[awm]

We have the following auction:

1NT(1) - 2♦(2) - X(3)

(1) 12-14
(2) Natural by agreement; no alert.
(3) Penalty

From the double and my own hand, I realize it is very unlikely that partner holds diamonds (i.e. I have a lot of diamonds). While our agreement is definitely to play 2♦ natural, I know that my partner plays Hamilton in all his other partnerships, and that it's fairly likely he forgot our agreement and has both majors. I choose to bid my better major.

When should I disclose that partner might have intended his call as showing both majors?

[ArtK78]

This is a problem.

My initial reaction to this question was never, as you deduced that your partner probably has something other than diamonds through bridge logic.

However, you have extraneous information that leads you to believe that partner has the major suits. This is something that the opponents are entitled to know.

You have two choices:

(1) Pass and let partner dig himself out of his own grave.

(2) Call the TD and tell him your problem. Yes, calling the TD may, in itself, give partner unauthorized information. But any delay in giving your opponents the information that you have (which is information that they are entitled to have) may make matters worse.

Ideally, you could inform the opponents of your information without letting partner know. This can be done in an online environment, but is very difficult in face-to-face play. It is possible with screens, since you can inform your screenmate and your partner is certainly going to properly inform his screenmate.

[Phil]

I think its OK to field this looking at your hand.

[awm]

Phil, on Jul 15 2009, 03:05 PM, said:

I think its OK to field this looking at your hand.

My concern is that many things might've happened on this deal. It's possible that my RHO forgot they play penalty doubles and was trying to make a negative double. It's even possible that opener psyched his 1NT opening and has a diamond void.

I have this extra information that partner plays Hamilton in all his other partnerships, and while certainly part of my "fielding" his bid is based on the auction and my own hand, my decision that partner has majors (rather than RHO forgetting their methods or opener psyching) is based on this additional knowledge. Another issue is that even if opponents can also conclude from their hands that the 2♦ overcall probably wasn't natural (i.e. say opener has a stack of diamonds too) they are unlikely to know exactly what is going on (does he think we play DONT or Woolsey or did he just pull the wrong bid etc) whereas I have the advantage of knowing he usually plays Hamilton.

[Phil]

awm, on Jul 15 2009, 03:15 PM, said:

Phil, on Jul 15 2009, 03:05 PM, said:

I think its OK to field this looking at your hand.

My concern is that many things might've happened on this deal. It's possible that my RHO forgot they play penalty doubles and was trying to make a negative double. It's even possible that opener psyched his 1NT opening and has a diamond void.

I have this extra information that partner plays Hamilton in all his other partnerships, and while certainly part of my "fielding" his bid is based on the auction and my own hand, my decision that partner has majors (rather than RHO forgetting their methods or opener psyching) is based on this additional knowledge. Another issue is that even if opponents can also conclude from their hands that the 2♦ overcall probably wasn't natural (i.e. say opener has a stack of diamonds too) they are unlikely to know exactly what is going on (does he think we play DONT or Woolsey or did he just pull the wrong bid etc) whereas I have the advantage of knowing he usually plays Hamilton.

Well that's sort of my point. RHO might be making a negative double too, so caveat emptor.

Say we've agreed to play Namyats for the 1st time and partner opens 4♣. I happened to be looking at a ridiculous number of hearts and know partner forgot.

Aren't I allowed to make this allowance (and not make an advance save or slam try for instance)?

[awm]

Phil, on Jul 15 2009, 03:19 PM, said:

Say we've agreed to play Namyats for the 1st time and partner opens 4♣. I happened to be looking at a ridiculous number of hearts and know partner forgot.

Aren't I allowed to make this allowance (and not make an advance save or slam try for instance)?

I suspect that you are allowed to make such an allowance. However, I also suspect that you owe the opponents some disclosure, especially if the hand partner actually holds is not a hand they would normally suspect (i.e. take the reverse situation where you recently took Namyats off your card, and partner opens 4♣ and you have a ridiculous number of clubs -- it hardly seems fair for you to accept the "transfer to 4♥" without ever alerting opponents to what may have occurred).

[peachy]

Without the Dbl, you would pass 2D. With the penalty Dbl, you are allowed to infer from the opponent's call, at your own risk, that partner has erred. But you are not allowed to inform anyone during the auction (or during play, if you end up defending) that "partner forgot system" until at the time when it is legal, and then it is required that you do. If declarer, before they lead. If defender, after the hand is played call TD to "clean up".

[peachy]

ArtK78, on Jul 15 2009, 02:23 PM, said:

This is a problem.

My initial reaction to this question was never, as you deduced that your partner probably has something other than diamonds through bridge logic.

However, you have extraneous information that leads you to believe that partner has the major suits. This is something that the opponents are entitled to know.

