epeeist

Walddk's explanation leaves me with one question (I assume, given his vugraph etc. duties, he's correct): Even if there's no adjustment to NS, might there not be a procedural penalty to EW for misexplanation of a bid? That is, NS, score remains the same, but EW, score adjusted down or some other penalty?

Yes, of course you're right, it even gives exactly this example.

If I understood the original situation, it was one in which your partner opens one of a minor, the intervening opponent overcalls one heart, and you bid one spade. I'm unqualified to speculate on how world-class players treat this. My intermediate understanding of SAYC, however, is that one-level overcalls even with interference only show 4+ cards in the suit. Not 5+. See e.g. the SAYC system description: http://www.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/S...gle%20pages.pdf "Bids mean the same things they meant without the intervening bid" (p. 7, competitive bidding). Thus to my understanding the one spade bid shows only 4+ spades. If, of course, we're speaking of strict SAYC. I'm happy to be corrected if my understanding is incorrect. Since that would mean that, in this one respect at least, I've been bidding at a world-class level... :)

I disagree strongly. This philosophy invites, or even forces, leading questions. The second and third asterisks on Law 20 (Review and Explanation of Calls) in the current ACBL Lawbook explicitly indicate that questions about the meanings of bids may lead to the application of Law 16 (Unauthorized Information). Asking questions can damage your side. .... Asking questions in online bridge can't damage you, at least nor for the reasons you give. Question may lead to UI in a face-to-face situation; but online, one's partner will not even be aware that one has asked a question. When an explanation for the opponent's bid appears on the bid, they have no way of knowing that was because of your request, rather than a delayed alert. However, to avoid even the possibility that one's partner could infer something, one could simply send chat only to the opponent who made the bid, and neither your partner, nor their partner, would be aware of any question or answer. Of course, I agree that if e.g. you have to ask about the meaning of a bid, that may give your opponents a clue that you're interested in the bid, meaning you're more likely to have outstanding high-card strength, or a void, or something...which is part of why I try always to ask about unusual bids, whether I care or not (within reason and time permitting, of course).

My (intermediate level) answers: 1. Nothing. Novice is just that. Someone could join as a novice and not even understand the basic rules of bridge properly. They might want to watch vugraph to have a better understanding, use LTPB online instead of downloading it, kibitz others, etc. So novice requires ZERO knowledge. If I'm playing with a novice, I expect nothing, and the software will prevent revokes. And I'd much rather play with an honest novice than certain so-called "experts".... B) 2. Bridgewise, they should understand all the rules of the game and scoring (to know what game is, etc.), what vulnerable or non-vulnerable means, etc. They should know in whatever system is "normal" for their country (e.g. SAYC for U.S./Canada) what the most common bids are, so that if they, or partner, or opponents, make a 1-level bid, they will know what it means. They should know basic replies to openings, raises, new suits, 1NT. They should also know about weak bids and strong bids, but more knowing how to respond, they won't necessarily make those bids themselves. Stayman is the only convention they "need" to know, transfers not such a priority since one probably wants the stronger player playing the hand. Blackwood might be a 2nd convention, but it's overused and given the number of slams which are makeable by a beginner (assuming they'd be declarer half the time?) it's not a priority. I've seen much better players get confused between normal and RKCB and end up in an unmakeable slam, so I hardly think it "necessary" for a beginner to know Blackwood.

