Explaining 1M - 4M

[andych]

Playing precision, I play a style that 1M - 4M could be wide range.

Responder may have a weak hand with just 5 card support.

Responder may also have a descent hand and just decided to simply blast.

 

Opps more often than not want us to explain if it is premptive or not, point range, etc. Our explanation is 'To play' which the opps usually are not satisfied.

 

Is 'To play' valid explanation?

 

BTW there are always opps asking for explation of 3NT bid/5m bid in various sequence which is also simply 'to play'.

 

Is 'To play' valid explanation generally?

 

:) :lol:

[inquiry]

To play is not a valid explaination, you could have said "non-forcing" or "game forcing" and those would not help.

 

Describe as "preempt or strong no slam interest", or

"wk to 14 pts, signoff", or similar.

[hrothgar]

I really hate it when the opponents ask these sorts of questions...

 

There are a thousand and one different hands that responder could concievably hold. No matter how many different hand types you enumerate, there's a damn good chance that partner has one of the ones you missed.

 

Many jurisdictions have rules that require players to be familiar with a wide variety of different bidding styles. I'd certainly consider a 1M - 4M Precision auction normal enough that players should understand it.

 

So long as you provide a good disclosure of your 1M opening, I see nothing wrong with describing 4M as "to play"...

[Finch]

I really hate the answer "to play". It always sounds as if you are just trying to be awkward. Say something like "partner is not expected to bid, could be anything from a pre-empt to a good hand". This means much pretty much exactly the same as "to play" but it comes over as helpful, rather than obstructive.

[hotShot]

1M-4M means the same in almost every at least half way natural system.

 

It is usually not a invitation to slam. It is non forcing and it shows a limited hand with "minimum opening strength" (or less) , (usually good) trump support and often distributional strength (to compensate the missing HCP).

 

Playing precision this is even more obvious , because 1M is limited.

Edited July 22, 2006 by hotShot

[cherdano]

1M-4M means the same in almost every at least half way natural system.

 

It is usually not a invitation to slam. It is non forcing and it shows a limited hand with minimum opening strength (or less) , (usually good) trump support and often distributional strength (to compensate the missing HCP).

 

Playing precision this is even more obvious , because 1M is limited.

Huh? 1M-4M certainly means something completely different in Precision than in a standard system.

 

By the way, the crucial test whether you really have no agreement beyond "to play" comes when opponents bid over 4M. In a standard system, opener may often compete to 5M, because responder has promised a weak shapely hand with typically 5 trumps. In a precision system, opener can almost never compete to 5M (unless with a double if you have good agreements).

 

Arend

[hotShot]

Huh? 1M-4M certainly means something completely different in Precision than in a standard system.

I like your Monty Python attitude, but 4M shows fit and the intention to play 4M in both cases. So please enlighten me where it is completly different.

 

By the way, the crucial test whether you really have no agreement beyond "to play" comes when opponents bid over 4M. In a standard system, opener may often compete to 5M, because responder has promised a weak shapely hand with typically 5 trumps. In a precision system, opener can almost never compete to 5M (unless with a double if you have good agreements).

 

Arend

[Free]

1M-4M means the same in almost every at least half way natural system.

Not true: 1M-4M is usually played weak, since with good hands you'll take the slow road.

 

It is usually not a invitation to slam.

That is correct.

 

It is non forcing and it shows a limited hand with minimum opening strength (or less) , (usually good) trump support and often distributional strength (to compensate the missing HCP).

Not true: with opening strength in natural systems, you shouldn't support to 4-level. What is partner expected to do with a strong hand? Blacky isn't everything you know. That's why many players use 2NT to show inv+ hands with support, so 1M-4M in natural is weak! In precision, it can be a lot stronger!

 

Playing precision this is even more obvious , because 1M is limited.

Playing precision, you can do it as a sacrifice with 0HCP. I've done it in the past with success: my LHO had 15HCP, and was V while we were NV. Bidding was at 4S when he had to come in, so he passed. They had 3NT laydown, I went -2 in a 4-4 fit tnx to great distributions and matching hands.

 

 

This auction is one of the strengths of precision: it's pressure bidding, without a clear picture of responder's hand. In natural, you don't have this option.

[kenberg]

Here is what I hope for, if opponents are playing precision:

 

Either they pre-alert, as many do, that they play precision, or, when the auction goes 1M-4M then they alert and explain that since 1M was a limited opening, the bid of 4M is not necessarily the classic hand of five trumps and a stiff.

 

If you are playing against relatively inexperinced players, the pre-alert of "we play precision" probably does not suffice.

