"Table Talk"

[skrshawk]

I was sent an email this morning from a user that had concerns about discussing conventions and treatments in the middle of an auction.  I would like to hear more instances of what is going on and your thoughts on the subject and how BBO should handle this from a policy perspective.

 

I am personally in favor of permitting impromptu partnerships the ability to discuss basic conventions during an auction because of the nature of online bridge.  Most partnerhsips being formed on the spot will cause errors in judgment that could be avoided by a simple system check.  The best interest for all concerned to play an enjoyable game of bridge is that contracts are bid in as reasonable a fashion as possible.

 

The point was raised to me that system discussions can and should occur before any bidding or play goes on.  I agree that this is the preferable option.  However I simply don't see that happening for a couple of reasons.  The language barrier on BBO can be very difficult sometimes as any of the yellows can tell you.  Some users also have poor keyboarding skills and typing beyond absolute necessary minimums is difficult and possibly painful.

 

I now release the hounds to devour my concerns :).

 

Thanks,

John

[hrothgar]

I think that there is room for multiple approaches.

 

I have no problem if pickup partners need to ask questions during an auction to determine whether that 5D response was simple Blackwood or Roman Keycard.  Equivalently,its fine to ask partner what response strcuture he prefers over NT.  It is impractical and too slow to expect players to agree how to handle every contingency in advance.

 

At the same time, I have no problem expecting that regular partnerships have agreements.

 

From my perspective, the only workable compromise is a system in which the table server is expected to set the ground rules that he wants to play under.  Accompanying this, BBO should try to set a "standard" by which table servers are expect to post their preferences, and a "social code" regarding "violations".

 

For example, if a table server wants only wants to play a highly formal game and the opponents want a more chatty style, the table server has the right to ask the chatty pair to leave, but should be expected to do so in a gracious manner.

[inquiry]

Some people don't get the idea that on-line bridge with pick up (impromptu) partners is quite different from real world bridge. For one thing, hammering out a list of agreements can be very time consuming considering the typing and potential language problems. So I totally favor allow exchanges such as "do you play DONT or Cappelletti" before you bid over their opening bid of 1NT on the second hand played. Or a person responding to an obvious 4NT Blackwood saying "03, 14,... " or "14,03..." or even "standard BW." To be fair to all tables (read the people holding your cards at the other tables), you have to allow this reasonable accommodation to your impromptu partnership opponents.  

 

There are things we can all do to assist in this situation.

• Fill out several different basic convention cards and try to get your partner to agree to one of them, listing the conventions you like. If everyone had a partnership CC filled out, such table talk would of course not be necessary.
  
• If your partner opens 1NT and your right hand opponent in a very impromptu partnership bids 2H, ask him PUBLICALLY if that is natural or some convention. This provides information to his partner (This could be ackward if you happen to hold long Hearts as you may accused of providing illegal information to your partner... try to use this type of action only to help prevent confusion by your impromptu opponents).
  
• Try to create an environment where your opponents feel comfortable straightening out clear mistakes. For instance, if the bidding goes 1NT-P-2H-P-P-? to you, before you pass, ask your RHO if 2H was jacoby, and if it was, ask LHO if he would like to take his pass back. I want to take advantage of my opponents bad play and bad bids to get a good score, but not on a systemic confusion like this last auction... this is the type of thing take the table talk and your own actions should try to prevent. What fun is it to play against opponents sitting in a 3-1 Heart fit at the two level with 4S cold? Sure you get a good result but is that bridge?
  
• Never, every use table talk to change the meaning of your bids. If you would bid 2NT as unusual, don't now bid 2NT and say "Natural" when you have a huge balanced hand, then "unusual" the next time when you have a minor two suiter. Or make a jump overcall and say "weak" one time and "strong" the next. That is, don't take advantage of the liberty to straighten out possible new partnership confusion using table talk to change your agreements based upon the hand you are holding.
  

The people upset about table talk are simply applying the ethics they learned at the real world table to on-line bridge. I understand, and appreciate their concerns, which is why I don't actually use table talk even with impromptu partners. The reason, is I agree to some specific basic bidding method (2/1, BBO basic/advanced, SAYC, precision, KS, etc) and assume every bid has it normal natural meaning if not SPECIFICALLY discussed. And, I try to post a convention card before the first hand... if at all possible, and get my partner to agree to what is on it, or to tell me what not to play.

[fred]

Some people don't get the idea that on-line bridge with pick up (impromptu) partners is quite different from real world bridge. For one thing, hammering out a list of agreements can be very time consuming considering the typing and potential language problems. So I totally favor allow exchanges such as "do you play DONT or Cappelletti" before you bid over their opening bid of 1NT on the second hand played. Or a person responding to an obvious 4NT Blackwood saying "03, 14,... " or "14,03..." or even "standard BW." To be fair to all tables (read the people holding your cards at the other tables), you have to allow this reasonable accommodation to your impromptu partnership opponents.  

 

There are things we can all do to assist in this situation.

