Agreements vs actual hand

[sater1957]

According to the laws of bridge opponents are entitled to all your agreements, but you deviate as long as your partner does not know. Now in the nature of individual tournaments on BBO partner never knows anything. So why if I open a 1NT on 14 points does everyone at the table, including the TD(!), make nasty comments at me, as if I am some sort of cheat?

 

For some reason there seems to be a general idea that at BBO you have to tell everyone at the table what you have, instead of what you promise.

 

Could this be because of some online help at BBO, or is it just a different circle of players from the offline world?

 

Hans van Staveren

[paulg]

Hi Hans,

 

It's just a different circle, imo.

 

In the off-line world you generally commit a significant amount of time to playing a session of bridge. In the on-line world, that commitment is greatly reduced and combined with the attention span of a gnat.

 

So the levels of behaviour span a much wider range than normal. In a sense you should be grateful that they are kept indoors!

 

Over time you will build up a circle of friends and wider community. If you continue to play in individuals, then a thick skin is required!

 

Finally, directing these tournaments is a thankless task but many TDs are unqualified but happy to learn. Avoid the others!

 

Welcome aboard,

 

Paul

[sater1957]

I have been onboard for quite a while, so this is not knew. Just this morning it happened again, and the incredible indignation you run into when you explain that you do not have to alert when you deviate from your system gets to you every now and then.

 

I had a discussion with Fred Gitelman about adding a "no agreement" button to the question balloon, because that is probably 80% of the time the right answer. That might make the degree of acceptance of not getting an explanation to a bid larger.

 

But then, I have always been a dreamer....

 

Hans

[helene_t]

As a TD, I always chose the indy format so that I don't have to deal with allegations of insufficient disclosure. I write in the tourney description that you don't have to alert or explain anything unless you have made specific agreements with your p (on rare occasions partners will agree to play WJ).

 

I have noticed that participants often alert anyway, but I have never been called to a table because of strange bids or failure to provide disclocure.

 

Also, I must say, I very rarely run into problems as a player when I explain my calls as "no specific agreement", even when playing with regular partners. This is contrary to off-line bridge where opps often ask stupid questions and sometimes even make nasty remarks when I say that we don't have agreements about the meaning of a call.

 

In short, I think most players on BBO understand the alert rules and they tend to understand them better than the off-line opps I encounter. Which is what one would expect since BBO alert rules are simpler than offline rules.

[paulg]

I have noticed that participants often alert anyway, but I have never been called to a table because of strange bids or failure to provide disclocure.

I don't play many indys but often alert when I do.

 

"General bridge knowledge" of two exp/adv players, or even of players from the same country, can be significantly different from bridge knowledge for beginners or players from other areas and so is really a partnership understanding.

 

Glad to hear that others are alerting too.

 

Paul

[jtfanclub]

For some reason there seems to be a general idea that at BBO you have to tell everyone at the table what you have, instead of what you promise.

If that's the issue, then they're the problem.

 

If it's because you're ruining an indy by making strange, random bids which end up being strange, random results, well, I think they have a point.

 

And if you're trying to declare every da*n hand by bidding 1NT as early and often as possible, no matter what your points or shape, I hope they ban you. Your partner didn't join the indy to be dummy every hand while you open 1NT with 13-18 counts.

 

Want me to guess which one I think is the most likely?

[hotShot]

Many (if not most) BBO players come from some sort of "protected environment" where most of the people play some local standard. They think that what they are used to is the right way.

They don't take online bridge to serious and like to avoid problems. It's much easier if your hand fits your description.

Most of them don't even know the laws of bridge, they can't even imagine that there is something as an UI ....

[pbleighton]

If that's the issue, then they're the problem.

 

If it's because you're ruining an indy by making strange, random bids which end up being strange, random results, well, I think they have a point.

 

And if you're trying to declare every da*n hand by bidding 1NT as early and often as possible, no matter what your points or shape, I hope they ban you. Your partner didn't join the indy to be dummy every hand while you open 1NT with 13-18 counts.

 

Want me to guess which one I think is the most likely?

 

Oh, my.

 

Having a bad day?

 

Peter

[jtfanclub]

Oh, my.

 

Having a bad day?

 

Peter

Maybe.

 

But when somebody says that people are upset that he opens an overwide NT in indies, and it's clear he's done this again, and again, and again, my first thought is not "well, there's no reason to be alerting this, what's the problem". My first thought is, they're upset because he's a hand hog, which ruins the game for his partner, combining bad scores with having to be dummy every hand. His partner can't even leave like he would in the MBC.

