explanation "To play"

[arrows]

As everyone knows, the mother thread of this one has been just petrified.

 

Let me make it crystal-clear,

I am not questioning the right of adminstrator to end that discussion,

I am questioning the timing.

 

((Large number of paragraphs deleted by inquiry)

 

Also, I didn't see anyone yelling at the public during discussion,

I would have great interest to know what that is all about.

 

((NOTE ADDED BY INQUIRY: When uday writes as he did in the "mohter thread" (as you say) that "This thread has turned less than civil. I have shut it down. It may not be reopened elsewhere on these forums, and I will move it out of the public area in a few hours" It is obvious you can not re-intreduce the topic, can not reask for apologies, can not continue the discussion along those line. I am certain both sides would have more to say, but uday's edict ends this discussion as far as public BBF posting is concedrned. - ben

Edited January 13, 2005 by inquiry

[hrothgar]

As everyone knows, the mother thread of this one has been just petrified.

Arrows, I have no problem if you want to start a new thread to discuss why the "Parent" was killed.

 

I really wish that you wouldn't poison this thread with this topic...

We're haven't some nice, polite discussion here, and I'd hate to lose the discourse

 

Any chance that I can convince you to edit/remove you last posting and to start a new thread in which to hash this out...

[arrows]

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.

 

Nice catch, Fred!

 

I think we all know what I am talking about.

I know it's very tough to make a bullet-proof argument.

That's why I didn't say it's "unambiguous"

I said it's "less ambiguous". or didn't I?

And of course, even that statement, open to further debate , too.

[helene_t]

Seems like "to play" means that partner is expected to pass unless he has extraordinairy extra's. Of course, "extraordinary" is a somewhat vague term and hopefully the opps will understand that. However, consider this:

 

1♦ - 1NT

 

In the Looier system this is a sign-off and opener should pass unless he's pretty sure the contract can be improved (holding a longer canapé suit would be reason to bid on).

 

If 1♦ is neboulous as in Rigal Precision, I might interpret it the same way if it was explained as "to play" but I'm not familiar with the system and I'm probably wrong.

 

If this is a classic Acol auction 1NT is stronly limited and almost always balanced, yet 1♦ is wide-range so it would hardly be "extraordinary" for opener to bid on.

 

If this is a natural 5-card major system with a weak 1NT, may be non-forcing but defently not "to play" since opener would very often bid on. Also, 1NT is by no means garantied to be ballanced, actually it is likely to be based on a long club suit.

 

You see, "to play" is an unfortunate term and should be used only when it's clear to the opponents what it means, even if they are unfamilar with your system. Of course, they can ask again, but they want to be polite and therefore prefer not to ask the same question twice.

[Chamaco]

I think the "to play" issue is tricky.

 

Of course one should disclose to opps the same info that partner has.

 

On the other hand:

 

1) opps asking the meaning of unalerted bids is somewhat unethical (if done when the pard can see): it is like telling to p that you have a hand based on which these info matter to you.

 

2) every time it has occurred to me, opps only wanted me to be so specific that they could nail me down if my hand did not comply PERFECTLY to all the features of the hand.

 

Example sequences:

 

1D-pass-

 

I responded 2NT (mean as invitational in NT). Opps asked my p and she said "invitational to 3NT". Then opps asked "with or without 4cM" ?

Pard said "without".

 

I played 3NT holding a 4333 with 4 H, and made the contract because they misdefended, assuming I held only 3 H, then they called the director to ask for an adjustment (and they got it).

 

Now, regardless of whether the adjustment was right or wrong, this shows the attitude of most people who insist to ask a super -accurate description of your bid: they want you to commit to guarantee/exclude certain features so they can call the TD if your hand does not fit 100% with them. :)

[Free]

I completely agree with Fred. For me, "to play" is TO PLAY, and nothing else. This might be a non-natural bid, since this aspect has nothing to do with what you want to play.