Unfortunately, many bridge players don't alert all the bids they should (in my opinion) alert on BBO. So how is it unethical to ask for an explanation of a bid that you think, maybe, should have been alerted, but you can't be sure because you don't know how vigilant your opponents are about alerting? When you click on a bid and an explanation is given, it appears to one's partner also and partner may be able to deduce (by delay in explanation) that you asked. I try to avoid using private chat to ask, because the opponent often seems to "mistakenly" explain the bid in public chat, letting their partner know what the bid meant. "Mistakenly" was in quotes because I'm sure it's sometimes an accident, but it seems to happen a bit too frequently in my experience to always be a mistake... :) Or what if there's no/improper convention card in a tournament that requires one? Or when opponents are using a system that is totally unfamiliar to you and you have no clue what the bids mean (e.g. I encounter Polish club bidders rarely enough that I've never learned the basics of the system)? In one online ACBL (convention card required) tournament, the opponents refused, after several deals and polite requests, to put up a convention card (and didn't explain why not, etc.). So how was I to know what, especially in a competitive bidding sequence, their bids meant or if they were using conventions of which I was unaware? The TD agreed with me that I was entitled to ask the meaning of EVERY bid, since they refused to comply with the rules. I try to overcome the possibility of giving UI to my partners ("Hey, that explanation of the bid popped up late, my partner's probably curious about the bid...) by always asking about bids that I am unsure of, even if I have a bad hand. If I only asked when I had a good hand or thought it might make a difference on defence, a regular partner might, even subconsciously, gradually deduce a pattern. For instance, I always (unless opps have clearly disclosed previously) ask what 4NT bids and responses mean, even if I think it will make no difference. If I only clicked when I had e.g. a side suit ace, that would gradually come to constitute a clue to a regular partner or to some opponents. And yes, on a few occasions I (and my partner, by the explanations) have become aware that the opponents were mutually mistaken over whether they were using normal or rkcb and that influenced my decision whether to double. I've been told that ethically, there is no problem with allowing a known bidding mistake by your opponents to influence your actions. I agree that since BBO is self-alerting, one should only be asking the bidder what their bids mean (not their partners), in all but unusual situations -- e.g. on one occasion when an opponent rudely refused to explain whether they were using Jacoby transfers or 4-suit transfers (i.e. whether a 2♠ bid, alerted as a transfer, meant only clubs, or could mean clubs or diamonds), I (privately) asked their partner, who said "new partner" or "no agreement" or something like that, which was fine. I asked the partner because the delay caused by my polite questions, and rude responses from my opponent, led to inquiries over whether I was still there, what was the problem, etc.

Responding first to your comment after the TD was called, some people especially Christians would understandably be offended by your language. You don't have to agree, but for politeness' sake one should avoid such language. Aside from that, your comment might seem rude, including the fact it was entirely capitalized, which is often interpreted as analogous to shouting. As for the call to the TD, I've been involved (on the other side, as the complainer in a pay tournament) with someone who gave no explanation, and if they had merely stated "no agreed meaning" or "new partner" or something, it would have given me no extra information, and avoided the need for a call. Whenever I get a "no information available" response, or a sarcastic "what do you think" response I get suspicious and annoyed, and I'm sure others do also. Or, if you expected your partner to understand your 2NT bid was natural, or to play, you could have typed "natural" or something (what your partner would know). Plus, as some have noted, you were playing in a tournament/club with enhanced disclosure rules. Your opponents probably wanted to know whether the 2NT was an agreed-upon convention, and I think they were entitled to know that it wasn't.

I tend to agree with you and disagree with Flame. In a tournament, what about the duty to (correctly and properly) alert opponents, and in some tournaments, post a convention card? If your partnership's bidding doesn't match what you've told your opponents your system is, you are misinforming them (a mistake, fine; but if you know your partner is prone to make mistakes, that's UI, just like knowing your partner is prone to psyche frequently and not telling the opponents). Especially if you know from previous rounds that your partner doesn't understand the system you've supposedly agreed upon, you have a duty to disclose. And then, what if you tell them privately, out of a duty to disclose, "Partner doesn't count king of trump..." [or whatever], but your partner realized the previous mistake and now you've misinformed the opponents, etc. Could be messy, fool opponents into sacrificing/doubling/neither. Then they're suspicious you tried to fool them, call director, etc. Whereas if you'd clarified it with your partner after it had happened, you could have avoided the problem of misinforming your opponents. Similarly, if your convention card says udca or whatever, and you know from previous rounds your partner doesn't know it properly even though it was agreed to, do you privately message the declarer, "even though our cc says udca, p doesn't understand it properly". Declarer messages your p, "what carding", your p replies "udca", you're in a big mess, declarer doesn't know what you're doing. Whereas if you'd briefly, politely, discussed it with your partner before, when the misunderstanding arose, you could have agreed just to use a simpler signalling system to avoid confusion and changed your card accordingly. Anyone can make a mistake, but when you KNOW your partner doesn't understand/use properly something you've told the opponents your partnership uses, you have a duty to inform them. Otherwise you have unauthorized information.

