no partnership agreement

[zielona]

So it happened, dear forum readers. I was waiting for this to happen one sunny morning and it just did.

 

I was thrown out of a individual toruney by a canadian TD, a member of at least three BBO clubs.

 

Over "no partnership agreement".

 

I opened 2 diamonds and my card says that I don't play multi. That was all information my casual partner from no country and two expert opponents from Argentina and Spain had to allow them to proceed with their bidding.

 

One of the opponents didn't think that was enough and clicked on the 2D bid half a dozen of times. I wrote "no partnership agreement" in the explanation box. I always do that in situations like this.

 

I called TD. Before he did. TD took his side, both talking on the table! The second expert opp supported them. All was polite but in my opinion too wordy and totally unnecessary.

 

With no warning I was removed. Then threatened with the matter being reported to yellows.

 

There went my sunny morning.

 

My disappointment with BBO is growing. So perfect software - I salute you Fred and Uday - but not so perfect users.

 

Back to the minesweeper.

[jtfanclub]

Well, in an individual tourney, everybody has the same info, so that's usually silly.

 

In a pairs game, if you've agreed on "SAYC", you should give the SAYC defintion of 2♦, regardless of what you actually have.

 

Anyhow, most people can become a TD on BBO, with virtually no training. So your odds of getting a bad TD are about the same as getting a bad partner. I can't make any suggestions other than to have friends and enemies among the TDs, same as the players.

 

I do wish that people had to pass a couse to become a BBO TD (Golfacer offered one at one point). But that's more responsibility than BBO wants.

[jillybean]

TD's who make this type of 'ruling' should be flagged so that the players are aware that they are signing up for a different kind of game, its not bridge.

[david_c]

We haven't been told what the TD actually said. Of course if he said "you have to say what you intended 2♦ to mean" then that is wrong. But perhaps that isn't exactly what he said. The opponents are entitled to know what agreements you do have, for example whether you have agreed a basic system. If you've not discussed system at all, then opponents are entitled to know that's what's going on.

 

We also don't know why the player was chucked out of the tourney.

[hrothgar]

I agree with previous posters that it would be useful to get a more precise explanation about what took place.

 

My experience with most BBO Indy's is that four strangers show up at a table. More often than not, folks start bidding without exchanging even rudimentary information about what system they think that they are playing.

 

If this was the case, I'd argue that you are completely within your rights to say that you and your partner have no agreement. The opponents have precisely the same information as your partner and that's what they are entitled to...

 

Regretfully, you get what you pay for in free BBO tournaments...

[hrothgar]

We haven't been told what the TD actually said. Of course if he said "you have to say what you intended 2♦ to mean" then that is wrong. But perhaps that isn't exactly what he said. The opponents are entitled to know what agreements you do have, for example whether you have agreed a basic system. If you've not discussed system at all, then opponents are entitled to know that's what's going on.

 

We also don't know why the player was chucked out of the tourney.

This was explained as an BBO Indy tournament. This means that the opponents would have been present for any system discussion that took place.

[jdonn]

I opened 2 diamonds and my card says that I don't play multi.

If your card says something then that is your agreement. Why not just answer them by telling them what your card says?

[hrothgar]

I opened 2 diamonds and my card says that I don't play multi.

If your card says something then that is your agreement. Why not just answer them by telling them what your card says?

Are you claiming that "It's not multi" would represent appropriate disclosure in this example?

[jdonn]

I opened 2 diamonds and my card says that I don't play multi.

If your card says something then that is your agreement. Why not just answer them by telling them what your card says?

Are you claiming that "It's not multi" would represent appropriate disclosure in this example?

I believe so, presuming that's what the card really says. Or at least saying 'pls see my card'.

 

Incidentally I don't try claim the actions taken by the director here either were or weren't appropriate. I have no stance on that.

[glen]

I wrote "no partnership agreement" in the explanation box. I always do that in situations like this.

Stop doing this. When asked for information, please provide the agreement as per your cc, or, if not stated there, any implicit agreement. It will save time, have everybody enjoying the game, and keep you in the game. If you feel the opponents are clicking on a bid to provide unauthorized information to their partner, please let the TD know your view.

[glen]

I called TD. Before he did. TD took his side, both talking on the table! The second expert opp supported them. All was polite but in my opinion too wordy and totally unnecessary.

 

With no warning I was removed. Then threatened with the matter being reported to yellows.