 

Just in case I wasn't clear, I don't think should be banned from BBO- it's not like he's broken the rules of bridge. He should be banned from the Indy in question. Tournaments have the right to exclude anybody they don't like. Sounds clear from what he says that they don't like him. Problem solved.

[mike777]

"According to the laws of bridge opponents are entitled to all your agreements, but you deviate as long as your partner does not know. Now in the nature of individual tournaments on BBO partner never knows anything. So why if I open a 1NT on 14 points does everyone at the table, including the TD(!), make nasty comments at me, as if I am some sort of cheat?

 

For some reason there seems to be a general idea that at BBO you have to tell everyone at the table what you have, instead of what you promise.

 

Could this be because of some online help at BBO, or is it just a different circle of players from the offline world?

 

Hans van Staveren"

 

How can one play bridge when partner never knows anything? Anything is alot!

 

 

 

I do not understand. I have never played an Indie but is there not a required cc?

How do you play bridge with no I mean no partnership agreements and NO partnership understandings?

 

To repeat how does one play bridge with zero understandings of what bids mean?

If you have an understanding, then you need to tell the opponents, yes?

 

If opening 1nt is random how do you play bridge? If not then you have some understanding or agreement, yes?

[sater1957]

For some reason contributors to this thread seem to think I am a totally random bidder screwing up an individual.

 

This is far from the case, I bid very disciplined.

 

However, there are 14 point hands that "look" like a 1NT opener, just as there are 15 point hands that look like a balanced 13. Judgement at bridge is needed, at least as much as counting points.

 

I was just saying that I opened one of these 14 pointers with 1NT, and that the whole table and the TD seriously asked why I did not alert it.

 

What was I suppose to type in the explanation box? This is 15-17 but I have 14?

Or worse, should I lie, and say it was 12-14? Remember, partner will assume I have 15-17, and that is my intention, since my valuation of the hand say it is more 15 than 14.

 

Hans

[jtfanclub]

For some reason contributors to this thread seem to think I am a totally random bidder screwing up an individual.

 

This is far from the case, I bid very disciplined.

Then I apologize. The fact that you'd mentioned it coming up several times, and then coming up again, made me question you, as well as the fact that TDs normally don't get called for a one point deviation.

 

Since I don't know which tournament you are speaking of, there is little else I can say, except that alerts are unnecessary in any case for a one point occassional deviation under any circumstances.

[barmar]

I do not understand. I have never played an Indie but is there not a required cc?

How do you play bridge with no I mean no partnership agreements and NO partnership understandings?

 

To repeat how does one play bridge with zero understandings of what bids mean?

If you have an understanding, then you need to tell the opponents, yes?

The partnership agreements are usually very simple, such as one partner agreeing to play what's in the other partner's profile. This is often SAYC or 2/1 +/- some conventions.

[paulg]

I do not understand. I have never played an Indie but is there not a required cc?

How do you play bridge with no I mean no partnership agreements and NO partnership understandings?

 

To repeat how does one play bridge with zero understandings of what bids mean?

If you have an understanding, then you need to tell the opponents, yes?

 

If opening 1nt is random how do you play bridge? If not then you have some understanding or agreement, yes?

The majority of bridge players know, perhaps implicitly, that the majority of bridge players in the world play 5-card majors with a strong 1NT, Stayman and transfers with standard carding. Intermediate and higher tend to play Michaels. It's probably truer to say that those who play this don't care what the rest play, and the others know that they are in a minority position :)

 

So when you do not have a common language or partner is uncommunicative, you make calls that follow this very basic system. What more do you need to play?

 

Paul

[mike777]

I do not understand. I have never played an Indie but is there not a required cc?

How do you play bridge with no I mean no partnership agreements and NO partnership understandings?

 

To repeat how does one play bridge with zero understandings of what bids mean?

If you have an understanding, then you need to tell the opponents, yes?

 

If opening 1nt is random how do you play bridge? If not then you have some understanding or agreement, yes?

The majority of bridge players know, perhaps implicitly, that the majority of bridge players in the world play 5-card majors with a strong 1NT, Stayman and transfers with standard carding. Intermediate and higher tend to play Michaels. It's probably truer to say that those who play this don't care what the rest play, and the others know that they are in a minority position ;)

 

So when you do not have a common language or partner is uncommunicative, you make calls that follow this very basic system. What more do you need to play?