If a bid is not 100% to play, then it has a more specific meaning (for example "invitational"), so "to play" is just not enough. Non-forcing on the other hand tells you much more! It's a bid where partner may pass, but is not supposed to pass. This makes a world of difference to your LHO. If South makes a "to play bid", then West will suppose your partner will pass, and might need some immediate action. However, if partner is still allowed to bid, then he'll probably be less excited to bid.

 

On the other hand, imo it's quite clear when a bid is non-forcing and when it's actually to play and let partner shut up. If partner's hand is well defined, then to play will usually be played, where as if partner has a wide range of hands, he'll still be able to bid.

 

My advice (you don't have to agree): don't use the term "to play", since it can only lead to misunderstandings. Use common terms like non-forcing, signoff,... The language difficulties might already be enough to create some heavy discussions.

 

To Arrows: I didn't start this thread so you could justify your other thread, I started this to actually know what people think about this, since it interested me. I don't agree with most votes, but I'll keep this result in mind when someone explaines a bid as "to play". I hope you can find a way to just let it go, and not to poison someone else's honest threads! Even if it started because of your initial posts, it has nothing to do with it!

[helene_t]

1D-pass-

 

I responded 2NT (mean as invitational in NT). Opps asked my p and she said "invitational to 3NT"). Then opps asked "with or without 4cM" ?

Pard said "without".

This was an inapropriate question and pd should have refused to give an answer. If 2NT had been forcing, the question would have been appropriate.

[Free]

Chamaco,

 

I've had similar problems in the past, but I've found a sweet solution: use the word "usually" a lot more in your explanations. It's waterproof, it's true and afterwards there can't be any discussions if your partner deviated a little from the system :)

 

I had some biddings like 1m-1NT and opps asked if I could have a 4 card M. Partner answered "usually not" and with my 3-4-3-3 and 8753 in ♥ I kept them out of 2♠.

[epeeist]

I think the "to play" issue is tricky.

 

Of course one should disclose to opps the same info that partner has.

 

On the other hand:

 

1) opps asking the meaning of unalerted bids is somewhat unethical (if done when the pard can see): it is like telling to p that it maters to you.

....

 

Unfortunately, many bridge players don't alert all the bids they should (in my opinion) alert on BBO. So how is it unethical to ask for an explanation of a bid that you think, maybe, should have been alerted, but you can't be sure because you don't know how vigilant your opponents are about alerting? When you click on a bid and an explanation is given, it appears to one's partner also and partner may be able to deduce (by delay in explanation) that you asked. I try to avoid using private chat to ask, because the opponent often seems to "mistakenly" explain the bid in public chat, letting their partner know what the bid meant. "Mistakenly" was in quotes because I'm sure it's sometimes an accident, but it seems to happen a bit too frequently in my experience to always be a mistake... :)

 

Or what if there's no/improper convention card in a tournament that requires one? Or when opponents are using a system that is totally unfamiliar to you and you have no clue what the bids mean (e.g. I encounter Polish club bidders rarely enough that I've never learned the basics of the system)? In one online ACBL (convention card required) tournament, the opponents refused, after several deals and polite requests, to put up a convention card (and didn't explain why not, etc.). So how was I to know what, especially in a competitive bidding sequence, their bids meant or if they were using conventions of which I was unaware? The TD agreed with me that I was entitled to ask the meaning of EVERY bid, since they refused to comply with the rules.

 

I try to overcome the possibility of giving UI to my partners ("Hey, that explanation of the bid popped up late, my partner's probably curious about the bid...) by always asking about bids that I am unsure of, even if I have a bad hand. If I only asked when I had a good hand or thought it might make a difference on defence, a regular partner might, even subconsciously, gradually deduce a pattern. For instance, I always (unless opps have clearly disclosed previously) ask what 4NT bids and responses mean, even if I think it will make no difference. If I only clicked when I had e.g. a side suit ace, that would gradually come to constitute a clue to a regular partner or to some opponents. And yes, on a few occasions I (and my partner, by the explanations) have become aware that the opponents were mutually mistaken over whether they were using normal or rkcb and that influenced my decision whether to double. I've been told that ethically, there is no problem with allowing a known bidding mistake by your opponents to influence your actions.