I've played with some players who explicitly asked me to criticize (positive and negative) their bidding and play in a tournament. Which I did (when each round was over, waiting for the next). I also criticized my own bidding and play. And I'm not that good, so I had a lot to criticize about my own actions... :) Also, it seems to me there's a difference (sometimes subtle) between lectures and e.g. clarifying what a bidding sequence meant. Obviously this is subject to correction from what uday or another yellow might say, but I have generally assumed that a polite inquiry related to clarifying a situation (in case it recurs in a future round) is appropriate. For instance, I once had my 2♣ opening passed by a partner who rated himself as intermediate, had SAYC in his profile, and had explicitly agreed to play SAYC (I'd entered the tournament with a stranger). I thought, and still think, it was fair for me to (not rudely) clarify what bidding system we were using, that 2♣ was strong not weak, etc. If I said nothing, what would happen if I had another strong forcing opening later on in the tournament? Similar with issues over what card signals meant, there was a need to clarify the situation. Of course, questions may seem like sarcasm...("I think we had a bidding misunderstanding, p, I intended 2♣ as strong and forcing" might seem polite to some, sarcastic to others). To answer Double!'s questions explicitly : (1) Trying to reduce the chance of future bidding or carding misunderstandings in that same tournament; (2) I expect (well, maybe "hope for"... :lol: ) a response as polite as my question, just as I try (I try not to be a hypocrite) respond to questions about my bidding or mistakes I've made; (3) See (1), avoiding future misunderstandings, or at least clarifying the (true) skill level of my partner, so I may know to be more or less aggressive, jump to game instead of inviting or contrariwise pass invitations, etc.

Computer deals (e.g. in tournaments) are, as a previous poster noted, generally more truly random because physical cards tend to be poorly shuffled. That assumes a proper method of computer dealing, of course. The most recent issue of the Bridge Bulletin, in discussing bridge software, includes a note as to whether the program is capable of (i.e. might) deal any possible hand. I think that only "Jack" (?) was capable of dealing any possible hand (by which I mean, distribution of cards to all four hands), but I don't have the issue handy. I'm not sure what BBO's system does.

Since on BBO alerts and explanations appear only to your opponents, how can there be UI? I agree with you for FTF, but not for online play (unless I'm missing some subtlety). As for NT ranges, unless using convention cards, there are so many possible things including NT point ranges or weak suit opening values which the opponents could be told, isn't it simpler to simply, if one opens 1NT, click and type "15-17" (or "12-14" or whatever)? Or if one opens 3♥ ("weak usu. 7+ ♥) or the like? Replying to the original post, as a player I care less about alerts than explanations. If I am unsure about an opponent's bid, I ask. When I ask what a Polish club opening and reply mean, about half the time I get a satisfactory response (point range for balanced/unbalanced/whatever, I can't recall exactly which is why I always ask). The other half the time I get an answer of simply "polish club" or something similarly uninformative (to me, at least). Even more frequently, about half the time I get unsatisfactory answers to, believe it or not, my request for an explanation of what 4NT (and the response) means. I don't necessarily know whether opponents are using normal or rkcb or a void-showing system, or if it's a quantitative raise or slam-invitational. A response of "no agreement" is fine, because then I know as much as the relevant opponent. What I don't like are the sarcastic responses ("what do you think?" and the like). And yes, there have been occasions when my asking for meanings revealed that my opponents misunderstood what each thought the other meant. I've been told that ethically, it is permissible to take advantage of a known opponent misunderstanding (e.g. by doubling... <_< ).

If you were thinking of 2/1, why not start with SAYC? Then later teaching/learning 2/1 is much simpler (changing 1NT response etc.). Also, at least judging by BBO, there are a fair number of people who play only SAYC, not 2/1. Knowing both is better. I think the free "Learn to Play Bridge" Software which you can download from this site or the ACBL does much the same, the first program (which focuses on play first) teaches Standard American, the second program is essentially 2/1. But it's been a while since I used them, so my recollection might be mistaken.

