no agreement response

[onoway]

first of all; I am TDing by "default". Nobody else wants to do them so that's the choice the players have. I don't pretend to know all I should know; this is not a matter of any sort of pride, but I don't have the time to pursue TDing qualification with the focus it deserves. The vast majority of the time, nothing comes up which I cannot deal with as the players are largely cooperative and friendly as well as competitive. However:

 

Last night in the last hand a bid came up which was not alerted and when the opps requested information, the response was "no agreement". The player in question had been conscientious in alerting throughout the match, and so was his pard. However, the bid thoroughly discombobulated the opps. Nobody called for me; I happened to be kibbing at the table. In the long run it made no difference to the outcome of the match; they were winning before the hand with a comfortable enough margin and this was the very last hand of the match.

 

The bidding went:(imps scoring, the pair bidding ♦ vul, opps not

Pass 1♦ X Pass

1♠ Pass 2♠ 3♠ (the bid which raised the question)

X XX (alerted as having a ♠ stop) Pass 5♦

X Pass Pass Pass

 

The hand which bid 3♠ was ♠8 ♥KJ8 ♦AT963 ♣K874

 

I spoke to someone ( not involved and wasn't there) after the match about this and his reaction was: " that is a bs response; he would not have made the bid if he didn't think his pard would have some sort of assumption about his hand as a result of the bid". That makes sense to me, even though his pard thought for some time before he bid, so it seemed as though it certainly wasn't any sort of clear agreement.

 

My question is; If the bewildered opps had asked for me what should I have done, if anything? or should I have interfered anyway, since I was there? My understanding is that if there is no agreement then the opps are not entitled to more info than the pard has, and everyone is on their own to figure out what the bid means in context. Is this correct? I gave the bidder the benefit of the doubt since up to that point he had been explaining his bids without having to be prompted.

 

The problem really comes down to leaving one pair with an unhappy feeling of being duped with some fast footwork by their opps and this is not what we want for the matches, if it can be dealt with in a way that leaves everyone feeling fairly dealt with. Sometimes life just isn't fair, of course, just want to know if this is one of those times.

[helene_t]

In general, if it's a regular partnership, partner has a better chance than opps have of getting what a cuebid or dbl or rdbl means in some convoluted auction. Personally I would almost never ask a player what he hopes his p takes his bid as, but trust that it is true that it is undiscussed. I know some TDs think differently.

 

As for the concrete case, I think it is just general bridge knowledge that the 3♠ player has a good diamond raise and couldn't act immediately over the dbl because he forgot to discuss forcing minor suit raises after the double.

 

Maybe his p has better general bridge knowledge than opps have and is therefore in a better position to figure it out, but that doesn't change the fact that general bridge knowledge is not alertable.

[jdonn]

I think even asking about bids like 3♠ here is pretty silly. What do you expect them to say but no agreement? Sorry but it not only seems like not an attempt to dupe anyone, but practically the only answer you could expect to receive.

[onoway]

Well, there undoubtedly was a difference in the level of bridge understanding between the pairs, but that's life. I appreciate the feedback. Thanks.

[barmar]

I believe the player who said "No agreement", as this is a very unusual auction. Cue bidding the opponents' suit obviously has to show a good hand, but such a hand would presumably have bid something on the first round: a new suit is forcing, redouble shows 10+ HCP, or Jordan 2NT if they play that. I'd be very surprised if his partner expected a hand like this from him, since his first pass typically limits him to less than 6 HCP.

[aguahombre]

I'd be very surprised if his partner expected a hand like this from him, since his first pass typically limits him to less than 6 HCP.

Unless you had read Helene's second paragraph, which is very good.

[barmar]

I'd be very surprised if his partner expected a hand like this from him, since his first pass typically limits him to less than 6 HCP.

Unless you had read Helene's second paragraph, which is very good.

I did, but I don't agree. If you haven't agreed on Jordan, then redouble presumably doesn't deny support. So you redouble first, then raise later.