 

As usual, I am ignorant of the governing laws, but this seems like common sense case of disclosure of methods.

[inquiry]

Many jurisdictions have rules that require players to be familiar with a wide variety of different bidding styles. I'd certainly consider a 1M - 4M Precision auction normal enough that players should understand it.

 

So long as you provide a good disclosure of your 1M opening, I see nothing wrong with describing 4M as "to play"...

On BBO we really don't care that you think 1M-4M is normal enough that players should understand it. Please go back and re-read the rules of the site in the library if you have a problem with the concept that full disclosure of partnership agreement is necessary when asked about a bid.

 

To repy "to play" or "you should know precision" is not only not helpful, it is antagonist at a time when it is not necessary. It takes less time to give a full desciption of the hand in a short phrase than to create a potential scene.

 

Look, 1H-4H does not require an alert, but your opponents have a right to know what your agreement is. Playing precision, your agreement is 4H is anything from a preempt to an opening hand with no slam ambitions opposite a limited opening bid. Tell them. "to play" does not come close to full disclosure. On line, using FD, you can add that to your 1M-4M decription.

[hrothgar]

Many jurisdictions have rules that require players to be familiar with a wide variety of different bidding styles.  I'd certainly consider a 1M - 4M Precision auction normal enough that players should understand it. 

 

So long as you provide a good disclosure of your 1M opening, I see nothing wrong with describing 4M as "to play"...

On BBO we really don't care that you think 1M-4M is normal enough that players should understand it. Please go back and re-read the rules of the site in the library if you have a problem with the concept that full disclosure of partnership agreement is necessary when asked about a bid.

 

To repy "to play" or "you should know precision" is not only not helpful, it is antagonist at a time when it is not necessary. It takes less time to give a full desciption of the hand in a short phrase than to create a potential scene.

 

Look, 1H-4H does not require an alert, but your opponents have a right to know what your agreement is. Playing precision, your agreement is 4H is anything from a preempt to an opening hand with no slam ambitions opposite a limited opening bid. Tell them. "to play" does not come close to full disclosure. On line, using FD, you can add that to your 1M-4M decription.

Funny, I seeing things complete different:

 

My Full Disclosure Files are quite detailed. That's the glory of FD. I can make a one time investment of time/effort and provide folks with comprehensive description of a bid. For example, my MOSCITO convention card describes the auction 1♥ - (P) - 4♠ as follows:

 

Signoff Disposition: Spades

3+ Spades

"To Play": Could be a preemptive raise. Could be a balanced game force. If balance you'll probably get to find out which hand type I have.

 

in a similar fashion

 

The auction 1♥ - (P) - 3N is describes as

 

Non-forcing Disposition: Spades / Notrump

"To play": Typically shows values for 3NT. Occasionally a preemptive Spade raise.

 

In contrast, if I'm playing in a pickup partnership without any kind of FD available, I'm gonna provide a short and succient answer. Anyone with any real experience knows what "To Play" means. If they don't know, they need to learn. Hopefully this experience will drill it into their heads.

 

Frances is probably right when she suggests that stating "to play" isn't the most social way to describe the methods. However, most regulatory structure don't mandate being a nice person. (There are many regulations that ban players from being impolite or rude, however, this very different that requiring people to be happy friendly outgoing people persons)

[inquiry]

However, most regulatory structure don't mandate being a nice person. (There are many regulations that ban players from being impolite or rude, however, this very different that requiring people to be happy friendly outgoing people persons)

Welll there are regulations on BBO. The rules to the site clearly state...

 

"If an opponent asks you for the meaning of one of your bids, you are expected to answer thenm politely, even if you think the answer if obvious."

 

It further states:

"It is against laws and spirit o fthe ggame of bridge to conceal information about your partnership agreements from your opponents"

 

For them to ask, means they don't know your agreements, you do. And on BBO you must comply with the request in a useful and polite manner. No wonder you have trouble with the ACBL with this attitude of you "I don't have to be polite." Guess what, "Be polite" is the main rule on BBO. So in fact, you do, at least on the BBO.

[hrothgar]

However, most regulatory structure don't mandate being a nice person.  (There are many regulations that ban players from being impolite or rude, however, this very different that requiring people to be happy friendly outgoing people persons)

Welll there are regulations on BBO. The rules to the site clearly state...

 

"If an opponent asks you for the meaning of one of your bids, you are expected to answer thenm politely, even if you think the answer if obvious."

