Announcing meanings of bids to partner

[croydonman]

I come across the following two practices now and then on BBO and wondered what the community think about them.

1) Players making a bid and announcing its meaning

2) Players asking their partner what a bid means and (usually) getting a reply.

 

Personally, I find both the above unacceptable as it wouldn't be allowed in a 'live' bridge club. I don't see that the absence of convention cards or regular partnerships should make a difference. (Even in live bridge clubs with convention cards, misunderstandings occur - it's a part of the game).

 

The problem is that when I have pointed out to the tellers the error of their ways, they can get rather stroppy about it. Hence my post to see what others think on this subject....

[TylerE]

I think in the main bridge club that sort of thing is perfectly normal unless opponents object. I'd rather win my IMPs by out-bidding and out-playing the field, not by making sure the opponents have as many misunderstandings as possible.

[TimG]

Personally, I find both the above unacceptable as it wouldn't be allowed in a 'live' bridge club.

It's acceptable at the local library on Tuesday afternoons.

 

You should understand that the main bridge club is an informal setting for most.

[jdonn]

If you want to play against regular partners, just set up your own game. But if you take random opponents then most would consider it unreasonable to not allow them to work out their basic agreements. While this could be done before play starts, it's easier and quicker to simply do it as things arise.

 

I mean, literally, why do you play bridge? Do you enjoy getting good scores because you found a good bid or play, or do you enjoy getting good scores because your opponents never met and haven't agreed what type of blackwood they use?

[Hanoi5]

There are at least two positions regarding this matter, and clearly you stand on the 'not accepting side'.

 

There are views one way or the other, in fact if I'm not mistaken, with last year's change of the laws it can be allowed by the sponsoring organization the checking of your own system during the bidding (or play).

 

So until laws are in use in this respect your only option is to mark down players who do it and not play at their tables or ask in tournaments about their policies (I think tournaments do not accept this, anyway).

[croydonman]

OK Thanks for replies. It seems that I need to be more tolerant.

 

I guess that my issue would be that because I don't do it, I may stand at a disadvantage. eg I might not use a double for takeout if I feel that there is a risk of it being inappropriately left in. Thus I reduce my bidding options whereas if I could just double and then say, "takeout, partner". Similarly, I might not bid 4NT if it's not clear cut ace asking or quantative whereas I could just bid 4NT and say, "Blackwood, partner".

 

Anyway, I'll try not to worry about it too much - it's only a game after all.

 

Thanks again for replies.

[mtvesuvius]

I always allow people to discuss conventions online... Even if they are an established partnership. I'd rather win by playing well, then by watching the opponents be derailed by some horrible misunderstanding. I would hope this same spirit is shared throughout BBO. IMO, telling people they cannot discuss, unless it is a World Class Team Match etc, is ridiculous.

[jillybean]

Fine for purely casual games otherwise I disagree with the replies here. While I have no objection with new partners discussing systems at the start of the game and checking the flavor of RKC when it first comes up, I do object to any more discussion.

A significant portion of the game is developing a partnership understanding and bidding system superior to your ops.

 

Why don’t people want to play online bridge the same way “live” games are played?

[croydonman]

Thank you Jillybean. Your sentiments echo mine. Maybe it's one for a 'poll' although I'm not sure how to set one up.

 

Maybe also, it's a question of degree eg -

- announcing that an opening 1NT is 15-17: acceptable?

- announicng that an overcall of 1NT is Landy: dodgy?

- enquring what discard system partner is playing after he has discarded: dodgy?

- announcing that a particular bid is 'forcing': unfair?

- announcing that a dodgy double is for takeout: unfair?

(I've seen all of these at the table)

 

Personally, I'm not after cheap points from opponent mishaps but I do think that it is a skill of the game to be prudent in the use of dubious bids (or plays) with unfamiliar partners.

[helene_t]

It is obviously something people have different ideas about and ideally it would be made clear to everyone at the table whether it is acceptable at this table or not. DrTodd and Foobar always announce the table rules when new opps arrive. This is very pleasant since everyone then knows the rules and if opps don't like the rules they can just give seat for someone else.

[TimG]

Why don’t people want to play online bridge the same way “live” games are played?

I think this varies from live game to live game, that is whether your idea of a live game is an ACBL club game or the game played at your kitchen table.

