Was this an appropriate Q?

[olegru]

Maybe he has an honor in each minor so he "knows" it is michaels. Or maybe he has 5 spades so he "knows" it is a running minor. He doesn't have to apologize for being able to figure out what the bid means from his hand!

You are completely right, there is no any deviation of law.

 

Lets just make up an experiment. You are my partner. We really have no agreements about this bidding. What kind of hands could you have:

a. Gamblingish asking for ♥ stopper

b. Strong hand without direction asking for ♥ stopper

c. ♠ + minor two-suiter

d. ♦+♣ two-suiter.

 

Even if I am lucky enogh to figure out based on my hand that 3NT should be an easy contract You don't know I know it. If we have no firm agreement about meaning of redouble You can take it as a SOS with 50% probability. At least I would definitly take redouble as a SOS here. (Notice: it is BAM - 3NT doubled probably enogh to win the board)

And I simply can't imaging pair who have no agreement for such a basic situation as (2♥) - 3♥ but has agrement about redouble here.

 

No problem in terms of bridge law, but very funny decision in terms of bridge game.

[nige1]

Finally, on-line, on BBO, you are meant to alert and explain your own calls. Strangely, "No agreement" has yet to appear as an explanation :)

That is not true. Or even close.... people explain bids on-line that way all the time.

It seems that I was wrong about that. I apologize. (I don't think that I've seen a player explain his own call as "no agreement"l).

 

Suppose, on BBO, JDonn and I partner each other for the first time, against two other strangers. We have no time for discussion. Our "profiles" are blank. We have no system card. The auction proceeds ...

1N (_P) 2♦ (2♠)

_P (_P) 3♠ (_P)

4♥

 

Strictly, perhaps, I should alert 2♦ and 3♠ but explain "no agreement". In practice, although I'm unfamiliar with American methods, I would be concerned that opponents know even less than I do. Hence I would (arguably, wrongly)..

 

Alert 1N and explain that I think we play strong notrump. (15-17 flat).

Alert 2♦ and explain that I guess it is a transfer showing 5+ ♥

Alert 3♠ and explain that it is likely to be forcing, artificial, and suggesting 4♥ be bid with support or lacking a ♠ stop.

Alert 4♥ and explain that it is probably denies slam interest and is predicated on 2♦ showing ♥

 

Please note that we are discussing on-line bridge where partner is not privy to my explanations. and that I make it quite clear that our agreements are implicit and undiscussed.

 

To some extent, whether this is OK depends on whether I think that I may be in a better position to guess what partner's bids mean than my opponents are, because of the specific experience I have in common with my partner. I confess that, against strangers, I always make that assumption.

[nige1]

Maybe he has an honor in each minor so he "knows" it is michaels. Or maybe he has 5 spades so he "knows" it is a running minor. He doesn't have to apologize for being able to figure out what the bid means from his hand!

You are completely right, there is no any deviation of law.

 

Lets just make up an experiment. You are my partner. We really have no agreements about this bidding. What kind of hands could you have:

a. Gamblingish asking for ♥ stopper

b. Strong hand without direction asking for ♥ stopper

c. ♠ + minor two-suiter

d. ♦+♣ two-suiter.

 

Even if I am lucky enogh to figure out based on my hand that 3NT should be an easy contract You don't know I know it. If we have no firm agreement about meaning of redouble You can take it as a SOS with 50% probability. At least I would definitly take redouble as a SOS here. (Notice: it is BAM - 3NT doubled probably enogh to win the board)

And I simply can't imaging pair who have no agreement for such a basic situation as (2♥) - 3♥ but has agrement about redouble here.

 

No problem in terms of bridge law, but very funny decision in terms of bridge game.

In an important team competition, what does partner mean by his 3♥ bid in this context? 2 possibilities:

• Partner believes that we've agreed a meaning but I've forgotten it (or never knew it).
  