Generally, at least in online bridge (and especially in individual tournaments!) it seems to me that the longer a partner thinks, the more likely he or she is to make the wrong call... :D It's probably true for me also...though I think needing a long time to think is often the sign of an unclear bid or situation not covered by bidding system/partnership agreement. So I would assume the better the player/partnership, the more likely thinking is actually productive, rather than wondering what p's last bid meant... :) It also causes stress, when they're thinking a long time on say a Blackwood response, you start to think "did they forget we agreed to rkcb and are trying to remember..." etc. That said, I disagree to a limited extent with another poster's complaint about people who take too long to think when their bid is obvious/automatic. If it's truly automatic, then that is one of the few times in the bidding when one can pause to think, e.g. about a situation that may be coming up later in the bidding ("Will I double or bid 4♠ if opponents bid 4♥...") without giving one's p unauthorized information; think before the situation arises. Also, I try always to take a few seconds for any bid, even before passing, trying to keep all my bidding in tempo. However, except for some relays, how many bids are truly automatic? Even Blackwood, isn't there at least a modicum of thought as to whether Blackwood or slam-invitational or to play (rare but sometimes retreat from p's 4-level suit bid) rkcb or normal, and if rkcb, what suit was agreed, etc. For transfers, it's possible to "super-accept" (bid one higher than necessary, e.g. 3♠ instead of 2♠) with a particularly good hand for that suit, etc. So even on a so-called "automatic" bid, some thinking may be required (and thus, there's a risk of giving UI).

I must be missing something... :) After reading this whole thread, I still don't understand the point. In the main bridge club (or other clubs), whoever starts the table can set whether or not kibitzers require permission to join the table, and whether or not kibitzers may chat with players. If it's your table, refuse to let kibitzers you dislike watch you and set chat to allowed or not. If it's someone else's table, it's their privilege to let whomever they want watch. I'll concede, in the situation where the table host allows someone to kibitz, then realizes there was a mistake, or the host wants to remove the person, there might be a problem, but is that really a common occurence? You can always reset the table to turn off chat allowed, or start a new table and not let that kibitzer join. An annoyance, I'll grant you, but I would think the kibitzer would get the point. In tournaments, the TD chooses whether or not kibitzers are allowed. Play in tournaments with rules you like or start your own. Again, I'll concede, there are situations where you might not _like_ to be watched by a particular individual, but if they can't talk to you or any other players, what's the big deal? Unless you think there's cheating going on e.g. by using Messenger, which is another sort of problem entirely. By the way, personally I prefer tournaments which allow kibitzers (both as a player and a kibitzer). It also allows me to vent sometimes, sending the kibitzers messages which (hopefully) are amusing B) Like in an individual, "Hmm, I always thought 2♣ openings were forcing in SAYC...guess I'm just not an 'expert' like my partner...LOL".

[excerpt only quoted] Makes sense to me. If I understand what it was saying, it's that if there is e.g. only one normal action (NOT multiple logical alternatives), that you take that action. You don't refuse to take that action just because of the UI. For instance, let's say your partner hesitates a long time before bidding a transfer bid (2♥ over your 1NT). Knowing your partner, you might get UI from this hesitation (say, you can guess your p hesitated deciding whether to raise NT or use a transfer with an intermediate-value hand, so you can guess your p has a particularly good ♠ suit). However, you still take the normal action of bidding 2♠ completing the transfer. You don't refuse to take that normal action (e.g. passing or bidding something else) simply because you received UI. Now, if you used the UI to jump to 4♠ or something because based on the hesitation you have UI that your p has a much stronger than normal hand, that's wrong. But taking the normal action of bidding 2♠ is what you should do despite having received UI.

Victor Mollo's books have some interesting hands -- to say the least! One which I was reminded of was a 7NT hand with very few points. I won't give the hand, which is in "Destiny at Bay", but I'll put the trick in hidden text below.

Bidding systems sometimes define weak two bids by high card points only, NOT including distributional points. For instance, SAYC defines weak 2 bids as 5-11 high card points, whereas most other bids except NT are generally defined in "points" (which includes distributional valuation). I use SAYC as an example because I'm not too familiar with ACOL... To take an extreme example, let's say I have a 2-suited hand, with a 9-card ♠ suit (missing the AKQJ) and 10987 in ♣. I would open with this hand despite having 0 high card points. For the later part of your question, there have been many extended discussions about psychic bids on this board. B) If your system, as disclosed to the opponents, calls for weak 2 bids with 0-10 points, it's not psychic. It's when your bid doesn't match what your system says it should be, that it may be psychic. Usually only when it's far out of line, though -- not just shading a point :P And of course, some bids, even if disclosed to opponents, may not be allowed in some levels of play (highly unusual methods, forcing pass opening systems, multi or Polish club in some tournaments, etc.).