 

It further states:

"It is against laws and spirit o fthe ggame of bridge to conceal information about your partnership agreements from your opponents"

 

For them to ask, means they don't know your agreements, you do. And on BBO you must comply with the request in a useful and polite manner. No wonder you have trouble with the ACBL with this attitude of you "I don't have to be polite." Guess what, "Be polite" is the main rule on BBO. So in fact, you do, at least on the BBO.

I don't consider "To play" to be impolite

[hrothgar]

For them to ask, means they don't know your agreements, you do. And on BBO you must comply with the request in a useful and polite manner. No wonder you have trouble with the ACBL with this attitude of you "I don't have to be polite."

My issues with the ACBL are related to system regulations, not their zero-teolerance policies or issues related to personal decorum...

 

If you want to be talking about personal decorum, we might want to start a discussion whether it is appropriate for BBO Yellows/Forum moderators to pull passive aggressive bullcrap on the forums and deliberately instigate trouble.

 

I readily admit, that my behaviour is far from perfect. Then again, I don't place myself in the limelight as a representative of the site. Indeed a few years back when you approached me about being a moderator on the forums I turned the opportunity down, stating that I didn't think that I had the right personality to act in such a capacity.

 

Maybe you might want to consider if you're developing some personal issues...

[Free]

ow boy here we go again :P

[Rain]

I think "to play" is valid if your opponents accept that explanation. If they ask for further explanation please give more details.

 

I personally just roll my eyes when people write "to play" as explanation, yet I've been guilty of the same. Mostly because there are people who ask you what every other bid means. And I'm like www.bridgebase.com/forums/rollseye.gif

[kenberg]

The original question was "Is 'to play' acceptable". Imo, it sometimes is, sometimes isn't. I play in ACBL land, and no doubt that affects my views. As I see it, someone who sits down at the bridge table, and not in some section with severe upper limits on masterpoints, is expected to know generally how natural bidding is done. If 1S-pass-2C is played as non-forcing (I once played against a pair who played this) they are expected to know this is different than how the game is usually played. They need to inform the opponents, and probably just "to play" is inadequate. An extreme example, I know. Now to 1M-pass-4M. People who play in the "usual way" do not respond 4M if they have, say, a 14 count and a flat hand. Their hcps are limited, and they have shape. An opponent who understands "usual bridge" expects this unless told otherwise. I realize there are people who might bid 4M on a flat 14 even though their partners may have 19, but this is, at least, odd. Precision players can do it because after 1M they know that their partner does not have 19. They know this, their opponents do not. So you tell them. "To play" doesn't do it.

 

There are other cases where "To play" seems right. 1C-(1H)-1S-(3H)-3NT. What's 3NT? If you have some specific agreement that's great, and then you disclose it. But in any partnership I have, opener hopes to make 9 tricks in NT and hopes 12 tricks are not available in, say, clubs. Maybe he has running clubs, maybe he has a big hand, who knows. He wants to play 3NT. The key point is that the opponents have as much reason to guess opener's hand as I do. There is nothing to explain.

 

I have learned to ask after the 1M-4M auction, and to read their card if the answer is not satisfactory. OK, but it wastes time. I usually have very little trouble with squabbles at the table, but if the opponents insist on evasiveness, I can be persistent. Eventually it all come out. It's just unpleasant.

[Flame]

I dont like the "to play" explanation, but if you give it the opponenets still have the right to ask again and you need to explain more. so tell them what you told us, any hand that want to play 4M, it can be weak, or a better hand that want to be in game but doesnt have slam interest. You might think "To play" says it all, true it says it all to you and to me, but to someone who never seen something like that it doesnt. Same as when you bid 2D-P-2S where 2D is multy and 2S is p/c, i think the opponenets have the right to know that u usually have good hearts for this bid, yes its common sense, but its a fact that somoene who never played multy might just not get it and he deserve to know.

[Flame]

Anyone with any real experience knows what "To Play" means.  If they don't know, they need to learn.  Hopefully this experience will drill it into their heads.

This is wrong, you say that if they dont know they need to learn, but the rules of bridge say you need to tell them and dont have the right to punish them for not knowing. You say that ppl with real expirence will know in other words you admite that some ppl without real expirience will not know and this is exactly why you must tell them because unless you do that you playing unfair bridge.

[mgoetze]

The original question was "Is 'to play' acceptable". Imo, it sometimes is, sometimes isn't. I play in ACBL land, and no doubt that affects my views. As I see it, someone who sits down at the bridge table, and not in some section with severe upper limits on masterpoints, is expected to know generally how natural bidding is done. If 1S-pass-2C is played as non-forcing (I once played against a pair who played this) they are expected to know this is different than how the game is usually played. They need to inform the opponents, and probably just "to play" is inadequate. An extreme example, I know. Now to 1M-pass-4M. People who play in the "usual way" do not respond 4M if they have, say, a 14 count and a flat hand. Their hcps are limited, and they have shape. An opponent who understands "usual bridge" expects this unless told otherwise.

