[barmar]

Here's something that came up this week in a bracketed KO at the NABC.

My partner opened 2NT, and I held a 3=1=4=5 hand with about 7 HCP. The uncontested auction went:

2NT 3♣ (Puppet Stayman) 3♦ (at least 1 4-card major, no 5-card major) 3♥ (<4♥, 4♠) 3NT (<4♠) All Pass

I bid 3♥ because if partner has 4♠ and 3♥, I think it would be better to play in the Moysian than to play 3NT with a 3-1 ♥ suit.

After the hand was over, the opening leader called the director, complaining that if he'd known I could have only 3 spades, he would have led the suit. I don't remember partner's holding in spades, so I'm not sure it would have made a difference.

As far as I'm concerned, this is "just bridge". I decided to treat my hand as if it had 4 spades, and when I make that bid I expect partner to bid as if I did. I don't think of it as much different from raising responder's suit with only 3-card support. These are all just judgement calls, we use judgement to decide that a hand should be treated as if it meets the criteria for a bid, because it's the best description of your hand.

Do you think everyone playing Puppet Stayman should have to disclose that my 3♥ bid shows "4 spades, or maybe 3 spades and short hearts"?

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2012-March-21, 02:55, said:

Here's something that came up this week in a bracketed KO at the NABC.

So now you have a new agreement that 3♥ asks partner if they have 4 spades, either 4 spades or 3 spades and heart shortage. This is precisely how implicit agreements form. There was no damage on the given hand because this was not your agreement before this auction.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2012-March-21, 02:59, said:

So now you have a new agreement that 3♥ asks partner if they have 4 spades, either 4 spades or 3 spades and heart shortage. This is precisely how implicit agreements form. There was no damage on the given hand because this was not your agreement before this auction.

I think you misunderstand. It doesn't ask if HE has 3 spades and heart shortage, I bid it because I had 3 spades and heart shortage.

Maybe it would be better to describe it as "Ask opener to bid 3♠ if he has 4 spades", and not say anything about what kinds of hands I might hold -- that's an inference they can make themselves. That brings us into the topic of the thread about whether we should describe the responses to a bid.

[MrAce]

gnasher, on 2012-March-21, 02:13, said:

So show us the posts where people said that. I'm not saying there aren't any - I haven't reread them all - but I can't remember anyone saying that.

Cascade, on 2012-March-18, 17:54, said:

Yes QJT9xx x xxx xxx is low frequency but low frequency is not something to hide behind in your obligations to proper disclosure.

And i wasnt even talking about the frequency of having dealt this type of hand, eventhough he assumed thats what i said. I was talking about how rarely i use them intending to say even if i was dealt with those hands a lot. Because, to feel comfortable, if i put a range in cc i feel obligated to open all hands that fits in this range, but that wouldnt be the case had i filled the cc with his understanding of full disclosure, which is 3-9.

[campboy]

I agree with Zelandankh. Before the board you had an agreement that 3♥ showed 4 spades, so that is what should be disclosed. You chose to bid 3♥ on this hand despite the fact that it did not match your agreement. This may in retrospect be a good idea, but whether it was a good idea or a bad one does not change the fact that your agreement was correctly explained.

Now after the board you might agree not to do it again, or you might agree that it is in future an acceptable hand for the bid, or you might not discuss it. In the last case I think this precedent means you now have an implicit agreement which should be disclosed in future (and in the middle case of course you have an explicit agreement).

[barmar]

MrAce, on 2012-March-21, 03:19, said:

And i wasnt even talking about the frequency of having dealt this type of hand, eventhough he assumed thats what i said. I was talking about how rarely i use them intending to say even if i was dealt with those hands a lot. Because, to feel comfortable, if i put a range in cc i feel obligated to open all hands that fits in this range, but that wouldnt be the case had i filled the cc with his understanding of full disclosure, which is 3-9.

Do you REALLY feel obligated to open all hands that fit your weak 2 range?

