indy alert

[olegru]

Um, because that's what you have to do? :)

Why?

Could you point out to the law from the Bridge Code, which asks me to explain my bids in Indi? We should not create laws by ourself we already have The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge are designed to define correct procedure.

Lets read it.

LAW 75 - PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS

A. Special Partnership Agreements

Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents

What should I alert? - Special Partnership Agreements.

Should I alert anything else? - Not.

Do I have any special Partnership Agreements in indi with accident partner? - I believe not.

Of couse untill we actualy agreed something.

Opponents can read my partners profile as good as me and guess as good as me. Even if partner put 4-way transfer (for example) in his profile he doesn't know I read it and agreed it. We do not have agreement to play 4-way transfer untill I told my partner something like "Your profile is OK."

Unless I have any special information about this particular partner I do not have to alert anything just because bridge law doesn't ask me to do it.

[barmar]

See epeeist's post above, I think he explains it well. Suppose you get paired up with an expert partner, and have a novice as an opponent. You effectively have a number of implicit special agreements with this partner, because you expect him to recognize expert treatments that the novice doesn't know about. As a simple example, I'd expect most experts to recognize splinters, but from the perspective of a novice opponent this would be a "special partnership agreement", so I would alert this bid.

[olegru]

Lets see.

Indi, my partner (expert in profile opened 1NT). Should I alert my 2NT bid?

It could be natural invitation, transfer to diamonds or minor stayman. I have no ideas how my partner will understand it.

I hope he will take it as natural. Should I alert?

I hope he will take it as a transfer to diamond. Should I alert?

If your answer NO in the first time and YES in second it can't be correct.

We have excactly the same ageements (none). It is imposable to have a different procedure depanding upon actual hand.

[epeeist]

Lets see.

Indi, my partner (expert in profile opened 1NT). Should I alert my 2NT bid?

It could be natural invitation, transfer to diamonds or minor stayman. I have no ideas how my partner will understand it.

I hope he will take it as natural. Should I alert?

I hope he will take it as a transfer to diamond. Should I alert?

If your answer NO in the first time and YES in second it can't be correct.

We have excactly the same ageements (none). It is imposable to have a different procedure depanding upon actual hand.

You suggest that if your p, an expert (I'll assume you mean a "real" expert) opens 1NT and you bid 2NT, you genuinely have no idea what your partner will think it means. I consider that highly, highly unlikely. I think that given those premises you suggest -- expert partner opening 1NT -- that you will EXPECT your partner to understand your 2NT response in a certain way. And that's how you should explain it if asked (or, if the way you expect p to understand it, makes it alertable, alert it).

 

Of course, you can't know they'll understand, but you will expect they will. Even with a regular partner, I've seen vugraph with world-class players where a player's partner misunderstood their bid. Does the fact that misunderstanding is possible mean no alerts or explanations need be made?

 

I'll note in passing that since BBO, unlike face-to-face bridge, is self-alerting, you have to read the Laws with that in mind.

 

Returning to your example, if you honestly have no clue what your partner will understand a 2NT response as meaning, why did you bid it? If I were in the situation where I expected p would be clueless as to what my 2NT bid meant, I'd likely either pass 1NT or jump to 3NT.

 

Now, how you expect your partner to understand it may depend on various things -- tournament (e.g. to state the obvious, a "sayc only" tournament or "wj2000 only" tournament or whatever), vulnerability, partner's flag and profile notes, etc. But given all that, it strains credulity to suggest that in the sequence 1NT - 2NT you have absolutely zero clue what your partner will think your 2NT bid meant.

 

I'll concede there are certainly bids you could make with no implicit agreement. E.g. 1NT - 7 diamonds, "no agreement" is likely the correct explanation. But 1NT - 2NT "no agreement" with an expert partner?! :lol:

 

If my partner opens 1NT and I respond 2NT, I expect my p to understand it a certain way. Most likely, would be something like "invitational, bid 3NT if you have a good hand". It would actually usually be more specific, e.g. if my p has "sayc" in his or her profile, since I do too, even if bidding with my p not discussed at all, the implicitly agreed meaning of my 2NT bid is 8-9 high card points, balanced hand. And if that's how I expect p to understand it, that's how I should explain it if opponents ask.

 

Yes, I totally agree that some bids are genuinely "no agreement". But too many players seem to think that because they've never had a 20-minute discussion with their partner about bidding, that they're allowed to state "no agreement" all the time.

[jillybean]

How do you recognize a “real” expert in this self-rated environment? please tell B) How do you know which system you are playing if both sayc and wj are listed on your profiles, or none listed at all. How to you know that your partner will interpret a bid a specific way if you have never discussed the auction.

 

You can’t know any of this unless you have discussed it and therefore have a partnership agreement. You must make the best guess with whatever information is available to you, this same information is available to the opps.

 

Problems arise not in standard auctions but in auctions like this one. If you alert 2C here as natural or weak or what ever you call it your opps have far more information than your partner.

 

If the laws were changed to require an explanation stating your understanding of the bid all is well and fine but the laws state partnership agreements must be disclosed, not what you think the bid should mean.

 

Could the opps ask what does this bid mean in systemx, and would you be required to answer? I don’t know.

 

jb

[olegru]

You suggest that if your p, an expert (I'll assume you mean a "real" expert)

I didn't say it B)

I just said he put expert in his profile - I'd never played with him before and have no clue is he a real expert or not. Sorry, it is happened everyday in INDI. You assumption is way too strong.