So you understand "usual bridge". Great. But what gives you the right to assume that your opponents play it? Nothing. If you're too lazy to even find out what basic system your opponents are playing, then you deserve whatever bad result you may get.

 

Anyway, you shouldn't be asking about the 4M bid. You should be asking to have the auction explained to you. Then you will get something like "1♥ showed 5 or more hearts with 10-15 points, and 4♥ was a signoff.", and if you're still assuming that the 4♥ bidder does this on exactly the same hands you do, playing 1♥ as 12-21 points (or, for that matter, 12-18 points with only 4+ hearts, which is probably "usual bridge" in England), then that is entirely your problem and not the opponents'.

[1eyedjack]

"To play" may be an adequate explanation if it is the only sequence available to you that allows you to express that intention. However, you may have two (or more) ways of raising to 4M, none of which show slam interest but are distinguished to enable both partners to assist in evaluating a subsequent contested auction. In such cases, the description "to play" would be insufficient.

 

You may take the view that raising a precision 1M to 4M on either a bust with 5 card support or a 14 count with 3 card support is winning strategy. I will not argue the point. You may be right. Certainly it makes intervention more risky. But it also adds to the risk of your side misjudging when the opponents accept that risk and compete.

 

The problem is it smacks of an attempt at sophisticated concealment of methods. If you have an agreement that it could be on either hand type, why would you not want to say so? I remember an opponent opening precision 1D against me and the explanation on enquiry included "could be prepared". When I asked for clarification it transpired that it could be on a void. He really didn't want me to know that.

[cherdano]

On Vuegraph, we saw the precision auction 1C-1D-3N. According to the operator, it was explained as "This is the end of the auction. He could have anything." That explanation sounds a lot more helpful than "to play"; still, here "to play" is a lot more adequate than after 1M-4M, since it will really end the auction (opps won't interfere).

 

Btw, I think the auction 1M-4M is a problem in reality, i.e. this isn't just a theoretical discussion. Sit down against random intermediates on BBO, and try to ask them what it means. They will say "to play", and for some it will mean any hand with 5 trumps and up to 10 hcp, others will only bid it with some shape and exactly one feature, others will bid it also with a balanced 14 hcp hand. And every one of them won't even be aware that their style isn't the unique normal one (that can be described by "to play").

 

I think the same is true on a different, more subtle, level for most people who would explain 1M-4M as "to play". And unlike, say, 3C-3N, these are relevant agreements, since opener will have a say if the auction gets competitive.

 

Arend

[blackshoe]

When you hear an auction you are sure you understand, what do you know? You have a fair idea, at least, of what each opponent has in his hand. When you hear an auction you don't understand, or are not sure you understand, what do you want to know? You want to know what each opponent has in his hand. B)

 

Law 20 tells us that the right way to ask questions is to ask first about the entire auction. The alert procedure allows us to circumvent that law, but it doesn't require us to do so. So ask about the entire auction. Now, in explaining, Law 75C requires us to "disclose all special information conveyed to [us] through partnership agreement or partnership experience", but we "need not disclose inferences drawn from [our] general knowledge and experience". What constitutes general knowledge and experience can be difficult to know; err on the side of disclosure. In the case of a Precision 1M-4M auction, and considering what the questioner wants to know (see first paragraph) the explanation should be something like "Opener holds 5 or more hearts and 10-15 HCP, and will not hold some 15 HCP hands which he would evaluate as strong enough to open 1 club. Responder holds one of two hand types, either a typical standard weak hand with 5 or more spades and fewer than 10 points, or any hand with 4 or more trumps, opening bid values, and no slam interest". I think that about covers it.

 

In some auctions, many people will answer by giving the rote meaning of conventional bids - which complies with the letter of the law (describe your agreed meanings) but seems to me to be more a desciption of their bidding system than a description of what partner has in his hand. I would prefer to hear the latter - if I want to know their bidding system I really should be asking about that after the round - or after the game. Consider, for example, a Stayman auction. If you ask about the auction, opener will at some point say "2 clubs was Stayman". That's not adequate disclosure ("explaining" by naming a convention is never adequate disclosure). He might say, hopefully would say if pressed, "2 clubs asks for a four card major". That is in fact a complete explanation of the meaning of the call. However, the later auction will tell opener more about responder's hand - if it goes 1NT-2C-2H-2S-2NT-P or 1NT-2C-2H-2NT, and they're playing four suit transfers, the first auction is likely to show a balanced invitational hand with 4 spades and fewer than 4 hearts, while the second will deny 4 spades and 4 hearts. So if the auction gets that far, you should disclose whichever is appropriate.