 

Paul

sounds like an understanding to me, so you agree with me 100% I see. :D

So when an opponent asks you what your understandings are you cannot say none. lol.

 

btw I could not disagree with your last comment stronger, what more do you need, a heck of alot assuming you are playing against bridge players.

[paulg]

I do not understand. I have never played an Indie but is there not a required cc?

How do you play bridge with no I mean no partnership agreements and NO partnership understandings?

 

To repeat how does one play bridge with zero understandings of what bids mean?

If you have an understanding, then you need to tell the opponents, yes?

 

If opening 1nt is random how do you play bridge? If not then you have some understanding or agreement, yes?

The majority of bridge players know, perhaps implicitly, that the majority of bridge players in the world play 5-card majors with a strong 1NT, Stayman and transfers with standard carding. Intermediate and higher tend to play Michaels. It's probably truer to say that those who play this don't care what the rest play, and the others know that they are in a minority position :P

 

So when you do not have a common language or partner is uncommunicative, you make calls that follow this very basic system. What more do you need to play?

 

Paul

sounds like an understanding to me, so you agree with me 100% I see. :)

So when an opponent asks you what your understandings are you cannot say none. lol.

It's an assumption not an agreement. Unless playing beginners I would say it is general bridge knowledge and, technically, not alertable. In practice I alert all of my conventional calls anyhow.

 

btw I could not disagree with your last comment stronger, what more do you need, a heck of a lot assuming you are playing against bridge players.

I do not believe that conventions and detailed agreements are necessary for short-term partnerships. Good judgement is worth significantly more at all levels of the game.

 

If I were a decent teacher then I'd rid the beginners/intermediates lounge of almost all conventions and get them to develop more basic skills. Perhaps then we'd see a reduction in the number of conventions per profile and they'd play a small number of conventions properly instead of abusing a large number.

 

Naturally I play a complex system in my long-term partnerships but we spend a lot of time on this.

 

Paul

[Codo]

Of course it is absolute ethical to upgrade a 14 HCP hand to a 15-17 NT. There is no discussion about this fact.

 

So maybe you run into one of two problems:

 

1. A lot players do not know the bridge rules well. And they are not able to reevaluate their hand, they just stick to the point count. This happens, but a good TD should be better then this and help you against their wrong claims. But there are TDs who are simply not good. This happens, put this TD in your enemy list and play tournaments with other directors.

 

2. There are far too many people playing indis, who dislike their pd to be declarer. They do open any possible hand with 1 NT. They never raise your major and prefer to bid NT with the slightest excuse. So you may simply met some players who are upset about this behaviour and believe that your hand evaluation was just ment to make pd dummy. They had been too sensible about this issue.

 

But anyway, these things happened to me, but they are not the norm. Most players are nice and gentle anyway and most TD are able to follow the rules.

[sater1957]

OK, when I say this happened several times, I actually meant something slightly different, apologies.

 

What I meant is that in general in individuals you have only general agreements, no specifics, so that if some complex bidding sequence you are stuck, you try a bid you hope partner understands. Now you get a question about what the bid means.

 

Possibility one: you tell exactly what you hope partner understands, basically you tell your holding.

 

Possibility two: you tell the truth, no understanding.

 

The laws of bridge tell you to do number two, but the "majority" of BBO players expect you to do number one.

 

This same expectation leads players to believe you have to alert when your bid deviates from the "system".

 

Anyhow, I'll live with it, but I still think the explanation balloon should have a "no agreement" button.

 

Hans

[mike777]

let's back up a second.

 

You opened 1nt, yes?

Did you announce your assumed understanding of the range?

If not, when asked did you announce your assumed understanding of the range?

If you said no agreement or understanding, then I agree on calling the director.

You do have some understanding of what 1nt is on some level.

 

How hard is it to just say

15-17 or

around 15-17 or

very often 15-17?

[Echognome]

It's an assumption not an agreement. Unless playing beginners I would say it is general bridge knowledge and, technically, not alertable. In practice I alert all of my conventional calls anyhow.

Ok. So then I will ask you define the difference between "assumption" and "implicit agreement".

 

I understand you avoid the distinction in practice by alerting anyway.

[uday]

I had a recent (2 months ago) discussion with someone at the ACBL (in memphis) about this.

