to "wing it" -- we set her up with a partner, someone explained the basic procedures of the game, and she started to play. Obviously, at least 95% of GBK would have been totally unknown to her, but that doesn't mean we would have to explain everything we did. She kept coming and picked up the game by osmosis, and eventually took our annual bridge class. Although I haven't seen her in a couple of years.

That said, some parts of GBK are probably context-dependent. In an area where Polish Club is the normal system, the basics of this system would be GBK. Not so in an area where SA and 2/1 are the prevailing systems.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-21, 19:51, said:

The phrase in the current law book is "knowledge generally available to bridge players". Knowledge of the LOTT, how it works, and how to use it at the table fits that bill, and has for at least the last 20 years (Cohen's first book on the subject was published in 1992). Whether any particular player, or pair of players, is aware of that ability or being aware of it, has taken advantage of it, is a question not addressed in the laws. Yes, this interpretation says that "I didn't know about the LOTT", or any other generally available knowledge, does lead to 'oh, and your opponents didn't tell you about it? Sorry, they've done nothing wrong'. Whether that's good or bad for the game is another question.

Jean-René Vernes: Bridge moderne de la défense (1966): LoTT from '50s WC analysis.
Dick Payne & Joe Amsbury: Bridge: TNT and Competitive Bidding (1981).
Larry Cohen: To Bid or Not to Bid: the Law of Total Tricks (1992).
Mike Lawrence & Anders Wirgren: I Fought the Law of Total Tricks (1998).

It is not always clear what is "knowledge", in a bridge context. If Mike Lawrence and Anders Wirgren are right, then the LOTT is likely to become yesterday's fashion, as a guide to bidding. Culbertson's theory of symmetry was widely believed but is now discredited. If you base partnership agreements on such theories, I think your opponents are entitled to know. There's no need to explain such "GBK" itself but I think the rules should mandate that you divulge resulting inferences about the meaning of calls.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2015-July-22, 09:17, said:

That said, some parts of GBK are probably context-dependent. In an area where Polish Club is the normal system, the basics of this system would be GBK. Not so in an area where SA and 2/1 are the prevailing systems.

Calls based on any bidding system fall outside of the realm of GBK.