 

If he didn't want to do that because he didn't think it would be understood, either, then it sounds like this pair doesn't have well established agreements in general. Whatever is going on in this auction, it seems like he's just improvising, hoping his partner will figure it out. That's also a good case for "no agreement".

[blackshoe]

"Polling" one player in judgement cases is probably worse than not polling at all. Particularly when that player has such strong (and wrong headed) opinions.

 

When a pair claims they have no agreement, it's usually a pretty good idea to investigate a bit and see if the TD agrees. In this case, it sounds like I'd agree. So, no agreement, no infraction, result stands. Next case! :)

[1eyedjack]

I spoke to someone ( not involved and wasn't there) after the match about this and his reaction was: " that is a bs response; he would not have made the bid if he didn't think his pard would have some sort of assumption about his hand as a result of the bid".

I agree with the others on this, but would just add that there is a difference between hoping that partner will guess the meaning of the bid, and expecting him to do so.

 

Hope without any particular expectation one way or the other does not an agreement make. He may assess that the best chance of a reasonable result is to make a bid whose meaning has a high chance of being misinterpreted, and yet it could still be winning strategy to make that bid.

 

We had a fairly animated discussion in this forum some years ago about what to do in the following situation:

 

W N E S

1N P 2H?

 

E/W are a pickup partnership with no discussed methods, and the question arose whether East is obliged to tell N/S whether he means the bid to be a transfer to Spades, or whether "no agreement" is an adequate response despite that East has a fistful of Spades and few Hearts. Of course in the real world any human N/S would allow East to tell West as well as N/S, but the theoretical problem remains valid: East may conclude that playing in 1N will be a disaster. Playing in Hearts will also be a disaster (probably slightly more so). Playing in Spades will be a respectable result. If East reckons that there is, say, a 70% chance that West will guess that it is a transfer, purely on the basis that in East's estimation 70% of players on BBO would play that way (OK probably more, but that is academic), what is his disclosure obligation?

[blackshoe]

If I were playing with a pickup partner at one of the local clubs (where virtually everyone plays strong NT with at least Jacoby transfers) and we'd had no time to discuss system, or this aspect of system, I would bid 2H hoping (expecting) partner would take it as a transfer. I can't imagine anyone would ask, but if someone did, I'd say "no agreement". If the opponents were strangers to the club, I'd add "but most folks around here play it as a transfer".

[aguahombre]

Why is the person who made the bid saying anything, in a live game?

[blackshoe]

because I'm not awake yet. :P

 

I trust folks will get the idea.

[Old York]

Self alerting seems to cause more problems than it cures. In normal f2f bridge, it is your partner who must alert, and subsequently explain any agreements. With online bridge, effectively, you are answering on your partners behalf, so must try to give the answer that your partner would have given had he/she been asked.

 

Also, although we usually insist that all artificial bids are alerted, it is actually only agreements that should be alerted.

 

A TD should never interfere whilst kibbing, unless certain that a pair are cheating or using highly unusual methods etc. Having said that, I might have asked the opening bidder if an agreement existed.

 

I do, however, find it a bit odd that after asking for a stopper and being shown one, responder decided to bid 5♦ and not 3NT. Were oppo duped into doubling? ..... or did they both overbid wildly? The takeout doubler bid three times and his partner showed a minimum response with 1♠ but then doubled 3♠.

Too much bidding at this table :P

 

Tony

 

edit: actually, it was the weakest hand who made the final penalty double

[helene_t]

Self alerting seems to cause more problems than it cures. In normal f2f bridge, it is your partner who must alert, and subsequently explain any agreements. With online bridge, effectively, you are answering on your partners behalf, so must try to give the answer that your partner would have given had he/she been asked.

I think it depends what you are used to. For someone who is used to self-alert, face-to-face bridge feels like you are answering on your partner's behalf :P

 

Self-alert is more helpful to opps, though. Suppose my p opens 2♦ and my p thinks we agreed to play it as a natural weak two, while I think we agreed to play it as Flannery. In face to face bridge, opps will hear that partner has both majors which is not what she has. Online, they will hear that she has diamonds which is correct.

