Agreements vs actual hand

[paulg]

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 is an interesting situation when you make a call with the hope that partner understands it.

 

Presumably you have a degree of confidence that he will understand, otherwise you would not make the call. I can see how the ACBL believes that this implies a degree of partnership understanding and should be disclosed.

 

Of course this can cause trouble when your bid is inconsistent with SAYC. For example, transfers do not apply in response to partner's 1NT overcall but this would catch many people out.

 

Paul

[uday]

Presumably you have a degree of confidence that he will understand, otherwise you would not make the call.

 

 

This seems to be how Memphis sees it. I disagree, because we don't make any calls unless there is a degree of confidence that it will be understood (if there was no chance partner would understand it, you would surely do something else). This does not seem to me to fall into anything that needs disclosure, particularly since all of you are privy to the actual agreement (SAYC).

 

 

If my partner happens to be American with "advanced" skill level, I know almost for sure he will take this as forcing,

In principle the CC will explain whether this is forcing, etc, but I hear what you say. But P might not be from the USA, flag or no flag, or P might not believe your flag, or P might have "Expert" on his profile for no reason etc etc. So it seems that the only thing to rely on is the CC (of course, P might not be able to read :( )

[paulg]

I'm not sure SAYC is particularly well defined so the proposal seems to be that the CC will define the system.

 

Unfortunately this implies that CC, even though it is the opponents', is being used as a memory aid. Although legal is it something we wish to encourage?

 

Paul

[paulg]

Presumably you have a degree of confidence that he will understand, otherwise you would not make the call.

This seems to be how Memphis sees it. I disagree, because we don't make any calls unless there is a degree of confidence that it will be understood (if there was no chance partner would understand it, you would surely do something else). This does not seem to me to fall into anything that needs disclosure, particularly since all of you are privy to the actual agreement (SAYC).

I am sure that there are calls, especially in a competitive auction, that I would make with an expert partner that I would not risk with a beginner.

 

In my opinion, this means that you should be disclosing these calls especially if you are playing with an expert against lesser opponents.

 

Paul

[fred]

If I was asked for an opinion about this 6 months ago I would have agreed with what I think the (vast) majority position is here: that "no agreement" is the only correct answer when you actually have no agreement.

 

However, as a result of the interaction with ACBL that Uday refers to, additional discussions I have had with some of ACBL's leading TDs, and considerable reflection on these matters, I have changed my mind. I now believe that the ACBL's position on these matters is exactly right.

 

Consider this example:

 

LHO opens 1S, RHO responds 1NT, and you overcall 2C. LHO rebids 2H which is passed around to you. You bid 2NT and are asked to explain this bid.

 

Being an "expert" you know what this bid is supposed to mean: you are describing a hand in which you want to compete to the 3 level with long clubs and secondary diamonds (typically 4-6 in the minors).

 

Your partner is also an "expert" so you expect he will interpret the bid as you intend it, even though this convention is not explicitly part of the system you have agreed to play and even though you have never discussed this particular sequence.

 

So you could say "no agreement" and you would be telling the truth.

 

However, I now believe this would be wrong because bridge is a fairer and more enjoyable game if you explain how you intend your bid if you think there is a good chance that your partner will understand your bid as you intended it.

 

If your opponents are less experienced than you are, they might not be familiar with a bid like this. You "know" your partner will work it out so it is only fair (in my view) if you make an effort to ensure the opponents will work it out as well.

 

According to the ACBL TDs I discussed this with, the key factor to consider in deciding when to say something other than "no agreement" is the confidence level you have in your partner figuring out what your bid means: if you have a strong degree of confidence that your partner will understand the intention of your bid, you should let your opponents know. You can (and should) protect yourself by prefacing such an explanation with something like "We have not discussed this but...".

 

Of course "strong degree of confidence" is not a well-defined notion and, even if it was, deciding whether or not you should have such a degree of confidence involves a subjective decision on your part. The ACBL's best TDs admit that this is a gray area and that TDs sometimes have to use their (subjective) judgment in order to decide whether or not a given player has done the right thing.

 

No doubt some of you will still disagree with me on the basis of some "letter of the law" argument. If so, there is a good chance you are right - I have very little understanding of the letter of the law.

 

In my view, however, the "spirit of the law" is at least as important. To me part of this involves engaging in practices that I consider to be "good sportsmanship". Even if "no agreement" was a proper "letter of the law" explanation for an inquiry about the 2NT bid in my example, it would still be wrong in my view. I would have a hard time looking at myself in a mirror after offering such an explanation, especially if I got a good result as a result of my inexperienced opponents getting confused.

