A new thread (Full Disclosure)
Jeff Ford
OK, I'm curious enough to start a new thread. Why is it illegal in the
EBU to disclose (and use) partner's tendencies to forget agreements?
Jeff
--
Jeff Ford http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/jeffford/
Sven Pran
"Jeff Ford" <jeff...@cs.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:dr80h7$l4g$1...@naga.cs.utexas.edu...
>
> OK, I'm curious enough to start a new thread. Why is it illegal in the
> EBU to disclose (and use) partner's tendencies to forget agreements?
Is it really?
regards Sven
Jeff Ford
Quoting David Stevenson in another thread:
>Note that a decision of the EBU L&EC has made it illegal in England to
>either disclose or use information that a player sometimes forgets.
Looking online, it's available as a decision in meeting minutes here (pdf):
http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Minutes%20and%20Reports/Laws%20and%20Ethics%20Committee/2005/12%20September%20plus%20appendix.pdf
Quoting from that publication:
>The L&E decided that the regulation should be that if a player has knowledge
>that his partner tends to forget a particular agreement, that tendency must
>neither be disclosed or acted upon.
It appears that their "fielded misbid" regulation is only legal based on
the laws relating to inadequate disclosure. So they realized they had to
either drop the fielded misbid regulation in cases where "forgets" are
disclosed, or remove the ability to disclose them, then penalize the
inadequate disclosure. (This paragraph is entirely my interpretation of
the minutes, and I'm happy to be corrected by someone who knows the
situation better than me.)
Frances
This will be somewhere in the EBU L&E committee minutes. I can't
remember where, and can't summon up the enthusiasm to search for it,
but the minutes can be found on www.ebu.co.uk under Downloads, Minutes
& Reports, Laws & Ethis Committee. They're a quite interesting read in
general.
As for this particular regulation, while I don't think I like it
either, I'm not so immediately dismissive of it. I think the L&E have
thought rather more deeply than some of the posters here (NB: I'm not a
member of the L&E, nor am I related to anyone on it...) Here's what I
think the issue is:
i) If you use the fact partner forgets but don't disclose it, then you
have an concealed partnership understanding (CPU) which is illegal. So
anything you act on has to be disclosed.
ii) The opponents are only entitled to know your systemic agreements,
not how you or your partner has misbid. In general, if you know _from
your hand and the auction_ that partner has misbid, the Laws are very
clear that all oppo are entitled to know are your agreements.
iii) These are somewhat murky waters, but I don't see how you can have
a "partnership understanding" about forgetting agreements. In effect,
I'm saying that as soon as you make allowances for partner forgetting,
you have changed your agreement; it is now a different agreement with
two meanings (the one partner forgets, and the one partner thinks it is
when she forgets).
iv)a) In some cases (a small absolute number but some of the commonest
at the table), if you use & disclose the fact, you are then playing an
illegal convention. For example: (1H) 3C (alerted as spades &
diamonds) (P) 3S (P) 4C alerted (oh partner always forgets our
2-suited overcalls, she must have clubs) is playing the 3C overcall as
either spades & diamonds, or clubs, which is not a legal agreement in
England.
iv)b) If one of the partnership forgets and the other one doesn't, then
if you accept my argument (ii), you have to conclude that the two
members of the partnership are playing different systems. That's also
illegal in England.
So the "do not use and do not disclose" is a very simple and readily
understandable solution to this problem. It does not stop you having
(for example) the legal agreement (at L3) as a defence to 1NT that a 2C
overcall is either spades and a minor, or clubs.
Here are the three difficulties I have with it:
i) 'Using' the information that partner tends to forget is not a simple
yes/no. Suppose partner opens 1NT and you have a slam try that might
make 6m in a 4-4 fit, if there is one. You play a complex relay
structure over 1NT to discover opener's shape, but you know he often
forgets it, so instead you just bid 3NT (or 4NT) rather than use your
system. Have you 'used' the information that partner often forgets?
Yes, because it has influenced your decision about whether to make a
slam try or not. But I can't see a ruling ever being made on that
basis, nor can I see your bridge-player-on-the-Clapham-omnibus not
using this knowledge to make this type of decision.
ii) If we aren't in illegal agreement territory, we can just agree as a
partnership that the bits of the system we often forget are being
played two-way. This seems perfectly legal to me. But now, partnership
A, who read the regulations carefully, describe (1NT) 2C as "initially
to be treated as spades and a red suit, but shows a single suited club
hand if she rebids 3C". Partnership B, who don't, describe (1NT) 2C as
"shows spades and a red suit, but sometimes she forgets and has clubs".