 

Also, the fact that partner doesn't get any UI from the explanation is a big advantage (but of course this would still be the case if one chose to alert partner's bids online).

[Old York]

Also, the fact that partner doesn't get any UI from the explanation is a big advantage (but of course this would still be the case if one chose to alert partner's bids online).

Yes, I agree. Obtaining UI from your partner's alert is a big problem. How is this done in professional tournaments with screens?

 

On BBO etc, it would be very simple for the software to divert all queries to the bidder's partner. The bidder would simply click the alert box before making a bid, and his/her partner should answer any queries. This would also be done without his/her knowledge as the query/answer would not be visible, so no UI

 

Tony

[blackshoe]

A TD should never interfere whilst kibbing, unless certain that a pair are cheating or using highly unusual methods etc.

Per which law?

[bluejak]

I play a highly complex system with one or two partners, and have often had complex agreements with players before.

 

At no time and with no partner have I ever had an agreement with the given sequence. However, when the opponents bid and raise a suit it is perfectly safe to bid it with no agreement confident partner will not pass it even without agreement, and it is often the safest method of forcing.

 

So, I would expect that players have no agreement. Their opponents, presumably beginners or novices since they would never have tried to find out otherwise should have it explained to them about such sequences.

 

As for kibitzing and seeing things, I never do as a TD: I do not approve.

[barmar]

Self-alert is more helpful to opps, though. Suppose my p opens 2♦ and my p thinks we agreed to play it as a natural weak two, while I think we agreed to play it as Flannery. In face to face bridge, opps will hear that partner has both majors which is not what she has. Online, they will hear that she has diamonds which is correct.

But the Laws say that opponents are entitled to know what your agreements are, not necessarily what you actually hold.

 

However, I agree that if the players are guessing at what they think the agreement is, it would be better for the procedure to err towards the explanation that actually matches the hand.

[Jlall]

No agreement is perfectly fine here imo

[helene_t]

However, I agree that if the players are guessing at what they think the agreement is, it would be better for the procedure to err towards the explanation that actually matches the hand.

Players should not guess at what the agreement is. (In practice, some do).

 

But sometimes p is convinced that his bid means X and I am convinced it means Y.

[barmar]

However, I agree that if the players are guessing at what they think the agreement is, it would be better for the procedure to err towards the explanation that actually matches the hand.

Players should not guess at what the agreement is. (In practice, some do).

 

But sometimes p is convinced that his bid means X and I am convinced it means Y.

Right, they shouldn't guess. They should know their agreements and then explain them correctly, and they should know when they're in a situation that isn't covered by their agreements.

 

But in practice, that doesn't always happen. If they don't realize they don't have an agreement (e.g. they think it's covered by some general defaults, but it really isn't), they're going to give an explanation. Explaining a nonexistent agreement is essentially misinformation. So the question that's left is: If you're going to give misinformation, isn't there less potential damage to the opponents if the misinformation accurately reflects what the player holds?

 

However, some players expect too much. They don't believe that in a self-alert system you should ever say "No agreement", but that you should always explain what you think your bid shows. They apparently think "No agreement" is equivalent to "I don't know" in the partner-alert system, and obviously the self-alerting player knows what he's trying to show. But that's not the way to think about it. As I think I mentioned earlier, you have to distinguish between what you expect partner to understand and what you merely hope (sometimes it's more like pray).

[blackshoe]

So the question that's left is: If you're going to give misinformation, isn't there less potential damage to the opponents if the misinformation accurately reflects what the player holds?

This is the infamous "DeWael school" approach, which the WBFLC has explicitly contradicted (in a minute last year, I think).

[Old York]

A TD should never interfere whilst kibbing, unless certain that a pair are cheating or using highly unusual methods etc.

Per which law?

Sorry, my mistake

 

What I meant was.....

 

A TD should never interfere whilst kibbing, unless certain that a pair are cheating or using highly unusual methods (etc. means other infractions which is certain to damage oppo)

 

The word "certain" is not optional

 

I have read the other thread, but experts seem to disagree on the exact intention of the lawmakers

 

Tony