 

Maybe expectations should vary depending upon whether you are playing in the main bridge club or the relaxed bridge club.

 

The person serving a table has the option of filling in the description field to set out the basic ground rules of the table so that a player knows what to expect when sitting down. Perhaps using this more often is one solution to this difference of opinion.

[jdonn]

There is no such thing as playing an online game the way live games are played when your opponents are 10,000 miles apart, have never met, and may not even speak the same language. It's a moot comparison. If you DO want to play online the way live games are played, just play a set game with opponents you have found ahead of time.

[TylerE]

Also, there is a big difference between making agreements as things come up, and playing "adjective bridge".

[brianshark]

It is totally reasonable to me that people who sit down for the first time to play a bit of bridge in the MBC can agree things as they come up, as long as it is restricted to basic stuff like what kind of keycard they play or what their defence to 1NT is, or whether their 1NT is weak or strong, etc.

 

It makes for a nice game of bridge rather than stupid guesswork that would never happen in a real life game because anyone playing together would have agreed this kind of basic stuff.

 

So to me, allowing and encouraging this makes the game more like live bridge than making them guess all the time.

[Finch]

Also, there is a big difference between making agreements as things come up, and playing "adjective bridge".

I think this is the point.

 

Doubling a weak NT and saying "penalties" the first time it comes up is fine, you never had a chance to discuss it.

 

Doubleing a weak NT next hand and saying "DONT" isn't.

 

This is all a bit of a fuzzy line - I know what I think is acceptable, and what I think isn't; basically anything that a 'live' pair would have discussed in a 30 minute coffee break before a f2f game can be brought up at the table but not complexities of a 3rd round double being penalties or take-out.

[Stephen Tu]

Why don’t people want to play online bridge the same way “live” games are played?

 

Because for the non-tournaments on BBO, main bridge club play, most of us do consider all of it "purely casual". It's a place to practice, learn, improve partnerships, for online and/or offline tournaments when "it counts". There's absolutely nothing at stake, no masterpoints, no rankings, no prizes, so why be so formal about it?

 

Also, live play is just totally different, with a new partner you discuss 10-20 minutes before the game but you play for 3 hours. So it's like 5-10% of your time spent discussing. While online, a proper discussion so you can play w/o the questions during play, takes the same amount of time, or even more because of the inefficiency of typing vs. speaking. Then the game after may last only 4-8 boards, 40-50 minutes, so that's 20-30% spent discussing leaving little for actual bridge. If I am playing in a pickup partnership, I would get no enjoyment out of playing against an established pair who are enforcing no discussion. And as the established pair, what fun or improvement do I get out of the opps screwing up solely because of having no agreement? I have no interest in that, nor do I want to wait 10 minutes for the opps to discuss things. If I only have an hour to play, I'd rather get a few more boards in and let them discuss as things come up. Especially when there's no guarantee that a pickup partnership lasts for more than a couple boards. Wait 10 minutes, play 2 boards, one leaves, now another comes in, have to wait another 10 minutes for new opp to agree on stuff?

 

 

Maybe also, it's a question of degree eg -

- announcing that an opening 1NT is 15-17: acceptable?

- announicng that an overcall of 1NT is Landy: dodgy?

- enquring what discard system partner is playing after he has discarded: dodgy?

- announcing that a particular bid is 'forcing': unfair?

- announcing that a dodgy double is for takeout: unfair?

To me any question that would come up in a typical live game discussion with a new partner is fair. So the first 3 above are definitely fine as you would always discuss NT range, NT defense, carding. Last two, depends on the sequence in question. If it's a common sequence with multiple common options that would be checked off on the CC, fine ask the question. Obscure ones where even people who have played before are often on shaky ground, then that would probably be unfair.

[sireenb]

Such comments do not particularly bother me at the Main Bridge Club. A player once announced '1430' during a tournament and I called the Director. The player then mentioned he was a sub and I felt a bit bad but I would still call the Director in such cases.

 

I never discuss anything with my regular partners except after a disaster. I never initiate a discussion during a game with a new partner, but sometimes partner does and then it is a bit embarrassing. Usually I do not answer unless the opponents allow it.

 

When playing against people who have never played together, I usually announce that they should feel free to discuss. Usually I play with my regular partners and it is a better game if there are no big misunderstandings by opponents.

[jillybean]

Why don’t people want to play online bridge the same way “live” games are played?