 

I agree that since BBO is self-alerting, one should only be asking the bidder what their bids mean (not their partners), in all but unusual situations -- e.g. on one occasion when an opponent rudely refused to explain whether they were using Jacoby transfers or 4-suit transfers (i.e. whether a 2♠ bid, alerted as a transfer, meant only clubs, or could mean clubs or diamonds), I (privately) asked their partner, who said "new partner" or "no agreement" or something like that, which was fine. I asked the partner because the delay caused by my polite questions, and rude responses from my opponent, led to inquiries over whether I was still there, what was the problem, etc.

[Chamaco]

Unfortunately, many bridge players don't alert all the bids they should (in my opinion) alert on BBO. So how is it unethical to ask for an explanation of a bid that you think, maybe, should have been alerted, but you can't be sure because you don't know how vigilant your opponents are about alerting?

IMO, it is not fully appropriate when:

 

1. partner can see your request of explanation; he get UI from when you decide or not whether to ask explanations;

Concealed asking is never unethical.

 

2. you are trying to force opps to be superprecise in their explanation.

I mean, a questons such as "is it invitational?" "is it forcing?", is ok, but asking "hcp range?" is too much: often such questions are use to nail down the bidder if he he is deviating from a normal model hand.

[42]

It was a first-round-NT-bid that caused this discussion: I always took (and take :rolleyes: ) NT bids in first round as a SUGGESTION "to play" because in "common sense" bridge, using systems like SAYC (used as basic BBO system if no other system is agreed), better minor, the German Forum D, etc. the range for the bid is small and therefore limited. It means for me: "p, if you only have what you promised with your opening bid, let us play 1/2/3NT, I have either the necessary strength and/or tricks for the level of my NT-bid". I also answered sometimes "to play" when I was asked and was not aware that this could be understood as doubtful or rude behaviour. I am not obliged to give an exact picture of my hand, opps must only know as much as my partner knows. I also feel angry when strong opps ask what an unalerted NT-bid means, I feel that I shall go into a trap and help them with their perhaps not clearcut decision. And here is a possible exchange of unallowed information (it also appears in hesitation before the next bid of a not red-spotted opp).

So: if a bid is not alerted, it should be taken as a natural common sense bid; when it turns out that it was not, call TD. And, please, don't make people "small" with "Perhaps they forgot to alert"!

I am no native English speaker, I hope, my tone was ok...

Caren

[Gerben47]

There is a scale of bids with amount of control for you and for partner

 

"to play" for me means: 100% control for who bids it, 0% for partner.

 

1NT - 3NT "to play" = Partner the contract will be 3NT, and 3NT the contract will be. 4NT thou shalt not bid. <enter Monty Python's Holy Handgrenade>

 

Now the 2NT case that started it was 100% for partner, 0% for me:

 

1♣ - 2NT "partner I have an invitational hand without 4-card major. Please bid the best contract."

 

Other examples are preemptive bids.

 

Then there is the 50-50 type bid.

1♥: Opening hand with 5+ hearts, let's find out what we can play TOGETHER

 

And some bids inbetween those, like

"1NT". Balanced with <insert range here> points. Now these kinds of hands can in some cases take initiative but usually it is with partner. I would rate this as 25% control bid (75% for partner).

 

For more information how this can help explaining bids see Lukasz Slawinski's webpage www.new-bridge.net.

[Free]

I think some people just make too much about this UI! Sometimes it can be, but in other cases it just isn't. Everyone on his turn can ALWAYS ask about the explanation of ANY bid opps made. It doesn't matter if you're in the balancing seat or not.

 

Imo, IF you encounter a pair which wants to cheat, they won't do it through UI. Come on, it's online bridge, the possibilities of cheating are extremely huge! Why would they make it themselves so hard? Get real...