You have two choices:

(1) Pass and let partner dig himself out of his own grave.

(2) Call the TD and tell him your problem. Yes, calling the TD may, in itself, give partner unauthorized information. But any delay in giving your opponents the information that you have (which is information that they are entitled to have) may make matters worse.

Ideally, you could inform the opponents of your information without letting partner know. This can be done in an online environment, but is very difficult in face-to-face play. It is possible with screens, since you can inform your screenmate and your partner is certainly going to properly inform his screenmate.

On your point 2), the opponents are not entitled to the information (actually, only a strong suspicion so far) that partner has misbid due to forgetting system.

[awm]

peachy, on Jul 15 2009, 04:05 PM, said:

On your point 2), the opponents are not entitled to the information (actually, only a strong suspicion so far) that partner has misbid due to forgetting system.

The issue, though, is that:

(1) I have information which leads me to believe that partner's "forget" is more likely than one might assume a priori (i.e. I know partner has a different agreement in all his other partnerships). This leads me to assume a "partner forget" rather than an "opponent forget" in a suspicious seeming auction.

(2) I have information which helps me figure out what partner actually would have on the occasion of a forget. Opponents, even if they can figure out that some kind of "forget" has occurred, will not have any particular clue what partner actually holds.

[crazy4hoop]

Law 75C: Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements:
When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry, a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences from his general knowledge and experience.

I'm not sure if they asked what 2♦ meant so perhaps this doesn't apply. As far as knowing he plays another convention with every other partner, I'm not sure if this is considered partnership experience (I guess it might if this has happened before) or general knowledge and experience. Sorry to not be all that helpful.

(I voted never but not convincingly in my mind.)

[cherdanno]

If you are able to guess that partner has both majors, rather than, say, one major (a very popular agreement in NA), then that is an implicit partnership agreement. Just my opinion, but it's a strong one I really can't understand how one could see this differently.

[mink]

I would never assume that my partner forgot the system, no matter what he plays with other partners. If the bidding sounds strange, I would think of some other explanations, chose the most likely one and bid accordingly. This way, the problem discussed here can never occur, and this is the best what can happen, because it is kind of unsolvable.

If he afterwards confesses himself that he forgot the system, it is very unlikely that he will blame me for the bad result.

Karl

[cherdanno]

Phil, I don't think the comparison with Namyats holds. If your opponent opens 4♣, alerted and explained at Namyats, and you are looking at 7 hearts, you know he has a club preempt. If your RHO overcalls 2♦, explained as natural, and you look at 8 diamonds, you don't know whether he has both majors or just one.

[Phil]

cherdanno, on Jul 15 2009, 05:41 PM, said:

Phil, I don't think the comparison with Namyats holds. If your opponent opens 4♣, alerted and explained at Namyats, and you are looking at 7 hearts, you know he has a club preempt. If your RHO overcalls 2♦, explained as natural, and you look at 8 diamonds, you don't know whether he has both majors or just one.

This is true.

All I'm saying is you know he doesn't have diamonds. But I never stated that you could differentiate between one major and two; all I (meant to anyway) imply for Adam's problem is that you know something is awry.

[barmar]

mink, on Jul 15 2009, 06:34 PM, said:

I would never assume that my partner forgot the system, no matter what he plays with other partners. If the bidding sounds strange, I would think of some other explanations, chose the most likely one and bid accordingly. This way, the problem discussed here can never occur, and this is the best what can happen, because it is kind of unsolvable.

If he afterwards confesses himself that he forgot the system, it is very unlikely that he will blame me for the bad result.

Karl

But is he going to get a bad result? The opponent's double allows him to rescue himself. But the only reason they doubled was because of the incorrect explanation (or lack of explanation, since the call was ostensibly natural in this case). So one question is whether the opponents are entitled to the information that partner is likely to have forgotten this agreement, so they can avoid making the fatal double.

My feeling is that unless partner has actually made this mistake in the past with you, you don't have to disclose anything. Or maybe if this is your first time playing together, and he reluctantly agreed to play natural overcalls, saying something like "Well, I usually play Hamilton, but I'll try to remember that we're playing natural."

Most experienced bridge players play with a variety of partners, and play different systems and/or conventions with each of them. Getting confused among them is not uncommon, and there probably isn't really anything special about this partner in that regard. Unless you really have special knowledge about this partner that the opponents would not expect on their own (does he really play Hamilton with EVERY other partner?), I don't think you have to say anything.

[cherdanno]

Phil, on Jul 15 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Jul 15 2009, 05:41 PM, said:

Phil, I don't think the comparison with Namyats holds. If your opponent opens 4♣, alerted and explained at Namyats, and you are looking at 7 hearts, you know he has a club preempt. If your RHO overcalls 2♦, explained as natural, and you look at 8 diamonds, you don't know whether he has both majors or just one.