As to the TD actions, we are told the chat with TD and players was "talking on the table!", but we are not told what was said. So I'm not certain what "no warning" happened here - for example if you were told to describe the bid and continued with "no partnership agreement" then you missed the warning shot.

[helene_t]

I understand that this is very frustrating, I hope that knowing that everyone on BBF agrees with you make you feel better about it.

 

Why don't you point the TD and opps to this thread, they might learn something.

 

When I direct indys I always say in tourney chat at the beginning of the touney: "This is an indy so you should not alert or explain anything, unless you have agreed with p to play some non-SA system or conventions". I also write in the tourney description that misbids, overbids, underbids and psyches are allowed. My impression is that it works. I have never had a TD call complaining about the lack of disclosure.

[david_c]

We haven't been told what the TD actually said. Of course if he said "you have to say what you intended 2♦ to mean" then that is wrong. But perhaps that isn't exactly what he said. The opponents are entitled to know what agreements you do have, for example whether you have agreed a basic system. If you've not discussed system at all, then opponents are entitled to know that's what's going on.

 

We also don't know why the player was chucked out of the tourney.

This was explained as an BBO Indy tournament. This means that the opponents would have been present for any system discussion that took place.

Sorry, yes, you're right. Please ignore that part of what I said. :P

 

This thread still worries me.

 

I don't think it's right to condemn the TD when we don't even know what his ruling was.

 

Also, you don't get chucked out of a tourney just for losing a ruling. I suspect that this player's behaviour was less than perfect. If the TD actually chucked a player out for no reason at all, then this is a much more serious error than simply getting a ruling wrong.

[matmat]

I don't understand why indy's do not impose a system on the players?

[helene_t]

I don't understand why indy's do not impose a system on the players?

In real life, they usually do, and a couple of BBO TD's organize SA-only indy's.

 

As a TD I want as few restrictions as possible, if only in order to release my own workload. If two Polish players draw each other as partners and one says "WJ2005, p" I have no issues with it. Even if everybody was forced to play SAYC, they might still assume each other's style notes on the profile (3rd seat openings may be ultra-light, undiscussed dbls are t/o, never lead an unsupported ace etc) to apply, and where to draw the line? Of course very few players have such notes, but I just don't want to be bothered about it.

 

A case for imposing the same system on everybody is that if players are allowed to discuss system at the table, they may opt for a system that suits the hand they happen to have. If I have 4-5 majors and 14 points I suggest "Flannery", if I have a 6-card diamonds and 8 points I don't. I am not too paranoid about that issue.

[ralph23]

I wrote "no partnership agreement" in the explanation box. I always do that in situations like this.

Stop doing this. When asked for information, please provide the agreement as per your cc, or, if not stated there, any implicit agreement.

But what do you provide if you truly have no agreement (neither express, implied, implicit, or otherwise)?

 

It's paradoxical to tell them to "disclose any agreement, impilcit or otherwise" when the hypothesis is precisely, that they don't have an agreement, implicit or otherwise.

 

Are you supposed to disclose what YOU mean by your bid, even if there is no agreement (implied or otherwise) with your partner? I do this quite a lot on BBO, although it seems to offer the opps a privileged knowledge position compared to partner, which does not seem right either.

[jillybean]

I don't understand why indy's do not impose a system on the players?

1. The majority of players don’t/can't read or understand tournament rules

2. Which system would we use? Lord knows “SAYC” has so many variations and (mis)understandings between players that the perceived problem will still exist.

3. How would the TD enforce “one system”? A great deal of subjectivity has just been introduced here.

 

If Indy players insist on obtaining information about a bid lets change the response and allow the bidder to describe the bid to the table.

That’s fair isn’t it?

[matmat]

If Indy players insist on obtaining information about a bid lets change the response and allow the bidder to describe the bid to the table.

That’s fair isn’t it?

not really...

 

hand 1 i pick up 3=3=6=1 with ~9HCP...

2♦ --- WEAK!!!!

 

hand 2 i pick up 4=4=1=4 with ~ 12 count

2♦ --- ROMAN!!!!

 

hand 3 i pick up 4=5=3=1 14hcp

2♦ --- FLANNERY!!!!!

[jillybean]

If Indy players insist on obtaining information about a bid lets change the response and allow the bidder to describe the bid to the table.

That’s fair isn’t it?

not really...

 

hand 1 i pick up 3=3=6=1 with ~9HCP...

2♦ --- WEAK!!!!

