Re: great idea -- explain own bids

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:26:07 +0100, David Stevenson
<bridge2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>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.

I'm saying that there is a trheshold of implicit agreements that comes
from experience and you admit as much in the above paragraph and
below.

I'm saying that one should err on the side of full disclosure if one
has reason to think an agreement is in play.  And, no, if 99% of the
players on that site with whom you have played play that minimum CAPP
is 54 then unless you have reason to believe that the individual you
just agreed to play CAPP with is very new to the site, you absolutely
should alert and say minimum length is 54.  To say otherwise lays
barren the fields you tended with your last paragraph.

I would say that if an individual made it with 44 it would be a misbid
in context, not MI.

>   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.

Oh, they work fine when one understands and acknowledges what an
implicit agreement is.

>>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.

I'm saying that implicit agreements are more than likely in play when
you don't think they are.  Somehow I think you are just being a troll
on this issue.