 

The bottom line is this: put yourself in the asker's shoes, and assume you know nothing about your system. What would you want to know in that case? Whatever it is, tell your opponents that.

 

BTW, if an opponent asks for an explanation of the auction, do not give him a review of the bidding - that's not what he requested, and besides, he can see the bidding right there in front of him. My usual response to this response to my "please explain your auction" is a polite "Thank you. Please explain your auction." Then I (or the TD) usually have to explain to the opponents their obligations under the laws. I really hate that. :(

 

Once, I asked for an explanation of opponents' auction. They called the director. She asked me "which call do you want to know about?" So even directors need to review law 20 once in a while. :blink:

[kenberg]

The original question was "Is 'to play' acceptable". Imo, it sometimes is, sometimes isn't. I play in ACBL land, and no doubt that affects my views. As I see it, someone who sits down at the bridge table, and not in some section with severe upper limits on masterpoints, is expected to know generally how natural bidding is done.  If 1S-pass-2C is played as non-forcing (I once played against a pair who played this) they are expected to know this is different than how the game is usually played. They need to inform the opponents, and probably just "to play" is inadequate. An extreme example, I know. Now to 1M-pass-4M. People who play in the "usual way" do not respond 4M if they have, say, a 14 count and a flat hand. Their hcps are limited, and they have shape. An opponent who understands "usual bridge" expects this unless told otherwise.

So you understand "usual bridge". Great. But what gives you the right to assume that your opponents play it? Nothing. If you're too lazy to even find out what basic system your opponents are playing, then you deserve whatever bad result you may get.

 

Anyway, you shouldn't be asking about the 4M bid. You should be asking to have the auction explained to you. Then you will get something like "1♥ showed 5 or more hearts with 10-15 points, and 4♥ was a signoff.", and if you're still assuming that the 4♥ bidder does this on exactly the same hands you do, playing 1♥ as 12-21 points (or, for that matter, 12-18 points with only 4+ hearts, which is probably "usual bridge" in England), then that is entirely your problem and not the opponents'.

Lazy? Do we have to get into name calling?

 

Now as to what gives me the right to assume that an unalerted auction is proceding in accordance with "usual bridge". It seems to me that this is exactly the purpose of the alert system. I suppose after the auction begins 1S-pass-2C I could grab their card, study it, and see if perhaps 1S is a transfer to clubs, or 2C showed hearts, or some such. But I assume that 1S shows spades, 2C shows at least some clubs and some decent level of strength, and so on. This is not a far-fetched example. Some 2/1 players play that over 1S, the bid of 2NT is Jacoby and that 2D and 2H each show five cards. With 2-4-4-3 distribution, and perhaps with 3-4-4-2 distribution, they bid 2C (or at least some do). Yes I expect an alert, even if this agreement is on their card. Lacking an alert, I expect the 2C bid to suggest clubs might be a reasonable strain in which to play the hand. Since I wasn't born yesterday, I know I won't always get that alert and so I may well ask about the auction before I lead. I'm not lazy, and I like to think I am not naive either. Although sometimes I wonder.

 

No doubt the alert procedure is in need of some clear philosophical exposition, particularly the self-alerts for on-line play, and I welcome any such discussion. My view is that in bridge the opponents are supposed to be told of your general methods, and to this end it should be their resonsibilty to have some idea of the "usual meanings" of bids, and it should be the bidder's responsibility to alert opponents to deviations from "usual bidding". Of course "usual bidding" is clearer in some cases than in others. I am not in charge of the bridge world, and I hope those who are will clarify whether this understanding of the alert system is about right.

 

ken

[Winstonm]

Regardless of alerts, an opponent is entitiled to an explanation of a bid if he or she asks. Perhaps simply say, "Wide range from 5-14 (or whatever it is) but no slam interest."

 

To say, "To play" is somewhat similar when asked what does 1N opening mean to reply "A NT hand." It is concealing rather than disclosing, IMO.

 

Opponents have to right to known agreements, and not everyone who plays precision plays 1M-4M the same way - I don't play precision with anyone at the moment, but even in the 2/1 system I use I have 2 different ways to bid to 4S and each is a slightly different hand - one, though weakish expects to make while the direct blast is totally preemptive. Knowing the difference ways I could bid this hand, is saying "To play" sufficient explanation to you?