The first of these is legal, the second isn't - but the two pairs are
playing exactly the same methods!
iii) It's very very difficult to have information and not to use it, as
people who try and obey and apply the UI Law know. And what's more it's
hard to convince people that partnership history-of-forgetting is not
AI. At some point during the auction or the defence, you will get
yourself to the point of knowing from AI that a wheel came off. That
is, in practice, easier to do when you know what you are aiming at. It
seems unfair that you have that advantage over your opponents.
I would prefer to have a regulation that said in effect that any
'frequent forgetting' positions are agreements and as such should
either be alerted accordingly (use and disclose), or are illegal (do
not use or disclose).
It's not impossible that the last of these is what the L&E were aiming
at.
David Stevenson
>It appears that their "fielded misbid" regulation is only legal based on
>the laws relating to inadequate disclosure. So they realized they had to
>either drop the fielded misbid regulation in cases where "forgets" are
>disclosed, or remove the ability to disclose them, then penalize the
>inadequate disclosure. (This paragraph is entirely my interpretation of
>the minutes, and I'm happy to be corrected by someone who knows the
>situation better than me.)
I cannot say what is wrong with this paragraph, because I do not
understand it. All I can say is that I doubt that it is logical or
relevant.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @
<bri...@blakjak.com> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )=
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~
David Stevenson
>
>OK, I'm curious enough to start a new thread. Why is it illegal in the
>EBU to disclose (and use) partner's tendencies to forget agreements?
What alternative do you suggest?
Bob Lipton
> Jeff Ford wrote
>
>>
>> OK, I'm curious enough to start a new thread. Why is it illegal in the
>> EBU to disclose (and use) partner's tendencies to forget agreements?
>
>
> What alternative do you suggest?
>
"Psychs frequently"
Bob
Bruce McIntyre
> Jeff Ford wrote
>
>> It appears that their "fielded misbid" regulation is only legal based on
>> the laws relating to inadequate disclosure. So they realized they had to
>> either drop the fielded misbid regulation in cases where "forgets" are
>> disclosed, or remove the ability to disclose them, then penalize the
>> inadequate disclosure. (This paragraph is entirely my interpretation of
>> the minutes, and I'm happy to be corrected by someone who knows the
>> situation better than me.)
>
>
> I cannot say what is wrong with this paragraph, because I do not
> understand it. All I can say is that I doubt that it is logical or
> relevant.
>
It seems to me that Jeff is making a reasonable speculation about why the
regulation exists, not dismissing it outright (as has been done in another
thread). I'm surprised, David, that your response doesn't seem to be terribly
cooperative: if you doubt his speculation (which you claim not to understand) is
logical or relevant, you must have some information to impart.
--
.-----------------------.----------------------------------.
| Bruce McIntyre | email: oo...@shaw.ca |
| 6636 Dow Ave., #203 | "OO-ga-shaw-ca, OO-ga-shaw-ca" |
| Burnaby BC CANADA | Editor -- www.matchpointer.com |
| V5H 3C9 604/438-9735 | (ACBL Unit 430 Web Site) |
}-----------------------ˆ----------------------------------{
| Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training |
}----------------------------------------------------------{
| http://www.unit430.com/imps/IMPhome.htm |
| (Unit 430 IMP League Web Site) |
}----------------------------------------------------------{
| www.unit430.com www.matchpointer.com |
| (Projects I'll be working on in 2006) |
`----------------------------------------------------------´
David Stevenson
>"Psychs frequently"
But he doesn't: we are not talking about psyches, but forgets. Psyches
are deliberate.
David Stevenson
>David Stevenson wrote:
>> Jeff Ford wrote
>>
>>> It appears that their "fielded misbid" regulation is only legal
>>>based on
>>> the laws relating to inadequate disclosure. So they realized they had to
>>> either drop the fielded misbid regulation in cases where "forgets" are
>>> disclosed, or remove the ability to disclose them, then penalize the
>>> inadequate disclosure. (This paragraph is entirely my interpretation of
>>> the minutes, and I'm happy to be corrected by someone who knows the
>>> situation better than me.)
>> I cannot say what is wrong with this paragraph, because I do not
>>understand it. All I can say is that I doubt that it is logical or
>>relevant.
>It seems to me that Jeff is making a reasonable speculation about why
>the regulation exists, not dismissing it outright (as has been done in
>another thread). I'm surprised, David, that your response doesn't seem
>to be terribly cooperative: if you doubt his speculation (which you
>claim not to understand) is logical or relevant, you must have some
>information to impart.
I am not shy at imparting information when I have it.
I still do not understand it. OK, explain it to me: we are talking of
something that is not fielded misbids: why should we introduce a
regulation *because* of otherwise having to drop fielded misbid
regulations? I neither understand it nor see its relevance.