[Chamaco]

1NT - 3NT "to play" = Partner the contract will be 3NT, and 3NT the contract will be. 4NT thou shalt not bid. <enter Monty Python's Holy Handgrenade>

Like other posters, I think that even those who intend "to play" bids, (including 2NT or whatever) , allow opener to bid on if he has a special hand, with substantial extras in shape or hcp.

 

Of course this does not aply when opener opens 1NT (and any other well-defined hands, where obviously one side has finished describing and the other places the contract)

 

Another example:

 

1S:4S "to play", which may come from:

 

1. a distributional yarborough xxxxx-x-xxx-xxxx

2. a much better hand such ATxxx- QJT - Jxx- xx

3. anything else

 

Whatever hand responder may have, opener is allowed to bid if he's got a battleship.

"To play" does not bar pard from bidding on, it is a suggestion to play there.

Of course I agree with all the posters who say one should include other info such as "invitational", "nonforcing" and negative inferencedrawn from failure to bid something lse (e.g. the failure to bid Jacoby 2NT forcing raise to a major or to support with a mixed or limit raise using, say, Bergen raises or whatever you use)

[Free]

"To play" does not bar pard from bidding on, it is a suggestion to play there.

So why not take any doubt away and explain it as "suggestion to play"??? :rolleyes: I really don't see the difficulty, only lazyness...

[Chamaco]

"To play" does not bar pard from bidding on, it is a suggestion to play there.

So why not take any doubt away and explain it as "suggestion to play"??? :rolleyes: I really don't see the difficulty, only lazyness...

 

When your pard makes a penalty double, it's the same: if asked by opps, most times you'll just say "penalty".

 

But this does not mean you can never overrule removing the dbl: sure, perhaps you may explain it better as "suggestion to penalize", but how often do you say "suggestion to penalize" vs simply "penalty"?

 

The situation is exactly the same to the "to play" bids.

 

Perhaps everyone is lazy in different situations :D

[kenxie]

Wow, good NEWS! :o

Waked up and saw major percentage players are with me!!!

 

Lucky I can still enjoy the bridge game.

It is still the same as I thought. :D

 

I just like logic.

IMHO, Bidding always shows extra, not less.

At least I never heard that:

 

1c/ 1nt/ 2c/ 2nt (this 2nt is less strength than 1nt.....)

Ohh my god, that will be a dizaster, at least to me.

 

Logically, since P always have the possibility of having extra: points, control, shape, double match. and with your hand, limited information. there is obsolutly NO reason to force your Pd to shut UP. :rolleyes:

 

If you have extra, forcing or inviting, if not and you want to stay here, tell you P "I wanna stay here" that is my understanding about to play.

 

Honestly, even if you wanna sign off, like

1S-1nt(forcing) 2c-2s

This 2s, I think 99% of the players will agree it is a sign off, it is even worse than 1s/2s. besides, your P is limited to not have the good hands like open 1S and rebid 3 level.

 

However, your P still allow to bid. well I admit 95%+ percentage you will pass.

open 1, the range is too wide. what is your problem is your got to find a way to explain yourself better in an efficient way. That is a fun part of bridge game.

 

FREE, allow me to be kidding here:

I describe you as follows:

In 30-35 and with advanced skill.

 

The reason is you will accept fight, so you must be young, you stick with what you thought, so you can't be very young. and you are confident, so you must be at least advanced. But I didn't find any evident that you prefer logic you I guess you are not an expert. Forgive me rudeness, I just like to make a fun.

You should know how happy I am when I know I could still enojy bridge here.

:D :lol: :lol:

[arrows]

To Arrows: I didn't start this thread so you could justify your other thread, I started this to actually know what people think about this, since it interested me. I don't agree with most votes, but I'll keep this result in mind when someone explaines a bid as "to play". I hope you can find a way to just let it go, and not to poison someone else's honest threads! Even if it started because of your initial posts, it has nothing to do with it!

 

Don't yell at me, OK? I say you are yelling because there are excalmatory

marks in this part. and it particularly addresses to me.

