[jillybean]

Take a look at the ACBL Principals of Full Disclosure
https://www.acbl.org/ethics/

Full disclosure requires that all these inferences, restrictions and tendencies be made known to any opponent who inquires about their style.

[bluenikki]

jillybean, on 2025-March-18, 20:15, said:

Take a look at the ACBL Principals of Full Disclosure
https://www.acbl.org/ethics/

Full disclosure requires that all these inferences, restrictions and tendencies be made known to any opponent who inquires about their style.

Have you personally ever had a director enforce the "experience" rule? I haven't.

In fact, back when ACBL only let you ask about the call actually made, the opponents bid something like 1♣ - 1♥ ; 1♠ - 2♦ ; 2♥. I wanted to know whether the last bid was limited. But I was only allowed to ask if there were any further agreements about the bid beyond 3-card suit. They said no. The director was satisfied. Afterward, the most sarcastic opponent told me "Of course it's limited!"

[mycroft]

"We have no agreement about this" - but. What's the but? There's *always* (IMHO) a but.

Certain cases clearly require an Alert: "we have no agreement, but it's either this or this" (both of which are Alertable). Similar: "we have no agreement, but it's not Natural." (in a situation where Natural would be not Alertable).

A lot of people abuse GBK in all its forms to "guess right" while hiding that they're guessing (or even that there's something they're guessing about). I am less than thrilled with those players.

I discussed in another thread the pair that really, truly, could say "we haven't discussed it" for many common - say, once every 100-200 hands - auctions. They deliberately didn't discuss it, just worked out from context and experience (1500 MPs worth over 3 years) what partner was thinking. But of course, they don't have to Alert it because they have "no agreement", and if asked, "we haven't discussed it".

Where do you draw the line?

The Alert Procedure says (my emphasis): "If you are not sure whether to Alert a call, err on the side of Alerting it. You should Alert a call that requires (or may require) an Alert even if you do not remember its meaning."

My problem is this. Assume here there are two common meanings for the call partner threw at me, one Alertable. We haven't discussed it:

• Partner meant the not-Alertable common meaning. I guessed it was the not-Alertable common meaning. I don't Alert it because we have "no agreement". Okay, no problem.
  
• Partner meant the Alertable common meaning. I guessed it was the not-Alertable common meaning. I don't Alert it because we have "no agreement". The opps are probably a little annoyed when dummy comes down, but we're probably in a bad contract and they're getting a good score.
  
• Partner meant the not-Alertable common meaning. I guessed it was the Alertable common meaning. I don't Alert it because we have "no agreement". We're still probably in the wrong contract, but at least "they weren't misinformed".
  
• Partner meant the Alertable common meaning, which is what I guessed it was. But I still didn't Alert it because we have "no agreement". How happy are the opponents, or the director, going to be now? More importantly, how happy will the opponents be if the director says "well, they didn't have an agreement, so they don't have to Alert it, even though it seems they both guessed right (and didn't give you the chance to guess right)?(*)

Note that if, in all of these cases, I Alert the call and say when asked(**), "we didn't discuss this, but it's either this or that. I alerted because 'that' is Alertable", the opponents are on the same page. Of course, we're going to get "so which one are you taking it as", which I will smile and refuse to answer. If they call the director, one of the director's options is to take me away from the table and ask partner if they believe we *do* have an agreement; I would hope they would remind partner it is not required to say what partner meant it as, only if we have an agreement or if there are other "but"s to add.

My most common "no agreement but" situations are:

• "No agreement, but without the double..."
  
• "No agreement, but we both play with J, and when I play with her, it means..."
  
• "No agreement, but in Calgary, it's almost always either X or Y"

If the end of those sentences is an Alertable agreement, or if X or Y were, is it fair that the opponents don't get to make the same guess with the same information?

Clearly *when asked*, all this information has to be there. Again, from the AP prologue: " Upon the request of an opponent, a player must fully explain the meaning of any of their partner’s calls including any inferences from related auctions and from partnership experience." Again, IMHO, "we both play with J, and" and "in our community, it's either X or Y" I would consider "partnership experience" even if I, personally, have never played with this partner before.

