TimG

Nobody has yet cited a Law which suggests over-disclosure* is counter to the Laws of bridge. Tim * Not that I think the kind of discloser Brandal is talking about is over-disclosure.

How come there's not a nobody-did-anything-wrong option? I dislike an immediate two-suited overcall with the south hand and don't think either player should be bidding 3♣ over 2♦. Tim

I suppsoe you've never beento Las Vegas, Monte Carlo, Foxwoods, etc.

Let's just say it put a focus on hearts. One of my favorite related stories: I frequently play four-card majors (which is unusual around here). Many years ago my partner opened 1♠, the next player glanced at our convention card and then asked if we played four-card majors. I became declarer in 3N after a non-competitive auction. My LHO led her (singleton) spade, dummy came down with ♠T9xxx, and RHO duly cashed her ♠AKQJ before getting out with her fifth spade. The spade trick was my 9th, one I wasn't likely to get anywhere else.

Certainly not in America, and I doubt elsewhere. The big money made playing bridge comes mostly from being paid to play as a partner or team mate. There is also the possibility of making money by teaching bridge, or running bridge games, but I don't think this is what you were really asking about.

i don't understand the question... if you mean after my pard opens a weak 2 and the opps ask about a side 4 card major, they would have recourse if i stated "he never has a 4 card major when opening with a weak 2"... never say never... tell tendencies, yes... tell past experiences, yes Suppose the auction goes: 2♠-P-3N-All pass After the 2♠ opening bid, the next players asked: "does 2♠ deny four hearts?" Would you be at all suspicious if opening leader produces a heart?

If he accurately describes the agreement, there is no danger of the explanation coming back to bite him in the ass. What must not happen is players intentionally not disclosing their complete agreement for fear of committee or director reprisal. I know that my partner never opens 2♥ when holding four spades, but no one is likely to be able to prove that it's part of our agreements, so it's ok to say "we don't have any agreement". I know from experience that partner is unlikely to do X, but we have no explicit agreement to this effect, so I can be vague and no one will be the wiser. The opponents shouldn't need to grill you to get a complete description. Yes, when you open 2♠ it's fine to describe it as a weak two-bid. But, if an opponents asks for more information, you should be totally forthcoming rather than waiting for them to ask about specific aspects of your agreements. A side four-card majoris a perfect example. How would you like it if, in a ftf game, your opponent asked about the possibility of a side four-card major, your side ended up defending and questioner's partner leads the unbid major? There's no need to qualify each explanation with "according to our agreements" -- every explanation is according to agreement. Tim

Note, however, that they were also warned to stick to the "exact explanation of the auction". They were not advised to be as vague as possible under the Laws so as to minimize the risk of giving the opponents more information than partner has available to him. Sounds to me like the committee got it right, except for the part about lecturing the players.

I don't understand what this is supposed to show. What it tells me is that the player made an incorrect explanation. The solution is not to be intentionally vague withyour explanations, but rather to be accurate. Again, this is not an issue in online bridge. The bidder, who is the one who explains his calls, will always get the explanation correct.

I think take-out doubles apply to any system, except perhaps goulash systems. But maybe that's just me. Negative doubels are a form of takeout doubles and are what I was referring to when I said it was not clear that they are vital in many four-card major systems. I stand by that.

Not only that, but luis is going to slap you with a procedural penalty!

After you've gotten some rest, please try to explain how it is unlawful to explain what your presumed agreements are or what you intend to show with your call. Make sure to reference the specific Laws, please. 75-C When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience. Nothing in Law 75-C limits what I may disclose; "need not" does not equal "may not". Even if I am not required to disclose what I believe to be general bridge knowledge, nothing in this law bars me from such disclosure. But, we're not even talking about general bridge knowledge, we're talking about implied or presumed agreements and intended meanings.

I'm not convinced. I'm convinced that players are more comfortable with extra fit finding tools, but I'm not convinced that beyond the comfort factor they are better strategy. Double is the only bid that doesn't raise the level of bidding. And it coveys a lot of information at the same time. The only other bid I could imagine acheiving similar objectives is the next step, as in 1C 2S 2NT = take-out double of spades. 1C 2S dbl = misfit, penalties. Isn't it simpler to double for take-out an bid 2NT as natural? Not to mention the 'next step as take-out' has *a lot* of technical problems. Negative doubles are likely a necessary component of five-card major systems. Not so clear in many four-card major systems. But, support doubles are not. Or, how about this classic responsive double auction: (1♥)-DBL-(2♥)-DBL? Do you really need this takeout double?