 

I didn't poison anything. You are not in a position to make judgement in public

about what's wrong, what is right. I don't know who you are, but I think it's

pretty safe for me to assume you are not God.

 

I am not here to argue with you, so please just delete this part, and I will

do the same too.

[arrows]

To the administrator:

 

Should we shut down this thread too?

Because it finally turns out someone yelling in the public.

 

 

((NOTE: OTHER THREAD NOT TO BE DISCUSSED PUBLICALLY. This time it is me yelling!!! I am getting tired of repeating uday's directive on that other thread, and tired of editing your continued comments on it. Consider this a final and very serious warning. - ben))

[inquiry]

To the administrator:

 

Should we shut down this thread too?

Because it finally turns out someone yelling in the public.

 

And BTW, I am still interested (EDITED) in the other thread.

 

((NOTE: OTHER THREAD NOT TO BE DISCUSSED PUBLICALLY. This time it is me yelling!!! I am getting tired of repeating uday's directive on that other thread, and tired of editing your continued comments on it. Consider this a final and very serious warning. - ben))

Arrows,

 

Shutting down this thread is not an option at this point. The other posters are doing what they can to keep you from dredging up items from the "older" and now blocked thread. They aren't yelling, they are not even saying you were right or wrong in that thread. What they are saying is the subject of that thread is now moot as it is not going to be allowed to be discussed further.

 

With that in mind, I have edited your last post to remove the content of the reference you made to the last thread, as you are not gong to get a public answer to anything posted in that thread. IF you want to email the people involved privately, that is entirely up to you... but post on this issue no more. (Of course, can continue the "to play" discussion if you like, this is why this thread is not locked.).

 

Ben

[arrows]

Ben, I RESPECTFULLY disagree with you that "FREE" was not yelling

in his/her post earlier.

 

Although you are yelling at me, who is well-known

now a troublemaker, I have no hard feeling of you. I understand you are a

nice guy, but just used (or hired?) to do the troublesome jobs which the owner of this forum don't want to do.

 

Take care. Don't get too excited.

[helium]

In my systemcard i write "to play" on 4M openings. this dont mean that p have to pass 100% of the time but rather pass whit a normal hand.

And agree whit the posters saying "to play" is a bad explination and that

"non-forcing" or "natural is better terms:)

 

 

 

 

kenneth

[arrows]

I suddenly have a question wanna ask (and I am serious):

 

suppose my partner opens a preemptive 3♥, and

I bid 4♥, Is my 4♥ bid considered a natural bid?

[DrTodd13]

There is a continuum of "forcingness" from absolutely forcing to absolutely partner-must-not-bid. You can subdivide up this continuum into however many sections you want and give each section a name. We as a community haven't agreed on what the sections are or what names they should have so we've got the situation where some people have created a section they call "to play" and others a section called "non-forcing." I think there is some overlap in what some people normally mean by these words. As long as we are speaking in generalities there will always be confusion. If you really want to eliminate this you are going to have to define ranges in the continuum based on what percentage of the time partner will bid on. Ideally, when asked for an explanation, you could give this percentage rather than words to describe the bid.

 

Todd

[Free]

To Arrows: I didn't start this thread so you could justify your other thread, I started this to actually know what people think about this, since it interested me. I don't agree with most votes, but I'll keep this result in mind when someone explaines a bid as "to play". I hope you can find a way to just let it go, and not to poison someone else's honest threads! Even if it started because of your initial posts, it has nothing to do with it!

 

Don't yell at me, OK? I say you are yelling because there are excalmatory

marks in this part. and it particularly addresses to me.

 

I didn't poison anything. You are not in a position to make judgement in public

about what's wrong, what is right. I don't know who you are, but I think it's

pretty safe for me to assume you are not God.

 

I am not here to argue with you, so please just delete this part, and I will

do the same too.

Arrows, forgive me for using my "!"s wrong. They weren't meant to yell at you, just to highlight the important sentences.

 

I've had threads in the past who were closed because someone else made it ugly, and I really didn't like that. I don't want this to happen again, that's all.