explanation "To play"

[Free]

Because Kenxie asked...

 

If you explain a bid as "To play", is partner allowed to bid on? Or did you give a wrong explanation when partner is still allowed to bid (for example with extra strength)?

 

To give you some thoughts about the subject, here are 2 kinds of biddings which are totally different imo, but some people would both alert them as "to play".

 

1m-2NT "to play" (with the standard meaning)

1NT-2M "to play" (not using transfers)

[hrothgar]

Here's my take on things:

 

When someone says "To play", this is shorthand for

 

"Partner is expected to pass if they hold a 'standard' hand, however, there may exist a set of hands such that partner is permitted to reject the signoff"

 

To some extent, this is a terrible description, since the definition of "To play" will depend on both partnership understanding and the definition of the previous bids.

 

For example, suppose that I bid "3NT" as to play over partner's 15-17 HCP NT opening. Partner's hand is VERY tightly defined. In this case, the meaning of partner's 1NT effectively means that he can't hold a hand suitable to rejecting 3NT as a contract.

 

Contrast this with the case where I bid 3NT "to play" over a Standard American 1S opening. Partner could easily hold a hand suitable for rejecting my 3NT bid.

[HeartA]

Of course pd can bid on if he has extra.

[helium]

he can only bid on whit something really speasial.

 

 

kenneth

[pclayton]

Agree 100% with Richard. Partner can bid on with: a) extra points or b ) extra shape.

 

This is a continuation of a thread about the 2N call. Certainly opener is not barred if he holds a 22 count; or even a shapely 10 count.

 

Here's another case: weak 2, then a 3N overcall. Explanation? I want to play 3N! I don't need to tell you if my hand is a balanced 24, or a 15 count with a running suit and stop.

 

I only need to disclose my partnership agreement; if there is one.

[the hog]

Here's my take on things:

 

When someone says "To play", this is shorthand for

 

"Partner is expected to pass if they hold a 'standard' hand, however, there may exist a set of hands such that partner is permitted to reject the signoff"

 

To some extent, this is a terrible description, since the definition of "To play" will depend on both partnership understanding and the definition of the previous bids.

 

For example, suppose that I bid "3NT" as to play over partner's 15-17 HCP NT opening. Partner's hand is VERY tightly defined. In this case, the meaning of partner's 1NT effectively means that he can't hold a hand suitable to rejecting 3NT as a contract.

 

Contrast this with the case where I bid 3NT "to play" over a Standard American 1S opening. Partner could easily hold a hand suitable for rejecting my 3NT bid.

Agree totally. When we are talking about someone whose English isn't great, "to play" can be perfectly easily interpreted as "natural".

[Cowology]

^^ Yup. Richard said it well.

[inquiry]

I only need to disclose my partnership agreement; if there is one.

Don't you need to disclose that you have you NO AGREEMENT if you in fact have no agreement. In otherwords, your responsibility, especially when asked, is to clearly state what your agreement is.. .and "no agreement" is the explaination if you have none.

[tysen2k]

For me "to play" means that I expect partner to pass 97% of the time.

 

I would never describe 1m-2N (NF) as "to play" but rather as "non-forcing" or "invitational"

 

Tysen

[the hog]

I only need to disclose my partnership agreement; if there is one.

Don't you need to disclose that you have you NO AGREEMENT if you in fact have no agreement. In otherwords, your responsibility, especially when asked, is to clearly state what your agreement is.. .and "no agreement" is the explaination if you have none.

Ben, not to press a point but that assumption is clearly implicit in what Phil wrote.

[Free]

"Partner is expected to pass if they hold a 'standard' hand, however, there may exist a set of hands such that partner is permitted to reject the signoff"

 

So opening with 1X with 19HCP isn't 'standard', but with 13HCP it is? :blink: Either I have to learn the English language again, or the standard systems, or this sentence is absolute rubish.

[the hog]

Frederick, I think you yourself are attempting to don the mantle of "bush lawyer". Argue not with a pedant for you will always lose. A 19 point hand is not "standard" in the context of that word.

[Cowology]

"Partner is expected to pass if they hold a 'standard' hand, however, there may exist a set of hands such that partner is permitted to reject the signoff"

 

So opening with 1X with 19HCP isn't 'standard', but with 13HCP it is? :blink: Either I have to learn the English language again, or the standard systems, or this sentence is absolute rubish.

It would be "standard" to open that hand 1x, but not a "standard" 1x opening....if that makes any sense lol

[hrothgar]

"Partner is expected to pass if they hold a 'standard' hand, however, there may exist a set of hands such that partner is permitted to reject the signoff"

 

So opening with 1X with 19HCP isn't 'standard', but with 13HCP it is?  :blink:  Either I have to learn the English language again, or the standard systems, or this sentence is absolute rubish.

Consider the notion of "Mode" as applied to a specific bridge bid.

 

A Standard American 1C opening can incorporates a lot of different hand types. However, it is most likely to be based on a balanced hand (4432, 4333, 5332) pattern with roughly 12-14 HCP.

 

Now consider applying notions such as deviations from the Mode across an N dimensional space. Once you get far enough out on certain tails, you'll start rejecting signoffs...

[pbleighton]

Free:

"So opening with 1X with 19HCP isn't 'standard', but with 13HCP it is? Either I have to learn the English language again, or the standard systems, or this sentence is absolute rubish."

 

The_Hog:

"Frederick, I think you yourself are attempting to don the mantle of "bush lawyer". Argue not with a pedant for you will always lose. A 19 point hand is not "standard" in the context of that word."

 

Hrothgar:

"Now consider applying notions such as deviations from the Mode across an N dimensional space. Once you get far enough out on certain tails, you'll start rejecting signoffs..."

 

ROFL

 

Peter

 

P.S. Richard - I think a simple "bullshit" would have sufficed :blink:

[mycroft]

When I use "to play", it's always in a "partner has told me her hand, and is going to pass if uncontested" context. 1NT-2M(TP), 3D-3NT(TP), 1S-4S(TP, which in a limited opening system does not necessarily mean "weak"), 2H-4H(TP), that sort of thing. I tend to use different wording for "I expect partner to pass, but she may have the right kind of hand to go on".

 

Certainly, I would not refer to an invitational bid as "to play". The context is always "I have no interest in you raising me, pd."

 

[non-NAers and people with weak hearts can stop now]

Of course, in the (in)famous Meckstroth ACBL Bulletin editorials of mumble years ago, he argued that if, playing a 10-12 NT, "to play" meant you wouldn't raise the call even if contested with a 12 high 4432 with 4-card support, you're playing a(n illegal, in ACBL-land) psychic control if partner ever bids 2S with 1444 Q and out. I have no comment to that at all.

 

Michael.

[Free]

Ok, 1M-p-4M-something is indeed another situation. However if both opps pass, can partner still bid?

 

Seems like most people think "to play" is not meant as 100% to play. I'll keep that in mind :blink:

[flytoox]

Of coz pd can. For example, playing natural system, 1m-1N. If asked, 1N is clearly to play, and surely pd can bid 2M, 2N, 3N, or 6N wahtever.

 

To play, in my view, is equivalent to invitation.

[Free]

To play, in my view, is equivalent to invitation.

Obviously opposite different strength with partner...

[luke warm]

the question was, can partner bid again if my bid is alerted 'to play'... of course he can... we play a weak nt and are expected to bid a 5 card suit "to play" in an uncontested auction... however, if he opens 1nt and i bid 2s, he can most definitely bid 3s, even tho i would alert 2s as 'to play' and i'd fully expect pard to pass... if he did bid 3s, i'd be as surprised as the ops, but that's quite apart from his right to do so...

 

and i disagree with fly, 'to play' and 'invitational' don't carry the same meaning to me

[fred]

Some definitions you might find useful:

 

1. Signoff - partner is expected to pass 100% of the time.

 

Examples:

 

1NT-3NT (3NT is a signoff, opener will always pass)

 

1H-2H-4H (4H is a signoff, responder will always pass)

 

2. Non-forcing bid - partner can pass if he wants but he will not do so 100% of the time.

 

Examples:

 

1H-3H (3H is non-forcing, opener will sometimes pass, but frequently bid again)

 

1H-4H (4H is non-forcing, opener will usually pass, but occasionally bid again)

 

The difference between "signoffs" and "non-forcing bids" is that the partner of a player who makes a signoff bid has limited his hand whereas the partner of a player who makes a non-forcing bid has not limited his hand.