I usually play a range like 5-10, but I've passed many hands in this range because I have additional criteria -- I don't like to open weak 2 in 1st or 2nd seat when most of my strength is outside the long suit, or I have a good 4-card major. I believe many players exercise judgement like this -- it's what most bridge teachers recommend.

I think there needs to be a general understanding that practically everything in a set of bidding agreements should be qualified with "probably". Good bridge players understand that the words "never" and "always" have no place in bridge -- we aren't automata that look for exact criteria in our bidding or play decisions.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2012-March-21, 03:07, said:

I think you misunderstand. It doesn't ask if HE has 3 spades and heart shortage, I bid it because I had 3 spades and heart shortage.

Maybe it would be better to describe it as "Ask opener to bid 3♠ if he has 4 spades", and not say anything about what kinds of hands I might hold -- that's an inference they can make themselves. That brings us into the topic of the thread about whether we should describe the responses to a bid.

Perhaps I should have used a semi-colon rather than a comma in the middle. Or perhaps it is a Pond thing. What I meant was: "asks partner if they have 4 spades, (showing) either 4 spades or 3 spades and heart shortage". I am a strong believer that any explanation given should indicate the types of hands held (and also that this is far more important than saying what the question is even when the latter is also correct).

[barmar]

But if you ask practically any player who plays Puppet Stayman, they'll tell you that they expect partner to have 4 spades when they make this bid. Having 3 spades is a rare deviation, not anything agreed to or expected. When my dummy came down, I believe partner was surprised to see only 3 spades -- I felt the need to explain why I bid as I did.

I think this deviation comes up maybe once or twice a year, and not necessarily with the same partner. Do you think that's enough to form an implicit agreement with any of them?

[blackshoe]

campboy, on 2012-March-21, 03:24, said:

Now after the board you might agree not to do it again, or you might agree that it is in future an acceptable hand for the bid, or you might not discuss it. In the last case I think this precedent means you now have an implicit agreement which should be disclosed in future (and in the middle case of course you have an explicit agreement).

One swallow does not make a summer.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2012-March-21, 04:34, said:

I think this deviation comes up maybe once or twice a year, and not necessarily with the same partner. Do you think that's enough to form an implicit agreement with any of them?

For those that have never seen it certainly not! For those that have and consider the possiblity, or with those that you have discussed this then the description "4 spades, or very occasionally 3 spades and heart shortage" would seem appropriate.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-March-21, 04:34, said:

I think this deviation comes up maybe once or twice a year, and not necessarily with the same partner. Do you think that's enough to form an implicit agreement with any of them?

Yes, if they have seen it, as above.

My regular partner and I psyche Ogust maybe once every 3 years. But we always mention that it is a possibility.

[MrAce]

A pair disclose their 1 openings on cc like ;

1♥ = 5+ cards, 11-15 hcp, can be light, we upgrade a lot.

If they open 3 times in 1 set of a team match with less than this range, is this counted as fully disclosed because they wrote "can be light, we upgrade a lot" ? Or do they need to write their range different than 11-15 ?

[Vampyr]

MrAce, on 2012-March-21, 22:08, said:

A pair disclose their 1 openings on cc like ;

1♥ = 5+ cards, 11-15 hcp, can be light, we upgrade a lot.

If they open 3 times in 1 set of a team match with less than this range, is this counted as fully disclosed because they wrote "can be light, we upgrade a lot" ? Or do they need to write their range different than 11-15 ?

It depends. With, say, a 10-count with goodish shape (5-4-3-1) are they frequently upgrading to make it an opener, or are they sometimes downgrading to make it not an opener? In other words, are they looking for a reason to open or for a reason not to open?

The partnership themselves may not be quite sure which it is, so hopefully they will take note of their own patterns and try their best to disclose what they actually are.

[Zelandakh]

MrAce, on 2012-March-21, 22:08, said:

If they open 3 times in 1 set of a team match with less than this range, is this counted as fully disclosed because they wrote "can be light, we upgrade a lot" ? Or do they need to write their range different than 11-15 ?

