Confusion

[helene_t]

Is this phenomenon really so different from what you might encounter at a club game at the local Y?

I think the situation is a lot better online than IRL because opps can explain their (lack of) agreements without giving UI to partner, and because the alert rules are simpler online than IRL.

 

That said, there are of course much more pairs with almost zip agreements online than IRL. Also if I play with a random from the local club I can assume Lancaster-dialect-of-Acol while online I can't assume much. And lack of nonverbal clues, language barriers and for some lack of computer skills add to the problems.

 

Anyway, as for the OP case I agree with you that we should not assume any ethical issue. Most likely they don't have any agreement so "no information available" is OK although "no agreement" would have been even better.

[peachy]

As for the bids on this hand, as a non-expert I would expect 4♥ to be to play (possibly a 2-suiter, but somewhat undefined) and Dbl of 2♥ to show a good hand with hearts.

Without specific agreements, I would expect opener to Dbl 2H when he DOESN'T have 4-card hearts but has enough extras to profitably compete. With a minimum and no 4-card hearts, Pass. With 4-card hearts just bid hearts and don't worry what the opponent might or might not have intended with the 2H call. All this mind reading is tiresome but there is a good rule of thumb for pickups as well as regular partners: If an undiscussed bid can be natural, it is natural.

[kenberg]

I heartily agree with this last sentence. I make every effort to convince every partner of its good sense.

[ggwhiz]

When your bid is a mis-click (as 2h MAY have been) you are not obliged to tell the opponents anything but your agreement.

 

As pointed out, you and your pick-up pard may have none.

 

My experience in speedballs has been that using the chat arrows gets an honest response above and beyond what's required by the laws with the occasional exception when opp is frozen like a deer in the headlights. Or perhaps a language issue.

 

The behavior/ethics have been pretty good so talk about a deliberate psyche with non-disclosure doesn't resonate with me at all.

 

When your pard took 4h to be artificial, (s)he was mis-guided in the extreme but in an ethical attempt worthy of a country song. Or Tom Petty, "I won't back down"

[kenberg]

I would not exactly call my partner a pick-up. He is a good player, we have played together before, i hope we do again. But we do not have a lot of agreements and we have not had a lot of discussion. This is very typical for online play.

 

 

Helene raises the question of whether the same happens in f2f play. Yes, but I think less often. Here is an example to illustrate what I think to be the difference. Playing f2f the other day, red against white. I pass in first seat, pass on my left, partner opens a club, rho overecalls a heart and I make a wjs to 3D. After the hand, I say: "Perhaps you were puzzled over how I could first pass and then have a wjs to 3♦. My diamonds are eight cards headed by the QT and at this vul I prefer, for 3♦, to have a suit such that if I catch you with values and the Kx you can bid 3NT." It doesn't matter if anyone else agrees with this approach, the point is that partner learned something about my approach. Online, we seldom have such conversations so there is always a lot of guessing going on. It changes the nature of the game some, and we have to cope.

 

 

Btw, it was the regular pairs, not the speedball. I am ok with the sometimes loosey-goosey nature of online play but I do like to have a little time to think a bit now and then. I am far too inclined to play first and think later, so I don't like a format that encourages this.

[hijumper]

I totally agree with your 4H and your intereptation. Your partner's x should guarantee at least 4 cards of heart, and probably 4 cards of another minor as well. Therefore 2H by LHO should be sort of limited raise on Spade and your 4H should never be treated as cuebid showing strong hand and monster suit of your first bid.

[jjbrr]

I know it's just bad bridge and nothing else, but it feels wrong to me that someone can psyche a bid and then provide no information at all about what it means.

A psych is a deliberate departure from partnership agreement. Since the disclosure rules are oriented around explaining those agreements, if a player psychs, and you ask him what his bid means (online — you can't do that f2f unless behind screens) you should expect the explanation to not match the hand. You may not like that — I expect a lot of players don't — but since psychs are legal, you're stuck with it.

 

Before someone suggests creating a regulation that if an opponent asks, when you have psyched, about your call, you must tell him you've psyched, let my say that IMO such a regulation would be illegal, since it effectively makes psyching pointless, and so would contravene Law 40A3.

 

That said, if you ask someone what a call means, you should be told the partnership agreement.

Right. Psyche isn't the right word for this situation.

