alerts in pick up partnerships

[blackshoe]

I don't see the connection.

 

You walk into the club without a partner. At the last minute, the TD puts you together with someone else in the same boat. "Let's play your card", you say. "Okay," says your partner. About this time your opponents start bugging you to get on with the first board. "Bridge is a timed event", "we don't want to lose a board", etc. etc.

[barmar]

You walk into the club without a partner. At the last minute, the TD puts you together with someone else in the same boat. "Let's play your card", you say. "Okay," says your partner. About this time your opponents start bugging you to get on with the first board. "Bridge is a timed event", "we don't want to lose a board", etc. etc.

While that happens, it's not nearly as common as it is in online bridge. If I'm going to a club and don't have a partner, I'll make an effort to get there early enough that we'll have some time to discuss things, or for me to read over their CC.

 

But people don't take online bridge as seriously, it's used as "quick fix". As a result, dozens of partnerships are formed at the last minute. It's silly not to recognize that people play differently online than f2f.

[blackshoe]

I didn't say it was.

[mycroft]

It certainly is for me, as a "playing director" or "club spare". I frequently sit down with someone for a hand or two (because their partner is late), or for a session (to fill out the movement), at 2 minutes to (2 minutes after?) gametime. It happens.

 

I am lucky that there is a "Calgary standard 2/1", and much of my agreements can be made with those three "words". I tend to ask four things other:

• preempt style (and possibly what 2x-2NT means)
  
• which blackwood (because it won't come up if I ask, but it will if I don't)
  
• what we play over *their NT*
  
• carding
  

Of course, if I have time, I'll spend it.

 

If I come across a "don't know", I either:

• don't make the conventional call, taking the pragmatic, but less effective alternative, or
  
• make the conventional call, and assume partner got it. If they don't, I get to hang myself.
  

I guess based on what I know about the person.

 

Online, I have neither of those benefits, and will be in "wild territory" more often. But oh well. There are many more reasons why I avoid playing pickup online than the chance that I might get a bad score from a system misunderstanding.

[shintaro]

This is one of the reasons that referring to one's own convention card should be explicitly permitted in online bridge. I hope that this will be included if OLB ever gets its own Lawbook.

 

 

heaven forbid there is ever a Seperate Law Book for OLB

 

B-)

[barmar]

It certainly is for me, as a "playing director" or "club spare". I frequently sit down with someone for a hand or two (because their partner is late), or for a session (to fill out the movement), at 2 minutes to (2 minutes after?) gametime. It happens.

I didn't say it doesn't happen, I said it's not as common as in online bridge. My guess is that at least half the partnerships in a typical online tournament are last minute pickups. While it may happen to YOU frequently, because of your role, that's just one partnership in the room.

 

It also happens more frequently with novices at club games, since many of them don't have established partnerships yet, and they get paired up with each other (but if there are an odd number, one of them will be lucky and get the playing director). But these players often barely know what they're doing, so it's difficult to expect good disclosure.

[bluejak]

I don't think this is close to an absolute.

 

Discussion is not what makes something alertable. Agreement is what makes something alertable? Discussion is one way to come to an agreement. Agreements can be explicit (by discussion) or implicit (through similar experience etc). Whether implicit or explicit an alterable agreement requires an alert.

Absolutely true, but not relevant to an online pickup, which is what this discussion is all about.

 

When both members of a pair tell me that they have no expectation from partnership experience or discussion that the partner of a bidder who made a (foolish, see above) artificial or conventional bid would understand what it meant, and there is no evidence of a special understanding on their system cards, or in their system notes if those are available, and there is no evidence from prior TD calls of such an understanding, it seems to me that the preponderance of the evidence will often lie on the side of "not MI" rather than "MI". It would take some pretty convincing evidence of MI to overcome that.

How much partnership experience do you expect from online pickup partnerships?

[Cascade]

Here is the key term that folks are debating: when is an alert required? If you are making a conventional call that you have not discussed with your partner, hoping that he understands, is that alertable?

Absolutely not.

I don't think this is close to an absolute.

 

Discussion is not what makes something alertable. Agreement is what makes something alertable? Discussion is one way to come to an agreement. Agreements can be explicit (by discussion) or implicit (through similar experience etc). Whether implicit or explicit an alterable agreement requires an alert.

Absolutely true, but not relevant to an online pickup, which is what this discussion is all about.

Disagree.

 

Even in online play in a pickup partnership it is possible to have an implicit agreement that you have not discussed.