 

"To play" is not very well-defined. In my opinion it should mean the same thing as "signoff", but players frequently use this term to describe various non-forcing bids (especially those non-forcing bids like 1H-4H that are usually passed in practice).

 

Suggest you don't use "to play" when describing the meaning of your bids to the opponents since this term is not very well defined (as this thread demonstrates).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[mikestar]

Lets look at some terms as aplied to natural bids in the denomination you wish to play:

 

1. Absolute signoff: unless he made an error (had an Ace hidden, etc.) partner cannot have a hand which justifies bidding on. For example 1N-3N.

 

2. Signoff: you expect partner to pass. Partner will pass most of the time but will bid on with some extarordinary hands. For example 1N-2S playing strong NT and natural responses. Partner may raise to 3S (or conventionally show a doubleton) with 17 prime points and 4-card support.

 

3. What I think I can make: You are suggesting a final contract and partner is free to bid on but you are in no way suggesting he do so. For example, (3S)-3N. partner can have many hands justifying bidding on, but won't do so just because he has slightly more than the 7-8 count you expect.

 

4. Invitational: You are urging partner to bid on unless he is minimum. For example 1S-3S playing limit raises.

 

5. Forcing: No need to define this one. When asked, you will need to specify forcing to what level.

 

6. Preemptive: a special case of #2. Your partner will tend to bid on only with extraordinary extras, but you also expect to go down unless partner has a fair amount of extras.

 

I would assume that "to play" means #1, #2, or #3 depending on the bidding context.

[junyi_zhu]

Some definitions you might find useful:

 

1. Signoff - partner is expected to pass 100% of the time.

 

Examples:

 

1NT-3NT (3NT is a signoff, opener will always pass)

 

1H-2H-4H (4H is a signoff, responder will always pass)

 

2. Non-forcing bid - partner can pass if he wants but he will not do so 100% of the time.

 

Examples:

 

1H-3H (3H is non-forcing, opener will sometimes pass, but frequently bid again)

 

1H-4H (4H is non-forcing, opener will usually pass, but occasionally bid again)

 

The difference between "signoffs" and "non-forcing bids" is that the partner of a player who makes a signoff bid has limited his hand whereas the partner of a player who makes a non-forcing bid has not limited his hand.

 

"To play" is not very well-defined. In my opinion it should mean the same thing as "signoff", but players frequently use this term to describe various non-forcing bids (especially those non-forcing bids like 1H-4H that are usually passed in practice).

 

Suggest you don't use "to play" when describing the meaning of your bids to the opponents since this term is not very well defined (as this thread demonstrates).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I think to play means natural and passable. Like 1H 4S, you can say 4S is to play, but partner can bid on with a great hand. Or 1H 2S(wjs) is also to play and partner can bid on if he has a good support. Actually, to play is somewhat like the earlier days bridge, at that time, forcing bids haven't been invented and most bids are natural and usualy passable. Yes, I believe to play is not a good term to explain one bid. If possible, one should usually provide the most accurate explanation of his bids, like HCP range in normal situations, suit length or losers to give opponents' a better overview. To play isn't that accurate because it may cover a large variety of hands. Still, for BBO, what I usually do is to give a short explanation in the bidding box and talk to opps privately about the detailed information.

[arrows]

IMHO,

 

"to play" means given the bidding context so far, I wanna play what I bid.

 

First of all, "to play" must be a natural bid, otherwise makes no sense.

second, "to play" implies "Not Forcing", it's obvious.

Third, as most people have said, "to play" definitely doesn't mean parnter must pass.

 

 

To illustrate, For example, a natural bid might be forcing as well, a Non-forcing bid

might not be always natural. Say, your partner opens multi 2D, you bid 2S is

neither forcing nor natural.

 

In conclusion, "to play" is less ambiguous a description than natural or not forcing,

because it automatically qualifies both.

[fred]

I disagree Arrow.

 

Suppose your partner opens with a Namyats 4C showing a strong preempt in hearts.

 

Your 4H response could be characterized as "to play", but it is not a natural bid.

 

If "to play" was an unambiguous term then I doubt that there would be any need for 2 full pages of posts debating the meaning of the term.

 

The meaning may be crystal clear in your mind, but it doesn't seem like it is to everyone else.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com