I think splitting into independent mini-BBOs is a bad idea. I don't want to have to search multiple channels for friends or for experts to kibitz, for instance. I do think it would be a good idea to create more playing areas: have an open area and then have smaller areas meant to cater to English, Polish, women, gay, senior, whatever. But, I would be disappointed to see these areas run independent of each other. I do not pretend to understand the programming issues involved, but it has always been my impression that users are given far more information than is needed. The prime example is the complete lobby listing upon login. I seldom have any need (or desire) to see a list of everyone who is online. And, when I do want this information, I ought to be able to request it. I'm not sure, but I get the impression that the lobby information is constantly kept up to date -- when I switch from chat to lobby there is no call to the server for a fresh list of lobby members, but rather the display is simply modified to show the information that I already have. This constant background updating seems to me to be a bad idea. I would think you'd save a ton of bandwidth simply by changing this. (I don't suppose bandwidth is your concern.) Tim

I'm not convinced. I'm convinced that players are more comfortable with extra fit finding tools, but I'm not convinced that beyond the comfort factor they are better strategy. Few play: 1♠-(2♥)-2♠-(3♥)-DBL for penalties. My regular partner and I have an agreement that doubles are not penalty when either side has found a fit at the two-level or both sides have found a fit at the three-level. This is sort of a law of total tricks thing. Tim

After you've gotten some rest, please try to explain how it is unlawful to explain what your presumed agreements are or what you intend to show with your call. Make sure to reference the specific Laws, please. You've got to be kidding. When I open 2♥, I don't alert. Might you be interested in the range or the style? Wouldn't you ask if you were interested? And, wouldn't you be rather annoyed if the answer I gave was: "natural"? Not what they have, what they've shown (or tried to show). There's a big difference between telling the opponents that your weak two-bids show 3 of the top 5 honors and telling them that you hold KJT. I have never suggested that anyone should tell the opponents their exact holding, let alone that they should be required to give this information. Again, you'll have to reference the specific Law if you're going to convince me that full disclosure, even over-disclosure, is un-Lawful. Tim

This is not a "negative" doubel situation. Only repsonder makes a negative double, and only after 2nd hand makes the overcall.

Trouble is, you more often want to defend when there is no fit. Wouldn't it be better to define doubles as cooperative when a fit has been established a penalty when there is no fit?

I'm playing ACOL with 4-card majors. As in SJ Simon? So, double is a cooperative penalty double, right? I choose that.

I would contend that the basis for your "guess" is at least in part based upon your agreement to play lebehsohl rather than on any general bridge knowledge. But, There is a big difference between being asked to explain your partner's call (as is usually the case in FTF bridge) and being asked to explain your own call (which is the norm in online bridge). "We have no agreement" is often appropriate in FTF bridge where you are left to figure out what your partner intends. But, when explaining your own bids, there's never any guess about what you intend. (Well, if the "what do you bid" threads on this forum are any indication, some people actually don't know what they intend! :) ) Part of the trouble, I believe, is in trying to duplicate the ftf environment where partner answers the questions regarding my calls. I think partner explaining the calls is actually a compromise put in place for FTF play in order to reduce the amount of unauthorized information. In a perfect world, the person who makes the call would also do the explaining since he knows exactly what the intent (presumed agreement) is, but his partner would not hear the explanation in order to avoid the possibility of UI. Online is that perfect world.

I think you are to be commended for this.

Well then, you should have said "alertable" instead of "conventional". :) If you alert your Jacoby and the next player asks for an explanation, do you say: "We have no agreement"? If not, how is this different from when the opponent asks about your non-alertable bid for which you have no agreement? I would also suggest that you only have to alert partnership agreements. So, if you try a non-discussed Jacoby, and you contend that non-discussed means no agreement and thus no disclosure, then you are technically not supposed to alert it.

If you make a conventional bid (SPEFICALLY A CONVENTIONAL BID), you obviously expect your partner to understand it. The examples are jacoby transfer or michales cue-bid. In these cases you should alert. This is quite different from what happens when your partner opens 1H and you bid 3C. If you bid 3C as "bergin" you had better alert, as clearly you anticipate your parnter will understand. IF you bid 3C as natural, it might be STRONG and FORCING, it might be invitational wiht 6C or it might be weak. Here if your partner has to guess what 3C means (strong, invite, weak), so do your opponents. I do not understand the difference. In both cases the bid has special meaning. Why is it that you must disclose if you spring a convention on your partner but not when you spring a treatment on your partner? In either case you anticipate your partner understanding the meaning of the bid -- that is you anticipate there being an agreement. And, of course, agreements must be disclosed. Tim

This is so wrong, wrong, wrong. If your partner can "guess" better than the opponents because yours is a good partnership, you are not disclosing enough.

Here is an interesting quote from the Fifth edition of that same publication: "A psychic that has long been almost so standard a part of the repertoire that it is thought hardly worth using anymore is the 1♠ butt in over an opponent's takeout double of partner's 1♥ opening." ACBL's Encyclopedia of Bridge p. 354 These things change over time. It was common, routine, almost required, to make some psyches in 1938. I have a book that gives something like xxx Qxxx Jx xxxx as a mandatory 1H opening bid because if you pass partner will know you are not bust!