• JDonn's Scenario (possible but less likely): Partner knows we have no agreement about this particular call in this particular context because we've never discussed it but he makes the call anyway. He expects that I can work it out. We both know the underlying philosophy of our system. The agreed meanings of other bids in this context provide negative inferences that eliminate some candidates. Also we have agreed a meaning for such bids in similar contexts. The meaning in this context will not be anything uniquely new because he would not risk an expensive misunderstanding in a teams competition. Partner hopes that with all these clues I can work out his intentions. Obviously, I have a much better chance of doing so than my poor opponents.
  

In the first case, partner will be able to tell opponents what he thinks our agreement is. In the second, if I expect to "guess" right most of the time then, IMO, "no agreement" is prevarication.

 

Why do so many opponents answer "no agreement". It may not in their interests to help you but that is not the whole reason. An exacerbating influence is that, unless an opponent is certain of the meaning, current Bridge law encourages this behavior. It penalizes misinformation but condones ignorance. IMO if you don't know then the law should insist that you guess.

 

Here, for example, with no other clues, I'd guess a or b (a two-way bid: if I haven't got a stopper, he'll try to clarify later).

[jdonn]

And then when they guess wrong you are BETTER off than if they had simply said they haven't agreed a meaning??? Your view is pretty cynical, I'd like to think the reason they answer no agreement is to avoid misleading you. Of course there are bad people out there, but bad people will take advantage of any rules in place (such as your idea, they will guess wrong quite a lot wouldn't you say?) This system has a distinct advantage. That when you get information you know it's right.

 

Please tell me a single underlying philosophy, negative inference, or similar auction on which they do have an agreement, any of those things that would lead to an implied agreement in this undiscussed situation?

[nige1]

Please tell me a single underlying philosophy, negative inference, or similar auction on which they do have an agreement, any of those things that would lead to an implied agreement in this undiscussed situation?

An example in each category :) but JDonn can probably supply more if he thinks about it :)

• General philosophy: Perhaps we try to treat similar situations in a similar way, so that we can revert to "system-on" in unfamiliar contexts.
  
• Negative inference from the agreed meaning of other bids: Perhaps 4♣ and 4♦ would be Leaping Michaels, hence the 3♥ cue-bid is less likely to be a major-minor two suiter.
  
• Similar auction where we do have an agreement: Perhaps we have an agreement about an immediate cue-bid over 2♣ precision that we can extrapolate to this context - or failing that - over another natural two/one/three level opener.
  

[nige1]

As a mildly amusing aside, I had this disaster with a partner once[what is 2M-3M].  This was a good partner of several years.  I thought it was western cue, he thought it was OM+minor. 

[sNIP]

This is a common scenario: You discussed the situation with partner but ...

• Your memory of what was agreed may differ from partner's OR
  
• You agreed to play a convention from a book that you didn't read OR
  
• You discussed more than one treatment and now can't remember which you agreed OR
  
• You simply can't remember if you agreed anything.
  

[jdonn]

Please tell me a single underlying philosophy, negative inference, or similar auction on which they do have an agreement, any of those things that would lead to an implied agreement in this undiscussed situation?

An example in each category :) but JDonn can probably supply more if he thinks about it :)

You are really grasping at straws here... :)

General philosophy: Perhaps we try to treat similar situations in a similar way, so that we can revert to "system-on" in unfamiliar contexts.

Such as? I was looking for something specific. Are you trying to say that, for example, they have discussed what to do over intermediate 2 bids but not weak 2 bids? Not bloody likely!

Negative inference from the agreed meaning of other bids: Perhaps 4♣ and 4♦ would be Leaping Michaels, hence the 3♥ cue-bid is less likely to be a major-minor two suiter.

My preferred methods involve both the cuebid being Michaels and using leaping Michaels. So that doesn't suggest anything. It is also something the opponents are free to ask about, if they want to infer from that.