Thanks for posting this, very interesting. It seemed to me, though, from reading it the real issue was not whether 1NT was a psychic, or a "safe" psychic, but whether N/S had a system (not agreed upon in advance, but in effect) which _disclosed_ to N that the 1NT by S was a psychic bid. The 2♣ rebid being "impossible" in their system, the partner of the 1NT psycher stated that he knew something was odd or unusual about the 1NT bid (not necessarily a psychic, just something odd). The alert of the 2♣ bid, however, was not that it showed something odd or unusual about the 1NT bid, but just that it "did not exist" in their system. Since the 2♣ bid was alerted, wasn't N obligated to say more than it "did not exist", when N _knew_ it meant something? Also, would this in effect make the original 1NT bid a "Psychic bid protected by system" (i.e. 2♣ rebid alerted partner original 1NT bid "weird") which according to the WBF is brown sticker? EDIT: I thought there was some convention like "Gehestam" (??) or something, intended to reveal an earlier bid was psychic, and thought there'd been some discussion on these boards about some federations not permitting it? Unfortunately since I can't even remember the name, I can't really search for it... :rolleyes:

There was a lengthy discussion on psyches, which included uday inquiring directly of the ACBL, in August. You can find page 4 of that discussion at: http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...opic=4315&st=45 Maybe the TD considered your psyche "frivolous"? The ACBL policy on psyches is in Chapter XII Section A, "Bidding, Skip Bidding and Alerts" at: http://www.acbl.org/about/codification.html I found it interesting that you CAN'T psyche a forcing artificial bid. So IF a "mini NT" is a forcing artificial bid then I guess you can't psyche it. Just like you are not permitted to psyche an artificial forcing strong 2♣ opening.

With the exception of paid tournaments which may involve issues of contract law, the seat "belongs" to noone. The TD can decide who does or doesn't play, subject only to the restrictions BBO may choose to impose. If you don't like a TD who refuses to let your original p back in, don't play in their tournaments. But as inquiry reiterated, since resubbing may penalize subs by banning them from all tournaments, it is unfair. Or as I put it in my previous edited post referring to those who practice replacing subs: "TDs WHO CALL FOR SUBS SHOULD CLEARLY STATE THAT SUBBING IN THEIR TOURNAMENTS MAY RESULT IN BEING BANNED FOR A WEEK FROM BBO TOURNAMENTS. That should help get lots of subs... :lol: "

My previous post was lengthy, so I'll distill it down: TDs WHO CALL FOR SUBS SHOULD CLEARLY STATE THEIR POLICY ON RESUBBING. That should satisfy everyone, regardless of their opinion. EDIT: As inquiry's next post points out, this would still be unfair because a player who was public-spirited enough to sub frequently and got resubbed, could get banned for failure to finish tournaments. So how about: TDs WHO CALL FOR SUBS SHOULD CLEARLY STATE THAT SUBBING IN THEIR TOURNAMENTS MAY RESULT IN BEING BANNED FOR A WEEK FROM BBO TOURNAMENTS. That should help get lots of subs... :lol: As my sarcasm points out, I agree with e.g. inquiry and BILmanager's points of view.

For pay tournaments, replacing subs seems fine. I've subbed in e.g. ACBL tournaments, and not been annoyed when I was replaced. The "bargain" is, as a sub I don't pay the $1 fee, and can still earn points if I do well, but will be replaced if the original player returns. Seems fair to me. However, I am concerned if, as inquiry notes, I am treated as having "quit" a tournament if I am replaced -- that seems wholly unfair. For free tournaments, replacing subs seems unfair, UNLESS it is made explicitly clear that subs will be kicked out when and if the original player returns. Of course, I and I am sure many others, would refuse to sub in such tournaments, so it seems self-defeating to have such a policy. And I say that even though I have upon occasion had a really, really annoying sub become my partner and would prefer my original one to return... :lol: Unless, of course, it was a "special" type of tournament which most could not normally enter, e.g. one with lots of "stars" or something, then I'm sure people would be clamouring to sub even if they might be kicked out again at short notice. On an unrelated note, I think many people would be willing to sub more often if they knew what stage the tournament was at. I think jtfanclub, in some of his requests for subs, has explicitly stated e.g. that the tournament was expected to end by 3 p.m. or there were x rounds left, or the like, which makes it a lot more attractive to potential subs who may have another tournament coming up or other commitments.