 

I just think a game where someone can make bids in lots of different situations with no responsibility whatsoever to either have a hand that resembles anything the bid normally shows or to disclose the fact that it's completely random to the opponents is not a game I'm interested in playing.

 

It's like the auction 2H (dbl) 3x where 3x can be any 13 cards. It has no downside if you can claim no agreement and the only responsibility is on the opponents to try to work around it.

 

Hardly seems fair.

[blackshoe]

I just think a game where someone can make bids in lots of different situations with no responsibility whatsoever to either have a hand that resembles anything the bid normally shows or to disclose the fact that it's completely random to the opponents is not a game I'm interested in playing.

Whinge noted. However, this (bridge) isn't such a game.

[kenberg]

Online bridge, like other bridge, spans a huge spectrum. When I play in an online acbl tourney, typically with someone with whom I have limited discussions, I generally go with the following:

 

If I make some bid that I intend as artificial, I explain it. I hope partner understands, but I explain my bid even if I am not sure that he will.

 

If I make a natural bid, I am prepared to explain whether I construe it as invitational, forcing, or a sign-off. Unless I am playing with a regular partner, I feel less obligation to describe my hand further. It depends on the situation of course, but often I am not even certain partner and I agree on which bids are forcing and I think it is asking too much to expect me to go much beyond that.

 

This seems like a sensible compromise approach for the acbl online game.

 

But I also try to keep a sense of humor. Playing pick-up the other day the auction began (1H)-pass(by me)-(2C)-2S. Partner had four spades to the ace and something like a ten count. One cannot explain the unexplainable.

[babalu1997]

But I also try to keep a sense of humor. Playing pick-up the other day the auction began (1H)-pass(by me)-(2C)-2S. Partner had four spades to the ace and something like a ten count. One cannot explain the unexplainable.

ever play against redoublers?

 

they bid some silly games, then redouble

 

they also double some perfectly normal game you bid

 

other times they bid to the 5 level, get doubled then redouble

 

i saw a pair do this 3 times, then i looked at the hand records after the tournament

 

they in fact redoubled 8 times in 12 hands and played 4 doubled.

 

they actully had 3 good results

 

lol

[barmar]

It seems to me that one ought to be able to ask one's opponent what they were intending to show. One can't ask them what there hand is, but think about how it's done with bidding screens...you ask what the bid they make means. Can they really say "We have no agreement as to what my bid means" or do they have to say how they hoped it would be intended?

Read the Laws. They're only required to disclose the partnership agreements, not their intent. If someone improvises with an undiscussed bid, there's no obligation to disclose how they hope their partner will interpret it. If the partner has to guess, it's not unfair that you do, too.

 

However, if they have experience with similar bids, or partnership defaults, that makes a particular interpretation likely, they're required to disclose this.

[uday]

A TD ruled against us during the recently-concluded Reno NABC on something like this

 

Opp: what does 4N mean?

Us: We don't have an agreement, but I'm taking it as BLAH. We play X so it can't be Y.

...

...

.... ( we had Y )

...

...

Opps: Director! He said BLAH but it turned out to be Y. Had I known he had Y I would have ...

TD:(after ruling against us): Next time, stop talking after "We don't have an agreement."

[pooltuna]

A TD ruled against us during the recently-concluded Reno NABC on something like this

 

Opp: what does 4N mean?

Us: We don't have an agreement, but I'm taking it as BLAH. We play X so it can't be Y.

...

...

.... ( we had Y )

...

...

Opps: Director! He said BLAH but it turned out to be Y. Had I known he had Y I would have ...

TD:(after ruling against us): Next time, stop talking after "We don't have an agreement."

I see how they ruled on you. The question that I have. Is did you get kissed?

[hanp]

Only saying "we don't have an agreement" is often safe, but that doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do. It is a shame that the directors recommend these tactics. (I don't quite understand why you were ruled against, you gave a correct explanation of your agreements? Sounds like partner misbid which isn't against the laws.)

 

Having said that, announcing that you partner "cannot have hand Y" when your partner in fact does have hand Y asks for trouble. Maybe it in the future it is safer to say something like "just so you know, we do play X so that may mean that partner won't have Y, but as I said, we haven't discussed this auction so who knows". That seems like a compromise between telling your opponents what you know and not getting nailed for trying to be ethical.