Given I'm responding to AKWoo, I'll add: "No agreement, but the book that underpins the system we're playing says..." :-)

(*) The other quote from the AP prologue: "[A] player who is misinformed by an opponent’s failure to Alert will be protected." Unless they don't "have an agreement", I guess?
(**)Following on from the above footnote: "A player who does not ask about an Alerted call will not be protected, even if the meaning of the call is not what they expect."

[akwoo]

I've always erred on the side of alerting in these situations, but I've always wondered if I can expect redress when opponents don't, and if I'll ever get in trouble for doing so. I'm particularly wary of the case where I answer "I expect X, but partner might lie and you can ask when that might be" or "We have not explicitly discussed this, but I expect X because of these other agreements" and the opponents seek redress when it turns out partner did not have X.

(I think it's precisely at my level that opponents seek MI redress because they misinterpret disclosure in unexpected ways. In Toronto in the Micro-Spingold I opened 1N (10-12) and alerted partner's 2♦, giving (a slower version of) the explanation "weak in hearts or game forcing in diamonds or invitational in a black suit or any strength both minors". They competed over my forced 2♥ bid and got a bad score, then complained that "weak" was not a suitable description of partner's 10 count with 5 hearts. The director ruled in our favor, but since then I have been careful to say "to play in 2♥ or ..." instead.)

(And - 3 weeks ago in District GNTs, I did indeed preface an explanation of an alert with "We've played close to ten thousand hands together over most of a decade and as far as I can remember this has never come up, so there's a good chance one of us has misremembered, but if I remember correctly the book says...")

[pescetom]

akwoo, on 2025-March-18, 18:52, said:

Is this actually correct in the ACBL? I've been told, IIRC by a director, that in the case where there is no agreement there should be no alert, and that a 'no agreement' response to a question does in fact suffice.

I have no idea if that is correct in ACBL, but what your director said is (unfortunately) the predominant line in Italy too (the national regulations do not explicitly address the issue).

[mycroft]

A good line I have stolen from Daniel Neill (which may or may not help at that level) is "less than invitational". If they ask, you can say that "invitational is usually around 13 or so opposite 10-12."

"to play" works, but it *also* reads as "weak" to many players.

[jillybean]

bluenikki, on 2025-March-19, 13:55, said:

Have you personally ever had a director enforce the "experience" rule? I haven't.

In fact, back when ACBL only let you ask about the call actually made, the opponents bid something like 1♣ - 1♥ ; 1♠ - 2♦ ; 2♥. I wanted to know whether the last bid was limited. But I was only allowed to ask if there were any further agreements about the bid beyond 3-card suit. They said no. The director was satisfied. Afterward, the most sarcastic opponent told me "Of course it's limited!"

No, I have not. I have enough trouble after calling about a failure to alert.

Did you call the Director back to the table?

[DavidKok]

 pescetom, on 2025-March-19, 16:42, said:

I have no idea if that is correct in ACBL, but what your director said is (unfortunately) the predominant line in Italy too (the national regulations do not explicitly address the issue).

I'll do you one better: I'll alert as Mycroft does, but have been told by a national level director to stop doing this and instead say 'no agreement' in these situations without elaborating further. I refused, but to the best of my knowledge that means I'm being unlawful.

[bluenikki]

jillybean, on 2025-March-19, 19:01, said:

No, I have not. I have enough trouble after calling about a failure to alert.

Did you call the Director back to the table?

Sarcastic guy's revelation happened after the round.

[mycroft]

Did you call the director back to the table?

Seriously, this is at least two, probably three infractions rolled into one; and the director won't know this guy plays like this *if you don't tell her*. Preferably at the table, but at least later.

If you specifically asked if it was a limited call and they didn't (want to) answer, and the director accepted "no agreement", when they later admit to a meaning (even if it is arguably GBK - in which case, it's good for the director to know that they push the bounds like that), there is still time to have the ruling reviewed on new evidence (until the end of the game, at least), never mind the new infraction(s).

This seems to be a more blatant and more deliberate version of the (almost always mistaken, but always annoying) habit I see:

• "Please explain 2♦"
  
• "inverted"
  
• "So, what's the strength?"
  