 

I would not want that good result. I do not want to win that way. I would rather do what I think was the right thing, risk getting a bad result (possibly as the result of a ruling from a TD who doesn't get it), and be able to sleep that night.

 

My opinion is that the (bridge) world would be a better place if more people had the same attitude.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[uday]

I think we're forgetting that the context is online individual tourneys

 

Highlights

 

- you have probably never seen your partner's username around

- you have no real idea how strong he is

- any clues you use to gauge his ability are available to the table

 

 

Lets use Fred's example under these circumstances

 

LHO opens 1S, RHO responds 1NT, and you overcall 2C. LHO rebids 2H which is passed around to you. You bid 2NT and are asked to explain this bid.

 

You know how YOU would interpret this bid. You have no idea how P will interpret this bid. You have no idea how each opp will interpret this bid.

 

How does it serve the purposes of enjoyment, obeisance to the laws or sportsmanship to pass information to the opps and to leave partner in the dark?

 

Doing so (explaining that you have 6D and 4C) is not revealing an agreement. It is simply describing the contents of your hand.

 

The opps could argue that this is equally unsportsmanlike, like getting a free penalty kick. Why, they might say, should they have this advantage? they don't want it, they don't need it. They realize that you are under a handicap (no agreement, uncharted waters) and they don't want an additional advantage on top of that.

 

 

The intent of the laws seems clear - explain what you know based on agreement, not your actual hand. When there is no agreement, and not the faintest chance than an explicit or implicit agreement could exist, the laws are clear that you should not describe your hand.

 

 

Explaining your bid to the opps under these circumstances feels like we're inventing a new game.

[fred]

In the context of an online individual tournament it would probably be unreasonable to assume with any "strong degree of confidence" that partner would understand the 2NT bid in my example.

 

So saying "no agreement" for that particular bid in that particular context, would not be unreasonable in my view (though for me personally playing in this context I would choose to "tell the opponents my hand").

 

But even in an online individual tournament there are bids that, although technically no agreement exists, it is safe to assume your partner will understand.

 

In my view players should make an honest attempt to recognize these situations and offer something more than "no information" if their judgment suggests that this would be appropriate.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

When there is no agreement, and not the faintest chance than an explicit or implicit agreement could exist,  the laws are clear that you should not describe your hand.

I won't presume to speak for Fred, but as I read his post, I think he would agree with this, Uday. Edit: I see now that he does. :(

 

Over on the Bridge Laws Mailing List, there is a long and vociferous controversy on this question. Briefly there are two schools. The deWael School (Herman deWael is a Belgian TD) opines that one should explain what one believes partner (in f2f bridge) has in his hand, rather than the partnership's agreements even if that means lying about the agreements. The Majority School believes that the law requires you to explain agreements, not hand holdings. Herman has about two supporters, and their support is, as I have read it, limited to "Herman's position is legally valid", not going so far as to say "Herman's position is right, the Majority School is wrong". I'm in the Majority School. B)

 

Whether an implicit agreement exists is subjective, but there is reference in the laws to "general bridge knowledge" (GBK). I would submit that this describes things most everybody beyond the newcomer level should know. There are, I think, some things (perhaps a lot of things :P) that experts generally know that lesser players do not - one example being that a bid in NT in certain circumstances is more likely to be a form of Unusual NT than it is to be natural. You're not required to describe inferences from GBK, but the inference in Fred's example that he has a minor suit oriented hand is not GBK, unless all four players at the table can be expected to know it.

[Finch]

the truth.

 

However, I now believe this would be wrong because bridge is a fairer and more enjoyable game if you explain how you intend your bid if you think there is a good chance that your partner will understand your bid as you intended it.

/pedantry on

 

Acutally, playing online, I think you do better to explain how you expect partner to interpret your bid, not how you intend it.

 

/pedantry off

 

(There's usually no diference between the two. But there could be.)

[barmar]

If your partner doesn't understand your call, you're probably headed for a bad board anyway. You might as well assume that partner DOES understand (that's what you're hoping when you make it), and then it makes sense to disclose it to the opponents.

 

Also, partner may end up upset that you sprung some weird bid on him. Do you really need two MORE people upset as well that you refused to explain to them?

[blackshoe]

"did not volunteer" is not the same thing as "refused".

[geller]

The situation in F2F bridge (except when using screens) is that your partner hears your explanation so there is a substantial danger of transmitting unauthorized information (UI). In online bridge you can be completely honest with the opps, since partner doesn't hear your explanation. You can say, for example, "this is what I meant but pard may not understand it." Also, in online bridge you are alerting and explaining your own bids, which is completely different from F2F bridge.

 

At some point there presumably will be a new set of official laws of bridge for the on-line game....