 

As well as discussion you have information from your partner's (and your) profile - including country, skill level and conventions listed, other players you might have seen this player playing with.

 

If you or your partner use a convention and you both understand it then most likely you have an agreement. If that agreement has not been explicitly discussed then it is implicit. Even if it is implicit it requires an alert.

 

The problem is that you have to alert before you are 100% sure you have an agreement. I suggest it is better to alert if you think there is a reasonable chance that you have an agreement (implicit) even if you have had no discussion.

[blackshoe]

How much partnership experience do you expect from online pickup partnerships?

 

None, generally speaking.

[mycroft]

My problem with pickups is that if they make a call they expect partner to get, I should be able to get it as well. If they don't, why are they bidding like that?

 

Locally, that's not a big thing, as there is "general bridge knowledge" in the area; but if two USA players are sitting down against a Polish pickup pair (it goes the other way, too, but I don't know what is US-centric, being in the ACBL and all), then:

• they are going to read something totally different into 1C-1D;2D than the Poles intend;
  
• the Poles fully expect to be on the same page, simply from the flag in their profiles;
  
• and it seems that, because there's no "agreement" or "partnership experience", there's no need to Alert.
  

 

That Feels Wrong - and I'm sure it's just as wrong when my pickup from Peoria and I have a 1D-1S; 1NT-2C; 2S-3NT; 4H unAlerted auction. But I don't know where to draw the line (except what I said above, which is what I *do*).

[barmar]

My problem with pickups is that if they make a call they expect partner to get, I should be able to get it as well. If they don't, why are they bidding like that?

Replace "expect" with "hope" (or "pray").

 

They're bidding like that because they have to bid something, and it seems like the best hope they have to describe their hand or get the information they need. They've presumably used the convention with other partners, and maybe they think it's "standard".

 

The simple fact is that the opponents have about the same amount of knowledge about the player's bidding style as the pick-up partner.

[mycroft]

Ah, but the opponents have information partner doesn't have (in the self-alert case; I assume we're on the same page, but it's better to be clear), and that information isn't "we have no agreement", it's "this call isn't Alertable". They are, in fact, being told something, by omission.

 

And that information is going to make it harder for them to "get it" than partner, who expects no Alert. One could Alert it and explain "we have no agreement about this call", but one wouldn't tend to do that for potentially conventional calls that one is bidding as natural, so in effect, that would be a "no agreement, but I mean it in the standard conventional way, and I'm hoping partner will get it".

 

I don't know the answer to this, really I don't. But my case 4 - "I bid it as conventional, partner took it as conventional, we didn't Alert it" is in fact a problem, and to me, more of a problem than "I got a bad score because I told the opponents how I meant it and partner didn't guess right".

[barmar]

Ah, but the opponents have information partner doesn't have (in the self-alert case; I assume we're on the same page, but it's better to be clear), and that information isn't "we have no agreement", it's "this call isn't Alertable". They are, in fact, being told something, by omission.

 

And that information is going to make it harder for them to "get it" than partner, who expects no Alert.

Since partner never sees your self-alerts, he doesn't know that you didn't alert it. He doesn't know whether you met his expectation. So if anything, the opponents are in a better position than he is.

 

I'm not sure there's a general solution to this.

 

Suppose you never even discussed what form of Blackwood you're playing -- one of you has 3014 in your profile, the other has 1430. Then your partner bids 4NT, and you have to respond. You have to pick a flavor, and hope partner guesses the same as you. Do you really think you should have to explain your "agreement"? If the opponents ask, the most truthful answer is "your guess is as good as his."

[matmat]

I'm actually a little amused this thread is still going.

 

Complaining about and regulating alerts in pickup bridge is like going into a speakeasy and complaining to the cops that the moonshine there tastes a little rank.

 

It's impossible to legislate. you can't figure out people's intent, you can't make sure they're all on the same page.

 

You could force a convention card or allow the opps to alert each other to the meanings of the bids (i.e. open convention card).

 

Pickup bridge is a variant of the game, but, just as with no-psych bridge, stayman/blackwood only bridge, etc. it is not the full package and there ought to be a different standard for it to be held to.

[barmar]

I agree. The less "regular" a partnership is, the more lenient you have to be when trying to apply the laws on disclosure. If they've been playing together weekly for years, throw the book at them when they fail to disclose properly (although this would be more punishment if we had hard-bound versions of the Law book). If they met at the partnership desk of a f2f tournament, and spent 30 minutes filling out a CC, you should expect proper disclosure in most common situations (type of Blackwood, transfers, Drury, inverted minors); mainly the conventions for which there are checkboxes on the CC. But if they just partnered up a couple of minutes before an online tourney, often the extent of their discussion is something like "SAYC 1430 std?", "OK"; they're lucky if they're both on the same page regarding Jacoby 2NT (it's in the SAYC booklet, but many don't realize that).

 

It's a crapshoot for them, why do you really expect it should be any better for the opponents?

[helene_t]

And that information is going to make it harder for them to "get it" than partner, who expects no Alert. One could Alert it and explain "we have no agreement about this call", but one wouldn't tend to do that for potentially conventional calls that one is bidding as natural, so in effect, that would be a "no agreement, but I mean it in the standard conventional way, and I'm hoping partner will get it".

Yes, it is probably better to pre-alert that you have no partnership agreements beyond for example "5-card majors, 15-17, std" instead of alerting all calls the meaning of which you are unsure.

 

That said, it is not much of a problem since in a pick-up partnership you probably default to the rule "if it can be natural and it is not exotic to play it as natural, it is natural". I would then alert and say "no agreement" if I respond 2♠ my partner's 1NT opening. Now it could be MSS (what GIB plays), weak with one minor (SAYC) or clubs (forum standard). It is unlikely to be natural but partner is unlikely to take it as natural as well so that is fine. I would do the same with lots of doubles, and my alert doesn't mean that I hope my p takes it as t/o. It might as well mean that I hope my p takes it as penalty. So that is fine, too.

 

One situation in which I do recognize the problem is when I use NMF or CBS or XYZ. Those calls could be natural but by alerting them I tell opps that I probably don't mean it as natural.

[mycroft]

Since partner never sees your self-alerts, he doesn't know that you didn't alert it. He doesn't know whether you met his expectation. So if anything, the opponents are in a better position than he is.

 

I don't think so. If partner thinks it's intended artificial, he expects no Alert, gets no Alert, and is in good shape. If partner thinks it's natural, same statement applies. Partner guesses, and may guess right and may guess wrong, but has no information one way or the other (other than my name, my location, my self-selected skill level, and whatever he can guess from that).

 

However, the opponents expect an Alert if it's artificial, and none if it's natural - and get no Alert. Because this is information, no matter how inferential or inconclusive it is; and it points toward "natural". They are less likely to guess "they don't have an agreement, and I'm going to guess he means it Artificially" than partner, because they have that information.

 

Again, all of that is in the context of "I meant it artificially, partner guessed it was artificial, I didn't alert because we have 'no agreement', just a hope".

 

I'm sitting down to play with somebody from Toronto, and the auction goes 1NT by partner, 2H by me. We have "no agreement", but I'm sure partner's going to take it as a transfer to his (I'm taking it as 15-17) NT - so I don't Alert. Playing against a newly-internet-connected pair from West Lake Mead, UK, where everybody still plays Stone-Age Acol, they really have better chance of getting it right than partner?

 

That's an extreme case, and it could be argued that it won't happen; but the less extreme cases: 1C-1D; 2D by Messrs. Walesa and Kaczynski would probably get 50+% of Americans (without them even thinking it could be artificial); as would 2C-2D by Tam and Yung from Taiwan (here, they'd probably think it's artificial, but they'd have the strong hand wrong...).

 

I'm not sure there's a general solution to this.

With this I agree.

 

Suppose you never even discussed what form of Blackwood you're playing -- one of you has 3014 in your profile, the other has 1430. Then your partner bids 4NT, and you have to respond. You have to pick a flavor, and hope partner guesses the same as you. Do you really think you should have to explain your "agreement"? If the opponents ask, the most truthful answer is "your guess is as good as his."

No, although I'd explain that it almost certainly is keycard of one stripe. But on the other hand, I wouldn't not Alert it (were I in a space where responses to Blackwood were self-Alertable).

 

Actually, I probably would tell them. The fault is either yours, for thinking that if you haven't discussed it, it's keycard (the safe, unambiguous, option is "straight Aces"), or partner's, for choosing to make a bid that won't help him. In neither case is it the opponents' fault that your bidding is going to be unhelpful *to you*.

 

Here's an alternative. 1H-(1S). You don't know if partner is old-fashioned or novice, and 3H is limit, or whether 2S is, and 3H is preemptive. You're playing in a regime where 3H preemptive is Alertable. Do you bid 3H with your 4-and-4, and not Alert it (and if they ask, explain that "we have no agreement" (but why would they ask?)) or do you not bid, or do you bid it and Alert it, and explain that you have no agreement (but strongly implying that you're weak)? I would say that the second option is going to cost you more than the third (if it happens to be wrong), but that the first is going to lead to TD calls and/or bad feeling. If it's "unfair", so be it.

[mycroft]

It's a crapshoot for them, why do you really expect it should be any better for the opponents?

Because I believe the Laws and the principle of Full Disclosure say so.

 

I continue to only discuss the case where a lack of Alert carries meaning that "no agreement" does not fit, however - and there your choices are "make it better for the opponents" or "make it harder for the opponents" than partner. Given the two, I know which side I'm on.

[barmar]

This is all very tricky. Whether you alert is based on what the RA says is alertable. So if you make a preemptive raise in a jurisdiction where these are alertable, you must alert it.

 

However, the Laws say that you're only required to explain "special partnership understandings". So if you don't actually have an agreement that you're making preemptive raises, you're not required to explain this.

 

If you alert and then explain "no agreement", the opponents can figure out that it has one of the alertable meanings, but not which one.

 

As I said earlier, the laws and regulations on full disclosure were written with the presumption that the partnership actually has agreements. It's hard to apply them strictly when there's been little discussion of agreements.

[mycroft]

That's very close to where I am, actually, Barry, and I'm glad we've been able to work through the fuzz to get here.

 

I just happen to prefer "Alert, no agreement, but given my knowledge he's going to take it either natural or <X>" to "No Alert, no agreement, ..." because the chance of the no agreement being a problem to the opponents is higher the latter way.

 

I agree with you completely that there is no good solution, either with self-Alerts or with Partner Alerts (or, even, with screen Alerts) - the problems with each solution are different, even, under each case.

[bluejak]

The problem is that you have to alert before you are 100% sure you have an agreement. I suggest it is better to alert if you think there is a reasonable chance that you have an agreement (implicit) even if you have had no discussion.

No doubt true, but that is not the way it is in online play: basically you are just guessing much of the time.

 

I just happen to prefer "Alert, no agreement, but given my knowledge he's going to take it either natural or <X>" to "No Alert, no agreement, ..." because the chance of the no agreement being a problem to the opponents is higher the latter way.

What happens when you are wrong?

[mycroft]

I don't know. I have given complete disclosure of my agreement, including any inferences I may have from knowledge of my partner. What happens when that is wrong?

 

But seriously, I eat it and go on, like I do anything else. What happens when the people who don't Alert, bid conventionally and catch their partner on the same wavelength?

[bluejak]

If it is because of general bridge knowledge, nothing: it is perfectly legal. If it is because of guesswork, nothing, because it is perfectly legal.

 

But when you invent an agreement you do not have an tell the opponents you have broken the Law.

[awm]

If I'm playing online, I have the responsibility to disclose to the opponents what I think our agreements are. This includes alerting calls where I think we have an alertable agreement.

 

The fact that partner might not be on the same page about some of these agreements (and that this is much more likely in a pickup partnership than an established pair) does not absolve me of the responsibility of disclosing my agreements. The fact that I might not be 100% sure of our agreement does not absolve me of this responsibility either.

 

For example, if I agree "SAYC partner" and then bid 2NT in response to partner's 1M, intended as Jacoby... then I must alert as Jacoby because I think that is our agreement. It is true that partner might not realize Jacoby is part of the SAYC document, and that we never discussed Jacoby specifically. The chances that partner is "not on the same page" is higher than if we had a real discussion. It is also true that my belief that we play Jacoby 2NT is somehow based on bridge knowledge (I have read the SAYC document) and not on specific discussion of our methods. Nonetheless, I am obligated to disclose what I think our agreements are!

 

To believe otherwise really creates an untenable situation. For example, suppose partner and I have an agreement that hasn't come up in years... am I absolved from alerting because I am not 100% sure this is still our agreement? What if I am sure it's our agreement, but I'm not sure partner will remember? In a sense you can never really be sure about what your agreements are (even if you have detailed system notes) because you can't read partner's mind... but you still have to make a best-effort attempt to alert and explain as best you can. Pickup partnerships lead to more misunderstandings, but if I'm sufficiently sure that we play a particular method that I'm willing to take a flyer on it (and that method requires an alert) it really seems I should alert it.

[barmar]

If you agreed to play SAYC, then you've implicitly agreed to play Jacoby 2NT, so you clearly must alert it.

 

On the other hand, the SAYC booklet makes no mention of double jumps shifts. So a better question is what you should do if you decide to make a splinter bid.