Similar auction where we do have an agreement: Perhaps we have an agreement about an immediate cue-bid over 2♣ precision that we can extrapolate to this context  - or failing that - over another natural two/one/three level opener.

Again - you think they have discussed this but not what to do over weak 2 bids?? And it wouldn't matter anyway, I've never heard of anyone playing the cuebid over precision 2♣ as a stopper ask, it's always Michaels. Lets keep it realistic. The fact is if they have no agreement they are free to risk the bid if they want, and they should tell you they have no agreement, period.

[nige1]

Such as? I was looking for something specific.

Josh now asks for a general principle that is specific. Seems a bit oxymoronic. Nevertheless, I'll try to supply another general principle with specific application to the undiscussed 3♥ bid: Some partnerships adopt the general principle that when partner makes a bid that is undiscussed they treat it as natural and non-forcing if possible. Furthermore, some play that a "cue" overcall is natural even over a one of a major that promises five or more. And some opponents routinely open weak-twos on five card suits.

 

My preferred methods involve both the cuebid being Michaels and using leaping Michaels. So that doesn't suggest anything. It is also something the opponents are free to ask about, if they want to infer from that.

We play only Leaping Michaels in this context. Josh's methods may be more sophisticated. But so what? Josh asked for examples. He is free to supply better ones. But even for Josh, it seems that a major-minor two-suiter is less likely.

 

Again - you think they have discussed this but not what to do over weak 2 bids?? And it wouldn't matter anyway, I've never heard of anyone playing the cuebid over precision 2♣ as a stopper ask, it's always Michaels. Lets keep it realistic. The fact is if they have no agreement they are free to risk the bid if they want, and they should tell you they have no agreement, period.

Members pf the local club play that a cue bid over any intermediate (or weak) two bid is a stop ask. Really :P. Again Josh's methods may be different from and better than mine. Surely that is not the point. It is the methods played by Uday's BAM opponents that are relevant. It is possible that they provide germane analogies.

 

Where Josh & I seem to differ, fundamentally, is whether we should answer No agreement, period or whether we should volunteer such inferences without the opponents having to ask follow-up questions about them.

 

A player may judge that general principles or understandings about other calls cast no light on the meaning of this undiscussed call. But maybe his partner is of a different opinion. Partner may imagine that the meaning is a logical consequence of such inferences. Hence, I reckon that a player should disclose the main facts that may be directly relevant.

 

I accept that I may be wrong. Anyway, Josh is certainly entitled to his views. From my experience at the table, Josh's views are shared by the vast majority of players.

[barmar]

Suppose, on BBO, JDonn and I partner each other for the first time, against two other strangers. We have no time for discussion. Our "profiles" are blank. We have no system card. The auction proceeds ...

1N (_P) 2♦ (2♠)

_P (_P) 3♠ (_P)

4♥

 

Strictly, perhaps, I should alert 2♦ and 3♠ but explain "no agreement". In practice, although I'm unfamiliar with American methods, I would be concerned that opponents know even less than I do. Hence I would (arguably, wrongly)..

 

Alert 1N and explain that I think we play strong notrump. (15-17 flat).

Alert 2♦ and explain that I guess it is a transfer showing 5+ ♥

Alert 3♠ and explain that it is likely to be forcing, artificial, and suggesting 4♥ be bid with support or lacking a ♠ stop.

Alert 4♥ and explain that it is probably denies slam interest and is predicated on 2♦ showing ♥

 

Please note that we are discussing on-line bridge where partner is not privy to my explanations. and that I make it quite clear that our agreements are implicit and undiscussed.

 

To some extent, whether this is OK depends on whether I think that I may be in a better position to guess what partner's bids mean than my opponents are, because of the specific experience I have in common with my partner. I confess that, against strangers, I always make that assumption.

I think most of your explanations would fall under what most consider "general bridge knowledge" (ACBL requires you to announce NT ranges and transfers, so I'm really only talking about the later bids). The rules say that you're not required to "teach bridge" to the opponents.