 

Because for the non-tournaments on BBO, main bridge club play, most of us do consider all of it "purely casual". It's a place to practice, learn, improve partnerships, for online and/or offline tournaments when "it counts". There's absolutely nothing at stake, no masterpoints, no rankings, no prizes, so why be so formal about it?

 

I am talking about tournaments. Table play is as serious or casual as the players decide.

[Stephen Tu]

For tournaments I think people should discuss beforehand, not during, unless it is a tournament being run for purely educational purposes. I don't think anyone else on this thread was talking about it being OK for tournaments, Jilly.

[barmar]

I've never seen this kind of thing in a tourney. On the other hand, I've seen experts (real experts, i.e. national and world champions, not BBO experts) doing it in casual, friendly games. I've seen it in the daily JEC team games, if JEC is playing with someone he doesn't play with so regularly; the first time something comes up, they might ask "Do we play 1430 or 3014?"

[jillybean]

For tournaments I think people should discuss beforehand, not during, unless it is a tournament being run for purely educational purposes. I don't think anyone else on this thread was talking about it being OK for tournaments, Jilly.

Thats good :)

[1eyedjack]

In a social setting such as the main club the higher priority tends to be getting the hands moving. If you have a lengthy discussion about systems each time a player is replaced then most players will not put up with it and will move to another table at which the pace is faster, even if that means making up the system as you go. That said, I am never entirely convinced by the "better them at bridge" brigade.

 

Part of what constitutes good and effective bridge is putting the opponents under stressful situations in the auction. By which I mean creating bidding situations in which the opponents are more likely to fall over. That in itself is skilful excersise deserving of reward when well executed.

 

To take a simple example, I have on occasion contested the auction over an opponent's Blackwood bid, in the hope (whether justified or not) that the opponents may come unstuck with their continuations. My competitive action may have been a risky choice and, rightly or wrongly, I may have judged that the potential reward justifies the risk. That evaluation may be materially adjusted in favour of an uncontested sequence if, at the time of making my call, I am aware that next hand opponent is going to tell his partner that double shows (eg) no aces. At the very least, if this is going to be permitted at the table it should be made clear at the outset, not when it happens.

 

To take a more complex case, you could have a contested auction that has gone around the table about 3 times at which point an opponent chooses to double. There may be any number of workable or sensible meanings for the double, and it is quite possible for a regular partnership to foul up the meaning. I would be uncomfortable about an opponent in a pickup partnership gaining an advantage over a regular partnership by discussing this meaning on the fly. Another element of skill is in not deliberately choosing actions that may be misconstrued by partner.

 

As a guide, I think that the earlier the situation arises in the auction, the more reasonable it is to expect a regular partnership to have an agreement and thence the more reasonable it is to allow a pickup partnership to agree on the fly. The cut-off point is rather vague, however. The more serious the event, the more important it is to stick to the rules. But by contrast, the less serious the event, the less it matters if a partnership has a system foul-up, and the less significant is the benefit of "beating them at bridge". So even though I allow opponents some latitude in this area I try not to take the opportunity myself.

[barmar]

Part of what constitutes good and effective bridge is putting the opponents under stressful situations in the auction. By which I mean creating bidding situations in which the opponents are more likely to fall over. That in itself is skilful excersise deserving of reward when well executed.

That's fine when playing against a regular partnership. They're expected to work on improving their agreements, and the test of this is how well they deal with the stuff you throw at them.

 

But no one expects this of a pick-up partnership. They're just trying to have fund for a few hands. There's already much uncertainty over how ostensibly "standard" bids will be interpreted, should they really have to guess whether they're playing regular Blackwood, RKCB 3014, or RKCB 1430?

 

I don't think anyone is really suggesting that this be allowed to an unlimited extent, though. For instance, I don't think anyone would allow something like "Do we play forcing pass in this auction?" Mostly, there are some common decisions that partnerships often make when filling out a convention card together; this process is often omitted when picking up a partner online, and the decisions deferred to when they first come up.

[peachy]

If at a tourney or indy, asking or telling partner IMO is improper as everyone else is in the same boat = not knowing exactly what the sys is, even if SAYC is the default. Open tables play, I think it is common courtesy to allow opponents to make agreements in the middle of auction. Makes the game faster and more fair. Much of the questions or tells are about what RKC or whether inverted minors etc.