Bob Lipton
> Bob Lipton wrote
>
>> David Stevenson wrote:
>>
>>> Jeff Ford wrote
>
>
>>>> OK, I'm curious enough to start a new thread. Why is it illegal in the
>>>> EBU to disclose (and use) partner's tendencies to forget agreements?
>
>
>>> What alternative do you suggest?
>
>
>> "Psychs frequently"
>
>
> But he doesn't: we are not talking about psyches, but forgets. Psyches
> are deliberate.
Of course they are. But I've seen this used as an excuse., Including
one case in which I was sitting in committee.
Bob
David Collier
David Stevenson wrote:
> Jeff Ford wrote
> >
> >OK, I'm curious enough to start a new thread. Why is it illegal in the
> >EBU to disclose (and use) partner's tendencies to forget agreements?
>
> What alternative do you suggest?
The alternative is for it to be legal. That is, you would be allowed
to use partner's tendency to forget an agreement, provided that the
opponents had been forewarned that you are effectively playing a
two-way bid (and provided that this two-way bid is itself legal
according to the system regulations).
Frances wrote:
I would prefer to have a regulation that said in effect
that any 'frequent forgetting' positions are agreements
and as such should either be alerted accordingly
(use and disclose), or are illegal (do not use or disclose).
I like this idea mcuh better. I can't quite put my finger on what
seems to be wrong with the L&E's decision, but I think perhaps
it goes against the spirit of Law 40, by which I mean a principle
along the lines of, "You can make any call you like as long as
all relevant agreements are disclosed to the opponents." Of
course, this is not *precisely* what Law 40 says, otherwise the
L&E's decision would be illegal, but this is the best I can do
as an explanation of why the L&E's approach doesn't seem
right to me.
Jeff Ford
David Stevenson <bne...@blakjak.com> wrote:
> I still do not understand it. OK, explain it to me: we are talking of
>something that is not fielded misbids: why should we introduce a
>regulation *because* of otherwise having to drop fielded misbid
>regulations? I neither understand it nor see its relevance.
Here's the full quote from the minutes:
>2.2.3 Psyches and "forgets" (item 7.6)
>
>The L&E considered correspondence arising from the discussion
>at the last meeting. The correspondent considered that the
>L&E should have addressed the question of whether a player,
>having disclosed to the opponents that his partner had a
>tendency to forget a particular conventional bid, was free to
>act on the information, and choose his own call on the basis
>that partner had forgotten on this particular occasion.
>
>The L&E noted Mr Bavin's explanation of why it was not possible
>to rule that the player had fielded a misbid - namely that the
>basis of ruling against fielded misbids is inadequate system
>disclosure, which could not apply to a situation where the player
>had specifically drawn to the opponents' attention his partner's
>propensity to forget the method. The L&E concluded that it was
>desirable to introduce a regulation to deal with the matter.
>
>The L&E decided that the regulation should be that if a player has
>knowledge that his partner tends to forget a particular agreement,
>that tendency must neither be disclosed nor acted upon.
It certainly seems to me that "forgets" and fielded misbids are related.
If this is incorrect, it would be much more helpful to receive the
correct interpretation for he "forgets" rule than to just be told
my reading is wrong.
Jeff Ford
David Stevenson <bne...@blakjak.com> wrote:
>Jeff Ford wrote
>>
>>OK, I'm curious enough to start a new thread. Why is it illegal in the
>>EBU to disclose (and use) partner's tendencies to forget agreements?
>
> What alternative do you suggest?
Offhand, that it should always be required to disclose the tendencies,
and that it should be legal to use them if the corresponding two-way
agreement is legal. So if, say, 1S - 3C shows H+D, but partner frequently
forgets and bids it with long clubs that one should always disclose this
information, and the legality of using it depends on whether 3C as
H+D or C is a legal agreement. Alternately, if partner frequently
forgets, and the two-way agreement is not legal, rule that an illegal
agreement is being played, and penalize the partnership for that.
Jeff Ford
Frances <fhi...@orange.net> wrote:
>As for this particular regulation, while I don't think I like it
>either, I'm not so immediately dismissive of it. I think the L&E have
>thought rather more deeply than some of the posters here (NB: I'm not a
>member of the L&E, nor am I related to anyone on it...) Here's what I
>think the issue is:
Thanks, Frances. Your exposition makes clear the problems the regulation
is attempting to solve. I'm not convinced yet that it's the best way to
do so, but I better understand the attempt.
