No agreement
If, say North, when asked about partner's call says 'not discussed' or 'no agreement', is it the right procedure to send North away from the able and ask South to tell the opponents what his call means when in fact they do not have an agreement about the (conventional) call?
Comments
Generally No. Opponents are only entitled to knowledge about NS's system.
However, there may be other elements of the system which would have a bearing on possible meanings - either calls in similar situations or other calls not made (thus excluding possible meanings). North should explain these if they are anything other than common bridge knowledge.
Although this was not part of your OP, if South is adamant that there is an agreement (and North has forgotten) then he should say so to the director (away from the table) so the director can send North away and South can explain
I think the Common Bridge Knowledge aspect is very difficult.
If a player overcalls a suit bid with 2NT, alerted as 'No Agreement,' then the pair will generally proceed as if it's Unusual NT. This is fairly standard, maybe Common Bridge Knowledge.
But many less experienced players have never heard of it.
If the alerting player says "We haven't agreed anything but most players use this bid as UNT, then he is effectively telling his partner how he will interpret the bid. If he says nothing then he is using a system that he hasn't explained to the opposition.
Alan
"Common Bridge Knowledge" is to an extent based on the expectations and experience of the players at the table (and hence isn't really "common"). I wouldn't call a jump NT overcall Common Bridge Knowledge. Yes a lot of players know about it but it's a convention.
Yes the alerting player will be giving UI to is partner (if nothing else by alerting), but the obligation to correctly inform your opponents outweighs a desire to avoid UI. Giving UI is (generally) not an infraction, but using it is, and the director can always give restitution if necessary.
Does not giving UI really outweigh not mis-informing clients?
I'd inferred the opposite given the delays in correcting mis-information until the correction can no longer be of benefit to your partner (declarer at end-bidding, defenders at end-play).
There is no law against giving UI, only against using it. There is a law against giving MI. So it is not permitted to give MI in order to avoid giving UI.
Yes - wrong to give MI to avoid giving UI. But also wrong to give UI to correct another's MI ?
Well, you can't volunteer information about your own bids during an auction and defenders can't correct until the end of the hand. If MI has already been given by partner then you're stuck with it until either the clarification period or the end of play.
The other situation that comes to mind is that partner has given MI and you wish to correct it by calling for the director or by sending partner away from the table. This is considered to be wrong and is a case where living with the MI outweighs giving partner UI. During the auction, it's partner's responsibility to alert/announce/explain your bids and not yours.
I’ve known people say that it’s not been discussed but, upon becoming declarer, say “yes, I thought you meant ...”
Since the usual question is “what do you understand by your partner’s bid” can we not push for a response with something like “what are you going to take it to mean”
No, the second of these is what you must do, but your partner will then be constrained by it.
Here's a similar situation where UI and MI conflict and avoiding MI wins.
Opponents open 1H, my partner overcalls 1NT. I bid 2C (Stayman-ish) but my partner does not alert. Partner bids 2D and the opponents ask me about the 2D. I can't explain the system without informing my partner about their (potential) forgetting of our agreement about 2C, but explain it I must.
Going back to what > @Mark_Brown said:
There is apparent (but not actual) conflict here. As > @gordonrainsford said:
There is not a "recognised principle" that avoiding MI trumps UI, it's in the laws. The laws further specifically say that you must not correct MI until the appropriate time.
Those creating the laws have decided that the best balance between the conflicting problems of MI and UI is as they have laid out. That's a decision made based on many years of experience, and may or may not be the "best" balance, but for us as directors applying the law there is no conflict.
The problem with that is that the person who makes the call now knows how partner is going to handle it. A noncommitment such as "We have no agreement but common usages are/ in certain other circumstances it would mean/ are ....." is better." Yes partner still has UI, but at least the UI doesn't necesarily demonstrably suggest something".
This discussion has become based on 16248's post referring to a 2NT overcall being alerted as 'No agreement'. But if there is no agreement about a bid being conventional, should it be alerted at all?
It should in the EBU, unless you know for sure it's natural.