 

I contented that in an indy, where the rules stated that everyone had to play SAYC, with Full Disclosure FD cards loaded for all that there would be no need to respond to an opponent's query except with "you know as much as I do"

 

IIRC, memphis disagreed, and I put the matter aside until I was prepared to fight this battle in earnest (and I'm not yet ready). Memphis' position was along the lines of (and I am paraphrasing wildly from a faulty collection of braincells)

 

".. you should say something like 'I am hoping he will read my 2D bid as a transfer'.."

 

This was in the context of an undiscused (or uncoverered-in-FD) auction

 

 

I'm hoping to convince Memphis otherwise at some point :o

[helene_t]

It's an assumption not an agreement. Unless playing beginners I would say it is general bridge knowledge and, technically, not alertable. In practice I alert all of my conventional calls anyhow.

Ok. So then I will ask you define the difference between "assumption" and "implicit agreement".

 

I understand you avoid the distinction in practice by alerting anyway.

An assumption is based on some information. If that information happens to be an (implicit) agreement, you must alert. Otherwise not.

 

If my partner has the French flag and I make a call that has a different meaning in SEF than in SAYC, hoping my partner will interpret it SEFish, I alert. For example

1♠-2♣

2N*

* "Hopefully 15-17"

 

Now opps know how I intend my call, they know that I'm not sure if p understands it or not, and from p's explanations of his own calls they may even infer if my p actually understood my call. And next time partner is a Spanyard, and we're playing against two Spanyards. Since I have no clue about what is standard in Spain, they have more info about the meaning of my partner's calls, and how he interprets my calls, than I have. And they are not going to tell me what my partner's calls mean :)

 

This already goes pretty far. There's no way I'm going to explain my vanilla SA bids when all four players have similar non-descript profiles.

[jtfanclub]

I had a recent (2 months ago) discussion with someone at the ACBL (in memphis) about this.

I think....

 

An explicit agreement, such as "We'll play Audrey Grant's Standard American", absolutely needs to be alerted and told in detail.

 

An implicit agreement, such as the three times partner has X'd in a similar auction it's been for penalty, should be alerted and told in detail.

 

A tendency, such as knowing that partner uses X as penalty more often than most, but this particular situation hasn't come up, should not be alerted but if asked you should tell about the tendencies.

 

An assumption, such as girls don't X for penalty much, and my partner is a girl, therefore the X is probably takeout...no, that shouldn't be alerted or explained. This also goes for your partner being from Missouri, or speaks with a Southern accent, or whatever.

 

The first three are based on your experience with your partner. The last is based on stereotypes. Frankly, not only would I not announce stereotypes, but if I do, I'm probably going to cause more problems than I solve.

[paulg]

It's an assumption not an agreement. Unless playing beginners I would say it is general bridge knowledge and, technically, not alertable. In practice I alert all of my conventional calls anyhow.

Ok. So then I will ask you define the difference between "assumption" and "implicit agreement".

 

I understand you avoid the distinction in practice by alerting anyway.

Essentially the difference is dependent on my opponents (and my partner). If I believe that they are peers (say, profile with advanced or higher) and profess some knowledge of standard methods (SAYC, 2/1, etc) then I think they should have the same general bridge knowledge and I'd go with assumptions that I'd expect they can make.

 

If intermediates or lower, then I'd assume adv/exp methods constitute an implicit understanding.

 

In essence, if you profess to be a good player then you are in the same position that I am. If not, then I'm going to help you.

[cherdano]

I had a recent (2 months ago) discussion with someone at the ACBL (in memphis) about this.

 

I contented that in an indy, where the rules stated that everyone had to play SAYC, with Full Disclosure FD cards loaded for all that there would be no need to respond to an opponent's query except with "you know as much as I do"

 

IIRC, memphis disagreed, and I put the matter aside until I was prepared to fight this battle in earnest  (and I'm not yet ready).   Memphis' position was along the lines of (and I am paraphrasing wildly from a faulty collection of braincells)

 

".. you should say something like 'I am hoping he will read my 2D bid as a transfer'.."

 

This was in the context of an undiscused (or uncoverered-in-FD) auction

 

 

I'm hoping to convince Memphis otherwise at some point :wacko:

It's a tricky issue IMO. "You know as much as I do" is a fair answer if my partner really knows just as much as my opponents do. However, let's say the auction goes 1S (2C) 2H. If my partner happens to be American with "advanced" skill level, I know almost for sure he will take this as forcing, and if my European/Australian/... opponents ask me what it means, the above answer is obviously insufficient.

 

Since the distinction is hard to tell for the TD, for practical matters I can understand the ACBL policy (even though I agree it's wrong in theory).

Edited June 17, 2007 by cherdano