David Stevenson
There is a regulation, which has been attacked by both reasonable and
unreasonable people. The reasonable people think there is something
wrong with it, suggesting it may be illegal. So, i try to lead you
through the difficulties, and you tell me players cheat. OF COURSE ONE
PLAYER IN SEVERAL HUNDRED CHEATS! Why should that affect the
regulation?
David Stevenson
The minutes say that it is not possible to treat the situation as a
fielded misbid. Fine. But that does not mean, surely, that we
introduced the regulation because the fielded misbid regulation is
wrong? It just says it is not one.
David Stevenson
So explain to me what opponents are expected to do. The bidding goes
1NT X 2H
alerted, and explained as "Transfer, but he often forgets". How does
the next player bid over that?
David Stevenson
Assume it is legal: how do you defend it?
Jeff Ford
I'm not saying the fielded misbid regulation is wrong. It appeared to me
that the following was happening:
1. Player A makes a bid that he sometimes forgets the meaning of.
2. Player B makes a bid that caters to the forgetting.
Obviously this falls under fielded misbids, and is no problem. Now change
the situation to the following:
1. Player A makes a bid that he sometimes forgets the meaning of.
1B. Player B alerts that sometimes the bid is forgotten.
2. Player B makes a bid that caters to the forgetting.
Now you can't use the fielded misbid regulation since it is based upon
lack of full disclosure which is not any longer the case. That is, to
use the fielded misbid regulation *in this case* would be illegal. So a
new regulation was needed to deal with this. It appears to me that by
making the disclosure illegal, you're back to the first case, and can
now use the fielded misbid regulation again if player B caters to the
forgetting.
Frankly, that's what I thought I said in the first place. Now it seems
you're agreeing with it.
Jeff Ford
David Stevenson <bne...@blakjak.com> wrote:
>Jeff Ford wrote
>>In article <K8vN9uFQ...@post.demon.co.uk>,
>>David Stevenson <bne...@blakjak.com> wrote:
>>>Jeff Ford wrote
>>>>
>>>>OK, I'm curious enough to start a new thread. Why is it illegal in the
>>>>EBU to disclose (and use) partner's tendencies to forget agreements?
>>>
>>> What alternative do you suggest?
>>
>>Offhand, that it should always be required to disclose the tendencies,
>>and that it should be legal to use them if the corresponding two-way
>>agreement is legal. So if, say, 1S - 3C shows H+D, but partner frequently
>>forgets and bids it with long clubs that one should always disclose this
>>information, and the legality of using it depends on whether 3C as
>>H+D or C is a legal agreement. Alternately, if partner frequently
>>forgets, and the two-way agreement is not legal, rule that an illegal
>>agreement is being played, and penalize the partnership for that.
>
> Assume it is legal: how do you defend it?
There are different things that may be assumed legal. I don't know
which one you mean. If you mean that 3C is H+D or C is a legal agreement,
then whatever my defense to that is, I play as my defense to 3C is H+D
or sometimes C when he forgets.
If you mean that the disclosure is legal, but that the two-way agreement
is not, then I defend based on 3C = H+D. Although, in this case, if the
opponent actually has clubs, I should receive the better of the table
result or an adjustment since there's no practical difference between
playing an illegal two-way agreement intentionally or via forgets.
In either case I think that you should have the right to try to exploit
the information at the table for a good score with the illegal agreement
adjustment in reserve.
Bruce McIntyre
Presumably from the revision suggested above, the next player would be entitled
to an explanation of what partner has when he forgets, how often he forgets, and
could call the TD if the de facto agreement was illegal. Here I guess it would
show either hearts or spades, which is a legal agreement, though not terribly
tactical. I'm leaning towards the EBU's take on this.
LAW 40 PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS
A. Right to Choose Call or Play
A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading
call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly
accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior
announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership
understanding.
Doesn't the bracketed section, combined with the final clause, state simply that
*both* psyches ("intentionally misleading calls") *and* accidental system
violations ("a call...that departs from ...announced use of a convention") may
NOT be based on partnership understandings?
Sandy E. Barnes
*****
I had a similar occurrence where we could be considered the offending side.
Our auction was:
1D (DBL) 1H! (P)
1S (P) 3NT
! = 5-11 HCP's, 3 or less hearts, 4 or more spades
3NT was an impossible bid in this sequence, so I expected that partner had
forgot with his first bid, and held hearts, not spades. I held a 4=2=6=1
pattern, and had to decide what action to take over 3NT, not having any slam
interest. Having muttered something to the opponents about partner's bid
being impossible, and suggesting that his head was buried in a dark cavity
at round 1, I passed. The good news was we belonged in 4H, and the
opponents were not damaged.