• Fill out several different basic convention cards and try to get your partner to agree to one of them, listing the conventions you like. If everyone had a partnership CC filled out, such table talk would of course not be necessary.
  
• If your partner opens 1NT and your right hand opponent in a very impromptu partnership bids 2H, ask him PUBLICALLY if that is natural or some convention. This provides information to his partner (This could be ackward if you happen to hold long Hearts as you may accused of providing illegal information to your partner... try to use this type of action only to help prevent confusion by your impromptu opponents).
  
• Try to create an environment where your opponents feel comfortable straightening out clear mistakes. For instance, if the bidding goes 1NT-P-2H-P-P-? to you, before you pass, ask your RHO if 2H was jacoby, and if it was, ask LHO if he would like to take his pass back. I want to take advantage of my opponents bad play and bad bids to get a good score, but not on a systemic confusion like this last auction... this is the type of thing take the table talk and your own actions should try to prevent. What fun is it to play against opponents sitting in a 3-1 Heart fit at the two level with 4S cold? Sure you get a good result but is that bridge?
  
• Never, every use table talk to change the meaning of your bids. If you would bid 2NT as unusual, don't now bid 2NT and say "Natural" when you have a huge balanced hand, then "unusual" the next time when you have a minor two suiter. Or make a jump overcall and say "weak" one time and "strong" the next. That is, don't take advantage of the liberty to straighten out possible new partnership confusion using table talk to change your agreements based upon the hand you are holding.
  

The people upset about table talk are simply applying the ethics they learned at the real world table to on-line bridge. I understand, and appreciate their concerns, which is why I don't actually use table talk even with impromptu partners. The reason, is I agree to some specific basic bidding method (2/1, BBO basic/advanced, SAYC, precision, KS, etc) and assume every bid has it normal natural meaning if not SPECIFICALLY discussed. And, I try to post a convention card before the first hand... if at all possible, and get my partner to agree to what is on it, or to tell me what not to play.

 

I agree with Inquiry. Bottom line for me is that bridge (online or otherwise) is much more enjoyable for both partnerships when there are not a lot of bidding misunderstandings. For me at least, online bridge is not fun if the opps spend a lot of time discussing details of their system at the table before the game starts.

 

Perhaps it would be good all players agree whether or not it is ok to do the sort of things that Inquiry suggests before play starts. I suspect that most players would be more than willing to play this way.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[julie5607]

As someone who almost exclusively plays with a regular partner, I have no problem at all with "table talk" between pick-up partnership opposition.  As I say to them (usually during a long pause when their pard has made some unnatural bid that could have more than one meaning) "I have already had this conversation with my partner, feel free to ask away if you have any questions as to what your pard's bid means".  

 

Bridge is a competitive game, but the competition is much more meaningful on a level playing field.  I have no desire to pick up 18 imps from a miscuing partnership.  My pard and I have both often stopped the game and offered an immediate undo when we were pretty sure that a bid had been misunderstood.  The amount of space available on stat pages is not nearly enough to inform pick-ups of much more than a general approach, and even the convention cards don't have room for much of what is commonly played.

 

More unpleasant for me by far than table talk are pick-up pards who will refuse to accept those undo's, and refuse to listen to their partner's explanation of the bid.  I have been known to remove a player from my table at partner's request for that type of bullheadedness.  It is totally unfair to one partner for the other to not listen.

 

 

As far as policy is concerned, I am not sure that there should be any, at least for standard non-competitive tables.   What else are we all doing here but "practicing"?  There are no prizes awarded, and no real records kept.  We are all here just trying to play the game to the best of our own limited abilities, and hoping to enjoy ourselves while we do.

 

Julie

[easy]

In the world of online bridge (as we know it here on BBO) table talk is a must.

 

Normally i play with my regular partner of 20 years. We havent discussed every sequence known to man ... but many of them. This is NOT the case with casual partnerships. In many cases partners dont even speak the same language and attempt to communicate in some third language (usually english) Therefore it is very difficult to come to an agreement with regard to conventions played. and how those conventions are to be played. (i have had bidding misunderstandings with various players when playing Stayman!!)

 

I play here to enjoy a good game of bridge and not to rack up 18 imps on every board! When my opponents have an apparent bidding disaster i immediately ask for a redeal. I dont care if im about to earn some unusual amount of imps it's no fun watching the opponents play 6 Clubs in their 3 - 1 fit!!  

Personally i think it should be a standing rule (it is when i serve a table) that if the opponents are a casual partnership they should be alowed to announce their unusual bids to both partner and the opponents. YEs i know that is going a bit overboard but i want to play BRIDGE not take advantage of the bidding misunderstandings of opponents.

 

Remember we aren't playing for money, placement points, or for the prestige of winning the bermuda bowl we are here to enjoy bridge and improve our skills. And if we are really lucky make new friends from all over the world!!

[Guest]

I for one would much rather defend against a sensible contract rather than some ridiculous one reached because unfamiliar opps have had a misunderstanding. We are not playing for sheep stations here.