 

-Bob

[nige1]

Some years ago, in Edinburgh Bridge clubs, when you sat down opposite a strange partner, you might ask what methods he preferred. After prolonged cross-examination, if you were lucky, he would vouchsafe "strong notrump, no weakness takeouts, Blackwood, Three-notrump (for take-out) over pre-empts".

 

Your first few sessions were a painful learning experience but then you started to fill in the gaps. For example, partner opened 1S with four spades and five hearts. Two openers and jump overcalls were strong. Cue overcalls were game-frocing. Doubles were mostly penalty, In reply to your 16-18 no-trump opener, partner would often reply in a four card minor but a major would normally be at least five cards. Nevertheless, you would learn that the underlying philosophy was more Acol than Culbertson; for example there were lots of limit and non-forcing bids.

 

Contrast that with the implicit understandings on BBO. After a few days experence on BBO you learn that most players treat a completely different set of agreements as "Just Bridge". Weak jump overcalls and weak twos in three suits; Stayman and and transfers; most doubles are for take-out; most bids are forcing; cue-overcalls are Michaels; The underkying philosophy is Standard American.

 

I dare say if you played Bridge in Poland, say, locals would regard yet another set of assumptions as "Just bridge".

 

In any such environment, if a stranger asks the mennig of a call, then a sadistic member of the inner circle may feel justified in replying "General knowledge and experience" or "Just Bridge". Often a player invents system on the fly. He tries some completely new call, hoping that partner will be able to deduce iits meaning by analogy with similar calls in previously encountered contexts. If anybody asks about such a call, the reply is almost certain to be "undiscussed", although, partner seems able to guess the meaning most of the time.

 

IMO, you should assume that opponents are strangers to your Bridge environment and disclose all implicit understandings. "General knowledge and experience" should be expunged from the Law-book as a device for rationalizing prevarication. If you don't know the meaning of a call, you should hazard a guess (but make clear that it is a guess).

[cherdano]

I think we're forgetting that the context is online individual tourneys

 

Highlights

 

- you have probably never seen your partner's username around

- you have no real idea how strong he is

- any clues you use to gauge his ability are available to the table

 

 

Lets use Fred's example under these circumstances

 

LHO opens 1S, RHO responds 1NT, and you overcall 2C. LHO rebids 2H which is passed around to you. You bid 2NT and are asked to explain this bid.

 

You know how YOU would interpret this bid. You have no idea how P will interpret this bid. You have no idea how each opp will interpret this bid.

If I had no idea how my partner interprets this bid, I would never make it. Nevertheless, I could very well imagining making this bid in an individual tourney. There are so many clues in even short profiles about how strong partner is; and they completely change the odds I am willing to take that partner will understand my bid. (And I am sure those who play individuals often get very good at reading these clues.) Two extreme examples:

(A) My partner has "expert" and "2C strong, 2N = 20-22" in his profile.

(:) My partner's profile says "advanced, 2/1, udca, BWS if you like"

I think you know opposite which I would make Fred's takeout 2N bid, and then I would explain the bid as "partner will take it as minors, longer clubs than diamonds". You also know opposite which I would describe 1C 1H 1N 4N as quantitative, and opposite which I would describe it as "no agreement".

I don't think this is "bridge logic", this is an implicit partnership agreement based on shared experience, that we both don't know about, but can guess with reasonable confidence.

[helene_t]

If I had no idea how my partner interprets this bid, I would never make it.

Well, I would never apply xclusion blackwood if I had no clue if p would take it as such. But I would make responses to overcall no matter if I had a clue as to whether p would take them as forcing. I might even respond to p's 1NT overcall even if opps' guess as to whether we play transfers or not would be as good as mine.

 

Now if I alert my transfer and p passes it, opps know that we have a misunderstanding while p does not know. Is that fair? I don't think so. So I will alert my transfer as "no special agreement".

[BebopKid]

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?

As long as the 14 point hand fits in your description of 1NT then it is fine. I assume you alerted "14-17" or "12-14" since NoTrump point counts should always be announced.

[mycroft]

So I open AKT8 AKT7 943 32 1NT. When asked, I say "15-17". I'm right - in fact, I'd probably accept an 4-4 game invitation in a major. Walrus is wrong. There's at least one Walrus at any Indy table who will gripe.

 

It happens.

Michael.

[barmar]

If I had no idea how my partner interprets this bid, I would never make it.

Well, I would never apply xclusion blackwood if I had no clue if p would take it as such. But I would make responses to overcall no matter if I had a clue as to whether p would take them as forcing. I might even respond to p's 1NT overcall even if opps' guess as to whether we play transfers or not would be as good as mine.

 

Now if I alert my transfer and p passes it, opps know that we have a misunderstanding while p does not know. Is that fair? I don't think so. So I will alert my transfer as "no special agreement".

