Re: great idea -- explain own bids

dranon wrote
>On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:28:46 -0700, "raija d" <mustikka@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>wrote:
>
>>(Snipped discussion)
>>
>>blackshoe wrote, absolutely correctly:
>>
>>The ACBL does not prohibit saying "we agreed to play Cappelletti, but
>>have had no further discussion" if that is the case. And if that *is*
>>the case, then that statement is full disclosure, and anything less is
>>not.
>>
>>Here is what I want to add:
>>
>>While anything less is not full disclosure, anything more is MI when
nothing
>>further was discussed.
>>
>>My pickup partner's version of the convention could be different than
mine.
>>However, if the opponent took up bridge *yesterday* and honestly does
not
>>know Capp and asks what the bid means in Capp, then I think it is a
kindness
>>to explain "In Cappelletti, I believe 2D shows the majors", for example.
>
>In a nutshell, this is hogwash.
>
>If you have agreed to play Capp or Brozel or any other convention,
>then you have an agreement.  It is perfectly possible that your
>understanding of what that agreement is may be different from what
>your partner's understanding of what that agreement is.
>
>But you can't hide behind the fact that your spoken words didn't
>include the nuances you believe to be the case when asked what you are
>playing.
>
>You are required to disclose your agreements.  That means what you
>think they are, to the extent you think they exist.

   Hogwash [to coin a phrase].  You do not disclose as an agreement 
something that is not an agreement.  For example, you may believe that 
2D in Capp shows at least 54 in the majors: you say "At least 5-4 in the 
majors" and this is MI when partner - who plays it as 44 - turns up with 
44.

   If your agreement is to play Capp, your explicit agreement is to play 
Capp, which includes 2D to show the majors.  Your implicit agreements 
may be based on a variety of other things, like further discussion after 
a hand, your partner's reactions to your hand as dummy after you 
overcalled with 2D, other analogous sequences, the way 'everyone' plays 
it in your club, and so on.  The more you play with a partner, the more 
implicit agreements you build up.

   In the ACBL, which seems to be responsible to for much of this thread, 
explanations are somewhat meagre, and players generally explain less 
than they should.  If you know that 2D shows the majors, and know what 
the minimum length is, then "Capp" or "the majors" is insufficient: you 
must say what the minimum length is.

   But if you do not have an agreement, explicit or implicit, as to 
minimum length, then you should not and need not invent one.  To turn 
full circle to the original post, this is one of the reasons why 
self-explanations do not work very well.  It is very difficult to 
explain the meaning of a call you have made without full and complete 
agreement.

>I can see it now, Bob Hamman and Peter Weischel (two people who I have
>never seen play together) end up playing in a national event on short
>notice.  They have precisely 10 seconds to discuss a system before
>play begins and included in the conventions they rattled off was
>Cappeletti.  Do you think even for a second that if one of them bid 2d
>they would think it adequate disclosure for the other to say "Capp,
>and we had no further discussion."  This fails for two reasons: 1) the
>2d bid shows two very specific suits. Don't you think that it is
>required to name the suits even though there was no specific
>discussion of exactly what Capp meant? 2) Each of them bring a
>tremendous amount of experience to the table and recognize that there
>is a standard treatment.  They would expect their partner to adhere to
>the standard treatment and they should therefore be willing to
>disclose to their opps that part of the meaning of the bid includes
>the standard treatment.

   If Hamman and Weichsel play a standardised expert treatment then they 
have an implicit agreement when they first sit down, which must be 
disclosed, and has nothing to do with the main thrust of this thread, 
which is what to do when there is no such agreement.

===================================================================
BBO expert wrote
>OldPalooka wrote:
>
>> On Apr 21, 8:02 pm, blackshoe <blacks...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> The ACBL does not prohibit saying "we agreed to play Cappelletti, but
>>> have had no further discussion" if that is the case. And if that *is*
>>> the case, then that statement is full disclosure, and anything less is
>>> not.
>>
>> No it is not full disclosure, it may be sufficient codespeak to
>> disclose fully.  But you are still required to *make sure* the
>> opponents are aware that 2C means a one-suited hand, could be any
>> suit, etc.   == Bill Shutts
>
>I see your point, but how do you explain that to the opponents without
>explaining it to your partner?  I've seen situations where new
partner****ps
>were completely unaware of what they'd agreed to play.  If blackshoe's
>answer isn't sufficient, it's time to call the Director.

   Partner is irrelevant.  Giving MI is an infraction, giving UI to 
partner is not.  So correct explanations need ot be given, and what 
partner hears is just tough luck.

-- 
David Stevenson           Bridge      RTFLB       Cats       Railways
Liverpool, England, UK    Fax: +44 870 055 7697        ICQ:  20039682
<webjak666@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>                             bluejak on OKB
                           Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm