jillybean Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 With all due respect, your "expectation" does not amount to an agreement. If you want to inform your opps that you expect a bid to mean x you must also inform them that this is not based on any explicit agreement. And this explanation to your opps must be done in a manner so as not to inform your partner of your "expectation." An online environment is good for this. In f2f play, you would have to have your partner excused from the table in order to inform the opps of your "expectation."f2f play your partner would be explaining the bid, not you. If I am "forced" to explain a bid where I have no agreement, I explain it to the table. My partner is then privy to the same information the opponents have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 f2f play your partner would be explaining the bid, not you. If I am "forced" to explain a bid where I have no agreement, I explain it to the table. My partner is then privy to the same information the opponents have. Of course then your partner has UI. He may have the same information, but he's not in the same position - there's no restrictions on the opponents' use of the info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 f2f play your partner would be explaining the bid, not you. If I am "forced" to explain a bid where I have no agreement, I explain it to the table. My partner is then privy to the same information the opponents have. Of course then your partner has UI. He may have the same information, but he's not in the same position - there's no restrictions on the opponents' use of the info.Not suprisingly, those who force players to explain their bids or hands to their opponents have no concept of UI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 I repeat what I have said in another one:Online, with self-Alerts, you make a call you hope your partner will get. You have no idea if he will - he's from Lunastan - but you hope. You don't Alert it because "no Agreement". Say there's one common Alertable meaning, one common non-Alertable one. 1) The intended meaning is non-Alertable, partner takes it as the non-Alertable meaning. - the opponents actually have an advantage here guessing, because you didn't Alert it.2) The intended meaning is non-Alertable, partner takes it as the Alertable meaning. - tough luck, partner guessed wrong.3) The intended meaning is Alertable, partner takes it as non-Alertable. - Again, partner guessed wrong. Probably not a problem.4) The intended meaning is Alertable, partner takes it as Alertable. - the opponents are *never going to get this one*, because you *didn't Alert it*. I totally understand those who don't want to have to give information to the opponents partner doesn't have, but unfortunately, the self-Alert structure is such that you're *doing it anyway*. So, I drop back to "I'm going to assume partner's going to get my call; my call (if partner gets it) has an Alertable meaning; I'll Alert it." vice "non-Alertable/not Alert". I'm of the opinion that that's more in the spirit of Full Disclosure, and *certainly* will cause less trouble after the fact, than the above alternative. Alerting the call as "no agreement" would also work - if you immediately self-explain. Otherwise, in the common case I posited above, the opponents are going to assume you've Alerted it because it has the traditional Alertable meaning. I guess I have a little more of a burr in my side about this one because, while we make a large number of "no agreement" calls with pickups, most people don't Alert the "no agreement, but I'm bidding it as natural" ones, so when there is a "no agreement" Alert, it is almost certainly "no agreement, but I'm bidding it as conventional". But I Could Be Wrong about that - it's just my feeling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 You don't Alert it because "no Agreement". Say there's one common Alertable meaning, one common non-Alertable one.Don't your online alerts always come with an explanation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 Mine do, certainly. Others? not so much. (And technically, mine don't, always. If I'm in the middle of a crazy relay/asking bid auction, I'll alert the call, then go back and self-explain immediately, so that I'm using "other people's time" to write out what's going on.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.