Sometimes you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, because you have to bid something, but every bid has some uncertainty to it. At some point you have to make a guess, and that defines what you think your implicit agreement is.

 

If you decide that transfers are on, is it fair to your LHO, who holds a hand that would make a lead-directing double, that he shouldn't know whether your bid is natural or artificial?

 

Is it fair that the opps should know that you had a misunderstanding but partner doesn't? Well, he'll be dummy in this case, so what difference does it make? And when you have a misunderstanding you're probably going to get a bad board no matter what the opponents know.

[blackshoe]

At some point you have to make a guess, and that defines what you think your implicit agreement is.

Does it? If so, apparently it makes

but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience

null and void. So I would say your asssertion is an overbid. B)

[barmar]

At some point you have to make a guess, and that defines what you think your implicit agreement is.

Does it? If so, apparently it makes

but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience

null and void. So I would say your asssertion is an overbid. B)

But "general knowledge and experience" doesn't indicate whether transfers are on or off over a NT overcall. On the contrary, this general knowledge is what tells you that it could go either way.

 

"General knowledge" is things like it takes about 25 combined HCP to make 3NT and 33 HCP to make 6NT. So if you open 15-17 1NT and partner responds 3NT, you shouldn't be required to explain that he has 10-15 HCP if he's balanced -- the opponents should be able to infer this on their own.

 

But if you've decided to use a transfer, this isn't something the opponents can figure out on their own from general bridge knowledge.

[blackshoe]

But if you've decided to use a transfer, this isn't something the opponents can figure out on their own from general bridge knowledge.

No, it isn't. In the specific case where you bid 3 B): or 3 :h: over 2NT, or 2 :): or 2 :h: over 1NT, hoping partner will take it as a transfer, either you're dreaming, or you have some reason specific to your partnership (or your partner) that leads you to that hope. That's not GBK, so it must be disclosed.

 

I haven't reviewed the whole thread, so maybe this has already been said, but...

 

If you have an agreement to play transfers over 1NT, but have not discussed responses to 2NT, and you respond to 2NT expecting partner will take it as a transfer, you do so because of your agreement over 1NT, so the proper answer to a question about 3 :D: over 2NT would be "undiscussed, but we play transfers over 1NT".

[helene_t]

If I had no idea how my partner interprets this bid, I would never make it.

Well, I would never apply xclusion blackwood if I had no clue if p would take it as such. But I would make responses to overcall no matter if I had a clue as to whether p would take them as forcing. I might even respond to p's 1NT overcall even if opps' guess as to whether we play transfers or not would be as good as mine.

 

Now if I alert my transfer and p passes it, opps know that we have a misunderstanding while p does not know. Is that fair? I don't think so. So I will alert my transfer as "no special agreement".

Sometimes you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, because you have to bid something, but every bid has some uncertainty to it. At some point you have to make a guess, and that defines what you think your implicit agreement is.

 

If you decide that transfers are on, is it fair to your LHO, who holds a hand that would make a lead-directing double, that he shouldn't know whether your bid is natural or artificial?

Yes, that's fair. Opps are entitled to know what our agreements are and in the absense of such agreements, they have to guess, just like partner has to guess.

 

Opps already have an enormous advantage in that we don't have agreeements. The fact that I have to alert all agreements that I think we have makes the advantage bigger.

 

And as to "what I think our implicit agreement is": no, I'm talking about the situation in which I know for 100% that we don't have any (implicit) special agreement. Maybe we still have the implicit agreement to play "common sense and standard methods". Then I say excatly that "we have no special agreements whatsoever, no experience with each other, no knowledge about each other's age, culture and skill level. So I suppose it defaults to common sense and standard methods, whatever that means".

[nige1]

the truth.

 

However, I now believe this would be wrong because bridge is a fairer and more enjoyable game if you explain how you intend your bid if you think there is a good chance that your partner will understand your bid as you intended it.

/pedantry on

 

Acutally, playing online, I think you do better to explain how you expect partner to interpret your bid, not how you intend it.

 

/pedantry off

 

(There's usually no diference between the two. But there could be.)

What Frances advocates on-line is what Herman De Wael has been advocating for years, at face-to-face Bridge :P IMO it makes more sense on-line than face-to-face.

[sceptic]

Acutally, playing online, I think you do better to explain how you expect partner to interpret your bid, not how you intend it.

 

does this then , not give the opps an unfair advantage if you r pard has no idea what your bid means?

[Arsen]

My opinion is NT opening should apply the CC on every conditions. Because when the game progress even (1) point takes crucial importance for to guess the hands so i think players to conform posted CC always.