 

opens 1NT and you bid 2NT, you genuinely have no idea what your partner will think it means. I consider that highly, highly unlikely. I think that given those premises you suggest -- expert partner opening 1NT -- that you will EXPECT your partner to understand your 2NT response in a certain way.

I wish you are correct here but unfortunetly can't buy it. If my partner is novice I have much better chanses to know how he will understand 2NT bid, then i partner-expert case. Experts know too many conventions :blink:

And that's how you should explain it if asked (or, if the way you expect p to understand it, makes it alertable, alert it).

You right, I can explain something like: "My bid could be natural invitation, minor stayman with diamonds better when clubs or transfer to diamond week or strong."

It is how I expect my partner to understand it. I shouldn't say how I hope he will understand me. I shouldn't say anything about my hand. I should say only our ageements. But we do not have any other agreements. I just hope to be on the same wavelenght. I hope to escape if we will not. Should I alert if one of possable meaning of my bid is alertable? Problem is - almost any my bid will be alertable. I should alert 1NT respons after my partner 1 major opening because I have no clue is it forsing or not. I have to alert 2NT after 1 major from Partner, because expert Partner could decide it is Jacoby. I should alert 2 clubs overcall because in some systems it denied 4 cards major. No matter what I mean I should alert everithing. It just doesn't make sence. And (what is more important) it is not required by the bridge laws. Code asks us to alert opponents about our special agreements. No agreements - no alerts.

Even with a regular partner, I've seen vugraph with world-class players where a player's partner misunderstood their bid.

It is complitely different case. Regular partnership must have agreements. They must alert about they agreements. Sometimes they forget agreements. It their problems - not opponents.

 

Does the fact that misunderstanding is possible mean no alerts or explanations need be made?

Unerstanding or misunderstanding have nothing to do with obligation to alert. Agreement is the base. Agreements must be alerted.

 

I'll note in passing that since BBO, unlike face-to-face bridge, is self-alerting, you have to read the Laws with that in mind.

It is correct. We have to read the Laws. Even more. If we are playing online we supposed to know special Laws of online bridge http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files...f%20Changes.pdf

But if there is no law - we shouldn't create it by ourself. Untill someone shows me Law which requres me to alert bids without special partnership agreement I don't think I must do it.

 

Returning to your example, if you honestly have no clue what your partner will understand a 2NT response as meaning, why did you bid it? If I were in the situation where I expected p would be clueless as to what my 2NT bid meant, I'd likely either pass 1NT or jump to 3NT.

 

Unfortunatly sometimes you have no choce. For example, all vulnerable, you hold

♠ xx

♥ xx

♦ Jxxxxxx

♣ xx

 

What would you bid?

I do have absolutely zero clue what my partner will think my 2NT bid mean, but I still think I will be able to reach a reasonable contract after this bid. No alway, but I believe odds for me.

If we will be on the same wavelenght I would pass 3♦ responce or convert 3♣ to 3♦. If partner accept my "invitational" bid - I would bid 4♦ and expert-partner have a good chanses to figure out what is going on. Even if he will pass ny 2NT I still have chances to get a good score if opponents will continue or if they will have game by their own.

At least I can think of a bid which give me a better chanses.

 

Sure I will alert my 2NT bid if I will make it again with same partner, because now he has much better chanses to guess correctly.

 

I see your point.

There are two different scenario.

First scenario - somehow you believe you have an implicit partnership agreement even in Indi. Example - you said something like your profile, pard. In this case You have to alert, I agree.

Second scenario - you have no reasons to expect you have an agreement, but you still hope your partner will be on the same wavelenght with you. You do not have an agreement and obligations to alert.

[mycroft]

Again I repeat what I said at the beginning - Alerts, as well as convention regulations (and whether to allow psychic conventional calls) are up to the SO - which is the tourney TD in most cases here on BBO.

 

If "in accordance with the SO's regulations" means don't say nuttin' unless asked (but then be free and full, to the best of your ability), then it does. If, like McBruce, you enforce a single system, then everyone is expected to know as much as the rest what bids mean - and if you are slipping in an extra agreement with this partner, out you go.

 

If "all conventional calls should be alerted and self-explained, as well as natural calls that could be unexpected", well, then, you'd better do that, as well.

 

Olegru has picked an ingenious call in a "standard" system - 1NT-2NT. Yes, that's a crapshoot, and partner is on the guess. However, if I am playing with somebody with a bunch of stars and stripes, or a big maple leaf in the profile, and I bid 2H over his 1NT, it ain't no crapshoot. If I'm playing against a Precision pair from Hong Kong, it's special knowledge within our partnership (we're both ACBLers) that they don't have - at club level, "everybody" probably plays Precision with two-way Stayman - and "No agreement" is both incomplete and inaccurate. "No agreement, but 90% of players in our two countries play this as a transfer" is complete.

 

Yeah, in a world of self-explanation, you're describing your hand - especially if partner *doesn't* guess right - but that's the nature of the beast.

 

I believe there are a lot more calls that fall in my category of "I'm confident partner will get this" than fall in the "I hope he plays this" (splinters, for instance, or the same kind of Help Suit Game Tries) or the "let's hope partner guesses right" (2NT either invitational or diamonds) categories. And treating them all as "no agreement" is disingeneous, at best.

 

"No agreement, but..." is fine. I guess what I'm saying is that Olegru's "first scenario" comes up an awful lot more than some people want to admit - just seeing the flag would do it for me, most of the time.

 

Michael.

[barmar]

I think the problem is that this section of the Laws was simply not written to address individual events well. There seems to be an implicit assumption that partnerships will have made some effort to define their agreements.