 

It sounds to me like you're saying that you think your and Josh's experience gives you more general knowledge than you expect the random opponents to have, so you feel it's necessary to alert these things. Where is the line between teaching and alerting?

[nige1]

It sounds to me like you're saying that you think your and Josh's experience gives you more general knowledge than you expect the random opponents to have, so you feel it's necessary to alert these things.  Where is the line between teaching and alerting?

Barmar has got to the nub of the argument. What is general knowledge? I'm still amazed at what opponents classify as "General Knowledge." Is the knowledge general, even if you suspect that opponents don't share it? Is it really OK not to divulge your agreements because that would be teaching bridge?

 

For example, to what extent are the methods popular in America "general knowledge." I guess they're pretty widespread. But I still think they're specific knowledge. There are a several players at the local club who play on-line but are unfamiliar with American methods.

[jdonn]

I agree it's often a fine line between alerting implicit agreements and teaching bridge to your opponents. And by the way, I also agree that if you have a general principle that may cover a specific auction, that should also be explained. That would be...drum roll....an agreement ;) I maintain saying no agreement when you really don't have an agreement to cover the situation though. Certainly I still hate the idea of guessing.

[barmar]

I think there are two kinds of general knowledge in bridge.

 

One kind is truly general, such as how good do your combined hands need to be to bid game. There are lots of different valuation methods (Work points, LTC, etc.), but they're all just tools to help estimate how close you are to this.

 

The other kind refers to what are usually called "standard" methods. As Nige points out, these aren't quite as standard as most people expect. Even when everyone agrees on something like SAYC, it turns out that most haven't read and understood it completely, so they often have different understandings. On the other hand, in most cases people from the same geographc region can sit down and have an effective partnership with relatively minimal discussion; I think I could say "Let's play 2/1, 4-way transfers, and RKC 1430" to 90% of US duplicate bridge players, accept their counter-proposal, and be ready to start playing. We'll probably have one or two misunderstandings in the session, but that sometimes happens even in regular partnerships.

 

And if I'm playing AGAINST people in the same region, I'd expect them to have similar enough understanding that I wouldn't have to alert everything. The ACBL alert chart is basically designed around this expectation -- the things that are non-alertable tend to be features common to Standard American, 2/1, and many other "natural" systems (even though 4-card majors are pretty rare in the US these days, they're not alertable, although I've found that players who use them often volunteer it as a pre-alert).

[Finch]

And I simply can't imaging pair who have no agreement for such a basic situation as (2♥) - 3♥ but has agrement about redouble here.

I have an occasional partner, with whom

 

i) I have no agreement for a direct cue of an opening weak two

ii) I have an agreement about the redouble here

 

That's because we have a general rule which covers all redoubles, but we haven't discussed this one particular auction and it does not fit into any of our general rules.

[Halo]

Interesting post. I voted 'inappropriate question'. You can ask what the 3H means and you can ask what 3NT means. No agreement is an answer. It's not psychotherapy. You can call the TD, and in this case I think the TD was very sensible.

[nige1]

Lets just make up an experiment. You are my partner. We really have no agreements about this bidding. What kind of hands could you have:

• 
   
  
• a. Gamblingish asking for ♥ stopper
   
  
• b. Strong hand without direction asking for ♥ stopper
   
  
• c. ♠ + minor two-suiter
   
  
• d. ♦+♣ two-suiter.
   
  

IMO you might add other options, for example ...

• e. Single suiter.
  
• f. Three suiter.
  
• g. Natural with good hearts.
  
• h. Various strengths and combinations of the above.
  

IMO, however, even for a pair who have no formal agreement, these alternatives are rarely equi-probable. Sometimes, a pair can rule out certain options and combinations completely.

 

IMO opponents are entitled to know about negative inferences like these. I concede that is a matter of opinion. I apologize for repeating myself :lol: I fear that argument won't resolve this controversy :( It seems we may have to agree to differ :(