 

hand 2 i pick up 4=4=1=4 with ~ 12 count

2♦ --- ROMAN!!!!

 

hand 3 i pick up 4=5=3=1 14hcp

2♦ --- FLANNERY!!!!!

The point is when responding to a query you must disclose the partnership agreement.

If you opened 2♦ opposite me I would assume WEAK, WEAK, WEAK.

You have answered the ops query weak, roman, flannery and now the opps have more information than I (we) do.

 

You take your chances in indys, it is hard enough without giving the opps UI :D

[helene_t]

1. The majority of players don’t/can't read or understand tournament rules

2. Which system would we use? Lord knows “SAYC” has so many variations and (mis)understandings between players that the perceived problem will still exist.

3. How would the TD enforce “one system”? A great deal of subjectivity has just been introduced here.

Kathryn is an experienced BBO TD, she's probably right on this. It sounds plausible.

[glen]

But what do you provide if you truly have no agreement (neither express, implied, implicit, or otherwise)?

If there is no expressed, implied, implicit, or otherwise suggested agreement, then "no partnership agreement" is fine. So, for example, if there was no cc set (i.e. the system did not automatically start with a sayc cc), no discussion, and nothing in the user's profiles, then "no partnership agreement" works.

 

In this particular case, the poster said " my card" - I don't know if this was a cc, or just some notes on the user's profile, though I expect it was just the latter, and the poster expected others to reference it to find an implied agreement.

[uday]

We had this discussion earlier:

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=19740&hl=

 

at some point this issue came up:

 

what if you sat down with 3 strangers , with or without SAYC/FD/etc and without discussion opened 2D. What do you have to explain when an opp queries you about your bid?

 

a) I intend it as weak. Hope he reads it that way. No agreement.

:D You know as much as we do. No agreement beyond what our CC says, if anything

 

Consensus was probably not attained :)

[blackshoe]

Here are three scenarios:

 

1. face to face bridge. Everybody can see and hear everybody else. Alerts and explanations are given by bidder's partner, everybody hears them, they are UI to the bidder.

 

2. face to face bridge behind screens. Each player can see and hear only one player from the other pair. Alerts and explanations are given by both the player making the bid, and his partner, each to his screenmate. UI is minimized, but the possibility of MI is increased.

 

3. online bridge. Alerts and explanations are given by the bidder to his opponents - his partner isn't aware of them. UI is reduced, the possibility of MI is increased (or so it seems to me) and we have the additional problem of the bidder feeling obligated to explain what's in his hand.

 

Let me propose a fourth scenario:

 

4. Each player is isolated (perhaps temporarily) from the other three. His bids are alerted and explained by his partner, to the opponents. He cannot hear them. This would seem to me to eliminate the possibility of UI, reduce the possibility of MI, and avoid the problem of players explaining what's in their hand.

 

Uday, is this feasible online?

[hrothgar]

4. Each player is isolated (perhaps temporarily) from the other three. His bids are alerted and explained by his partner, to the opponents. He cannot hear them. This would seem to me to eliminate the possibility of UI, reduce the possibility of MI, and avoid the problem of players explaining what's in their hand.

 

Uday, is this feasible online?

In theory, one could lower a "cone of silence" arround a specific player at a table, however, I think that this would cause more problems that its worth.

 

The current software allows a player to send messages to both opponents (but not partner). This existing functionality could be used to implement the usage model that you suggest. The problem is that this flies in the face of established convention.

 

For better or worse, the notion of the self alert seems to have become established in online bridge. I don't think that you're going to be able to turn back the tide, nor do I think that it is desirable to do so. (I'd rather spend the effort to try to educate people about the futility of expecting disclosure standards appropriate to real games in pickup games on BBO)

 

I'll note in passing that you are missing a fifth scenario:

 

5. The partnership loads a Full Disclosure File which automatically alerts / announces the meaning of bids in accordance with the partnership agreement.

[helene_t]

If I overcall their 1NT with 2♣ and I think it means majors while p thinks it means clubs, what information should opps have? Surely not both. They are better off knowing how 2♣ was intended. OTOH if I intend it as majors while p has no clue what it means, the correct explanation would be "no agreement", i.e. what p says.

 

So ideally we should both explain the meaning and then the software could make sure that if we disagree, the opps hear "no agreement". The problem with this is that the disagreement may be minor, e.g. whether a 1NT opening may contain a 5-card major.

 

I suppose the current solution is the best one.