The problem is: what is fair after the first call? Are we allowed to make a
mistaken call and still recover? Did the alert procedure injure the
opponents? Would partner become awake after my 1S call, or was it the alert
which awoke him? Is he allowed to awake?
Sandy Barnes
*****
Frances
David Stevenson wrote:
I have to admit this it not where I see a problem.
The 2H call means "either hearts or spades", which is a perfectly legal
agreement, and the next player bids according to whatever his
agreements are to defend such a call.
I would prefer the disclosure make it clearer that oppo are to treat it
as "either hearts or spades" so to be one of
"Either long spades or long hearts, he could have either" (best)
or
"Transfer, but he often forgets, and I am supposed to guess whether to
complete or not"
or
"Transfer, he often forgets, but systemically I am forced to bid 2S
here"
The last two are to avoid the obvious conversation continuation
"Which are you going to take it as"
"I don't have to tell what I'm going to take it as, only our agreement"
(etc)
Frances
David Stevenson wrote:
This is one of the reasons why I dislike the regulation!
Player A says "transfer, but he often forgets" and is told that's not
legal, because of the regulation, and (I imagine) the board is
cancelled A+/A- (? the reg. doesn't say what the penalty is, I am
assuming it's the same as using an illegal convention but I could well
be wrong).
Player B says "hearts or spades" which is entirely legal.
Both explanations are an explanation of their methods. Both give the
2H bidder UI (the alert gave the 2H bidder UI in fact, so we're screwed
on the UI front whatever).
The only difference is that Player B has read this thread.....
Arend Bayer
>
> Jeff Ford wrote:
>> OK, I'm curious enough to start a new thread. Why is it illegal in the
>> EBU to disclose (and use) partner's tendencies to forget agreements?
>>
>> Jeff
>> --
>> Jeff Ford http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/jeffford/
>
> This will be somewhere in the EBU L&E committee minutes. I can't
> remember where, and can't summon up the enthusiasm to search for it,
> but the minutes can be found on www.ebu.co.uk under Downloads, Minutes
> & Reports, Laws & Ethis Committee. They're a quite interesting read in
> general.
>
> As for this particular regulation, while I don't think I like it
> either, I'm not so immediately dismissive of it.
I dislike it, because it goes against the spirit of full disclosure. We
ALWAYS want players to give complete disclosure of their agreements,
partnership understandings, style and tendencies (yes! even if that creates
UI for partner!), and suddenly the TD has to tell them that there is one
big exception where they have to keep such an important tendency for
themselves.
Also, the previous forgets then obviously have to be treated as UI. But who
will know about it? Is the player supposed to call the TD at the end of the
hand, and accuse himself of possibly having used UI?
And I don't think the alternative is so bad. Partner has to disclose forget
tendencies, and then it is treated as an either/or agreement. If it's
legal, fine. If not, opponents are entitled to assume no forget and claim
damage when the player did indeed forget the agreement.
Arend
David Stevenson
I did not understand it, and I am certainly not agreeing with it. When
I ask questions, trust me, it is to find out answers. When I agree with
something, I say so, not ask questions.
OK, so you believe the reason for the regulation is to avoid fielded
misbids not applying. Is that good enough? Is it the best solution?
Jeff Ford
David Stevenson <bne...@blakjak.com> wrote:
> OK, so you believe the reason for the regulation is to avoid fielded
>misbids not applying. Is that good enough? Is it the best solution?
I'm struggling to remain polite here. I've made a good faith effort to
explain my interpretation of the minute, the only online source I could
find for the rule. I am perfectly willing to believe that there are
other reasons for the rule, but they weren't given in the minutes I found.
I've asked what they are. You refuse to give any, preferring to ask
questions than to give answers. I'm still interested in getting
information, but I've lost my patience for your method.
David Stevenson
Good. You play your games, I'll play mine.
Tamuel
"Jeff Ford" <jeff...@cs.utexas.edu> skrev i meddelandet
news:draq5d$ou3$1...@naga.cs.utexas.edu...
> In article <K8vN9uFQ...@post.demon.co.uk>,
> David Stevenson <bne...@blakjak.com> wrote:
> >Jeff Ford wrote
> >>
> >>OK, I'm curious enough to start a new thread. Why is it illegal in the
> >>EBU to disclose (and use) partner's tendencies to forget agreements?
> >
> > What alternative do you suggest?
>
> Offhand, that it should always be required to disclose the tendencies,
> and that it should be legal to use them if the corresponding two-way
> agreement is legal.
With one of my partners I play strong clubs. The response 1S systemically
show 7-10 balanced, but as it once was natural it has happened quite often
that one of us or both forgot that, but only the first time it appears.