• "not sure"
  
• Auction ends, lead is made, dummy is put down
  
• "Of course it's Game Forcing, partner"

The response to "Games People Play"ing like this is to make it clear that with you, it shall not be put up. And if the director doesn't see it or deal with it, then oh well, it's one of those clubs.

And again, I don't always (in fact, I don't frequently) penalize games like this; but I do make it clear that This Will Stop. I remember being put at a table for four boards by the DIC to watch and ensure that "no statement that wasn't necessary to play these hands got said, or". I try to keep her in mind when these situations come up.

[bluenikki]

mycroft, on 2025-March-20, 11:08, said:

If you specifically asked if it was a limited call

Under ACBL rules at the time, leading questions like that were barred.

Sarcastic guy was one of the in-crowd, if you haven't guessed.

To give you an idea how politicized direction was, over an opening 1NT my friends used to play 2-level transfers. Because a member of the in-crowd objected, they were required to explain their 2♣ overcall as "diamonds with or without another suit."

[bluenikki]

mycroft, on 2025-March-20, 11:08, said:

to a meaning (even if it is arguably GBK -

It certainly was not GBK at the time. Given large enough bet, I could have proved that by researching Master Solver Club answers.

[mycroft]

I don't remember when "clarifying questions" *after the initial "please explain" were ever banned. I don't doubt you, but it was before my time. Starting off with "hey partner, you need to know if this shows values" was, and is, a problem; but "please explain" "Natural" - what are you supposed to do?

Having said that, if you were in a club where the director knew how these people were and was okay with that, then fine, you get the other option I mentioned. Or hope to see them at a tournament where the directors would be - less okay with that.

Of course, if it was Before My Time, it likely was before Barbara Seagram and her "Zero" Tolerance push, and the behaviour was more like what was in Machlin's book (funny, but not where we want to be any more). So, maybe not. Yes, it would be nice to still be in a world where we could regularly get 5 sections at a regional. But it is nice, now, to not be able to "seed" one of those sections with "ethically dubious" players (one of those "funny, but not" stories).

[bluenikki]

mycroft, on 2025-March-21, 12:55, said:

Having said that, if you were in a club where the director knew how these people were and was okay with that, then fine, you get the other option I mentioned. Or hope to see them at a tournament where the directors would be - less okay with that.

It was a tourney not a club

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2025-March-18, 14:47, said:

Remember, you don’t give penalties. Players earn them."

I'm going to have to remember that one.

[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2025-February-28, 17:38, said:

And keep Club PLayers out of the Tournaments.

I would be incensed if somebody told me "you're a Club Player, you can't play in Tournaments".

[jillybean]

Ethically dubious seeding (Gasp)

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2025-March-22, 14:02, said:

Ethically dubious seeding (Gasp)

I don't get to direct such large and afflicted tournaments.
But I certainly do make no bones about placing an ethically dubious pair under my nose rather than in some side room or the wrong section.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2025-March-21, 12:55, said:

I don't remember when "clarifying questions" *after the initial "please explain" were ever banned. I don't doubt you, but it was before my time. Starting off with "hey partner, you need to know if this shows values" was, and is, a problem; but "please explain" "Natural" - what are you supposed to do?

"Please explain."
"Natural."
"Please explain further."
"He has {the suit he bid}."
"Director, please!"

[mycroft]

"yes, and *what else do you need to know*, since *clearly* they haven't guessed from your question?"

Or are you suggesting they are *deliberately* misinforming you? At the table, that's a *very dangerous" suggestion. Away from the table, that is also a very serious allegation, that you'd better have more evidence than "I asked them to explain and they didn't tell me what I thought was important, but didn't actually state."

Having said that, having that evidence (and having it not be cluelessness of the "inverted" variety) should lead to both education and, if there is a smell of deliberate minimal disclosure, an aware TD. And you see from pescetom the kind of thing that happens when TDs are Aware. So it really is worth mentioning - away from the table, after everyone calms down. At the table, let's find out what you actually need to know to play this game - I assume "strength"?