This is true.

All I'm saying is you know he doesn't have diamonds. But I never stated that you could differentiate between one major and two; all I (meant to anyway) imply for Adam's problem is that you know something is awry.

Agreed. I should also say that there is nothing wrong with guessing that partner forgot. However, if you have any extraneous clues that might help you doing so, then you should let opponents know about them. In your Namyats example, I would probably say s.th. like "we agreed to play Namyats, but its the first time it comes up" if opponents asked about my alert.

[Phil]

cherdanno, on Jul 15 2009, 06:22 PM, said:

Phil, on Jul 15 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Jul 15 2009, 05:41 PM, said:

Phil, I don't think the comparison with Namyats holds. If your opponent opens 4♣, alerted and explained at Namyats, and you are looking at 7 hearts, you know he has a club preempt. If your RHO overcalls 2♦, explained as natural, and you look at 8 diamonds, you don't know whether he has both majors or just one.

This is true.

All I'm saying is you know he doesn't have diamonds. But I never stated that you could differentiate between one major and two; all I (meant to anyway) imply for Adam's problem is that you know something is awry.

Agreed. I should also say that there is nothing wrong with guessing that partner forgot. However, if you have any extraneous clues that might help you doing so, then you should let opponents know about them. In your Namyats example, I would probably say s.th. like "we agreed to play Namyats, but its the first time it comes up" if opponents asked about my alert.

Is this really required or even sensible? The only reason that I am able to make this disclosure is because I am looking at a hand that makes it likely partner did forget. If I didn't have this clue, I couldn't say this.

Frankly, this is problematic, because I think it gives UI to partner that I do have hearts.

[bluejak]

If you were playing with a partner for the first time and you knew nothing about him, and you decided to guess he had got it wrong because of your hand or the double or both, you would have nothing to disclose, and should keep quiet.

But implicit agreements are dsiclosable. And your knowledge that he plays Hamilton with everyone else is part of your decision-making process: it is part of your knowledge: it is an implicit agreement: it should be disclosed.

In effect, the 2♦ should have been alerted, the explanation being "natural, but partner usually plays Hamilton so could have forgotten" or some such. Since you did not realise until the double, then you should disclose it, merely by saying that you should have alerted 2♦, though not explaining until asked.



In my many discussions of the Laws I have realised that the term "to field" is used in two different ways. Some use to mean "to allow for partner's psyche or misbid". This is not a very helpful meaning in my view.

Some people, probably a majority, and certainly British players, use it to mean "to allow for partner's psyche or misbid illegally". In the UK the term is defined as meaning this, and I believe the majority everywhere mean this. So if I use the term I shall always mean this, and I do recommend others to do so.



The discussion here is about a fielded misbid. England and Wales have specific regulations dealing with them, and tend to recognise the problem. Most places do not see the problem, but it is a breach of Law 40 to allow for partner's misbid based on some partnership experience, implicit agreement or whatever, unless it is correctly disclosed.

[bluejak]

Quote

Frankly, this is problematic, because I think it gives UI to partner that I do have hearts.

Giving MI to the opponents is an infraction: giving UI to partner is not. So you never misinform opponents because partner will hear.

[fred]

This is not exactly my area of expertise, but here what is I think...

You may "know" your partner doesn't have diamonds, but you do not know that he forgot your convention. Maybe he bid 2D without diamonds on purpose (ie maybe he psyched). Since you don't know if your partner forgot on purpose or not, you might as well treat this situation as you would treat a psyching situation.

If he psyched what would you do? For one thing, if you did not have enough information to know that he psyched, you would simply bid your hand under the assumption that he really had his bid - to do otherwise would be "fielding a psych".

I personally think that if some of this information is based on partner's history of forgetting conventions, that doesn't count - you should go out of your way to bury him if this if this is the case. Perhaps it would be fair to note that I have very little sympathy for those who forget their systems. IMO people who don't know their systems ruin the game for everyone.

If you had enough information to know that partner had psyched you could do whatever you wanted, but you certainly wouldn't tell the opponents "I know my partner has psyched" at any point in time. Volunteering this information in the middle of the auction (as the majority seem to be suggesting) strikes me as truly ludicrous (sorry majority!).

So I don't think you should say anything unless you are asked to justify why you bid as you did.

If your partner has a history of forgetting this convention, it might be sporting to let the opponents know by alerting and explaining (should they ask) when the bid is made. If you are going to do that then you should do it regardless of whether or not you think your partner might have forgotten this particular time.

Mind you, if your partner has a history of forgetting your system, I think you would be better off either letting him/her choose a system that he/she won't forget or, if he/she can't do that, then find another partner.

I will be interested in reading what some of our resident bridge law experts have to say about this one (especially if they can rip holes in my argument which sure seems sensible to me!).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com