If they are opening on completely normal 9 counts or bad 10 counts then no, I would not consider this full disclosure. If their discrepancies are all decent 10 counts (good shape or honour concentration) then this seems like a decent description. Perhaps you could post the 3 examples(?)

[mycroft]

Oh, just check any Meckwell match from the last 20 years, I'm guessing :-)

[MrAce]

mycroft, on 2012-March-22, 10:09, said:

Oh, just check any Meckwell match from the last 20 years, I'm guessing :-)

Almost all players who are currently still playing vandy too. Just print their cc, and sit back and watch the vugraph. They make bids that are totally out of the range that they filled in their cc, frequently, by both partners too. Most have similar explenations in their cards "Can be light, we upgrade a lot etc etc"

Not only that, but it seems to me thats pretty much what their pd expects and acts accordingly also, as oppose to the ones we discussed in this topic.

Or does THE LAW apply differently to the agreements about preempts and 1 level openings ?

[bluejak]

MrAce, on 2012-March-20, 13:12, said:

I have a question, to those who believes they must fill the CC with 3-9 hcp, even if they rarely open with 3-4 hcps.

Lets say i am playing a long match, i held 4 hcps and 6 card major which i didnt open. And then 4-5 boards later i had another 3 hcp hand with 6 card major i didnt open again. My opponents recognized this and calls TD. They claim that i took different action than whats written in my CC 2 times, and both times they were declaring and while they are declaring they thought (after seeing my 6 card major during the play) i am out of 3-9 hcp (or i would open weak 2 lets say) range while now they believe this is obviously not the case. And that they wer edamaged, had they known i could not have 3-4 hcps, their play would be more accurate etc etc...

What am i supposed to say to TD or to my opps ?

Also is this considered sort of "repeated deviation from system" ? Does that mean TD can think that now it is repeated in 1 match, it has been our pdship method and an implicit agreement, so we should correct out CC before the next round back to 5-10 ?

I mean we debated here all about the bids that falls out of the range, but not about the bids that falls in the range and not been used, repeatedly. Or is that mean this is considered as player's judgement/style ? If so, why can not it apply also the the bids that falls out of range ?

Just to repeat what I said earlier, I think it is nowadays totally unsuitable to give a point range to describe a weak two, and what you say here is part of the reason.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2012-March-21, 02:59, said:

So now you have a new agreement that 3♥ asks partner if they have 4 spades, either 4 spades or 3 spades and heart shortage. This is precisely how implicit agreements form. There was no damage on the given hand because this was not your agreement before this auction.

I disagree. For there to be an implicit agreement, there have to have been at least two deviations.

Law 40C1 states: "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system." (my emphasis).

One instance is not a "repeated deviation" in any reasonable interpretation of "repeated".

[gnasher]

MrAce, on 2012-March-21, 22:08, said:

A pair disclose their 1 openings on cc like ;

1♥ = 5+ cards, 11-15 hcp, can be light, we upgrade a lot.

If they open 3 times in 1 set of a team match with less than this range, is this counted as fully disclosed because they wrote "can be light, we upgrade a lot" ? Or do they need to write their range different than 11-15 ?

It's hard to answer such a general question. Why don't you post some specific examples?

Quote

Or does THE LAW apply differently to the agreements about preempts and 1 level openings ?

The laws about partnership understandings agreements apply to all partnership understandings. But you already knew that, because you've read the relevant law.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2012-March-22, 20:39, said:

I disagree. For there to be an implicit agreement, there have to have been at least two deviations.

Law 40C1 states: "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system." (my emphasis).

One instance is not a "repeated deviation" in any reasonable interpretation of "repeated".

Then you must be careful not to mention the auction, ever, or the deviation will become an explicit understanding.

I think that even after one deviation, if partner understands the reasoning behind it and thinks, say, that it is a useful tactical bid (I used the example of psyching Ogust -- how many times have I done it? Yet you always know I might), then there is an implicit understanding. All that is required is for you to have more expectation than the opponents of its occurence. How much more? I say 1% more.