[excerpt only quoted] I used to have ignore enemies selected. However, when I was in a tournament where an "enemy" was opponent, I didn't understand why I was getting no answer to my question about the meaning of a bid... :) Similarly, if I recall correctly I've once or twice had an "enemy" as a partner in an individual tournament. Makes no sense to ignore chat (sayc p? 2/1? why won't you answer?! :) ). I think Uday's proposed system, logging even private chat for a day or so, retrievable if necessary but otherwise deleted, is very reasonable. I had occasion, unfortunately, to make a report for the first time this evening and it was a pain to copy multiple screenshots to the clipboard, paste into a document, e-mail it to abuse, etc. Thus, with Uday's proposal, the ONLY situation in which anyone other than the recipient would see private chat is if either you or they reported abuse. And if they reported abuse, then they could (by more tedious means) send exactly the same private chat as would be accessed under this system. The only problem is if you don't trust BBO. And if you don't trust BBO, why are you sending chat they could access? :(

Since your message said SAYC, here's what the "ACBL Standard Yellow Card System Booklet" (April 2003 revision) says on page 5 (paraphrased, I'm not quoting directly): 2 ♥/♠ or 3♣/♦ = at least a 5-card suit and 8 points (so could be longer/stronger) 2NT = balanced 8 HCP or better. 2♦ conventional (e.g. 0-7 points), or could be "waiting" with a hand unsuitable for other bid (say, you have 8 or more points but unbalanced hand no 5-card suit like 4441) There's other stuff about responses after 2NT rebid by 2♣ bidder, etc. There are many other systems for responding to it, I'm not saying they're not good, they may be better, but if you want to know what sayc says, that's it :( By the way, if you want the booklet, it's in PDF format at the ACBL website: http://www.acbl.org/play/toolsSupplies.html at the hyperlink, "full instructions for using this popular convention card." [referring to SAYC convention card]. It prints out a short 8-page booklet.

If their partner has doesn't know for sure which it is, I don't think the 4NT bidder has any obligation whatsoever to tell you. Mind you, if a bid is played some way most of the time in North America and some other way most of the time in Europe, then you have a right to know. But in my experience, most players bid 4NT and it doesn't matter what part of the world you're from, it might be quantitative or it might be BW and both partners are guessing. If you have a regular partner, of course, then perhaps you should tell the opponents. Frankly, I would be at fault in this case too, if I opened 1NT and any of my friends (people I've played 5 or 6 hands with that seemed like we were compatible) bid 4NT, I would take it as quantitative and it would just never occur to me to Alert (but of course I would answer the question if asked.) Similarly with 1C-1H-1NT-4NT. If partner answered aces, I would be mildly shocked, but that just goes to prove that perhaps I shouldn't be alerting it. I guess my point is that without a regular partnership, (and even in some regular partnerships), you know as much as the partner as the 4NT bidder so the 4NT bidder shouldn't tell you what he has when his partner doesn't know either. There was a discussion of this point (do you have to alert if can't be SURE p will understand) in a thread I started at: http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...topic=4214&st=0 In which there were a variety of opinions, but I felt alerts should still be made and (I think, this is paraphrased, apologies if incorrect) jtfanclub made the point, when directing a tournament, and a pair appeared to have "understood" each other's bids, he didn't pay too much credence to a claim that there was no agreement between them. If you bid 4NT (intending it as blackwood), and partner replies 5♣, whether in an individual or a pairs tournament, you may not KNOW for a certainty whether partner has 0/4 aces or 0/3 keycards (or something else) because even with a regular partner he or she might have decided to do something else or thought your 4NT was quantitative or have misclicked etc., but if when you made the 4NT bid it was intended as conventional, and and when your p bid 5♣ it was conventional and he or she intended to tell you something about what aces/keycards was in his or her hand, it's alertable. Now, if a tournament wants to change the rules "table talk allowed to tell p what your bids mean", okay (NOT!). Mind you, I had one pair of opponents tell each other what their 4NT and 5♦ response met in public chat in an ACBL tournament (one thought regular blackwood, the other rkcb, but they straightened it out by telling each other what each meant before bidding over!), but that was NOT permissible under the rules... :D