explanation "To play"

[hotShot]

To me "tp play" means that I expect my partner to pass this bid.

 

But he does not have to pass!

[Free]

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.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Not bad...

 

I'm 24, and I honestly consider myself somewhere between advanced+ and expert. I have my poor moments from time to time, but I also have briliant ones B)

[Rebound]

often such questions are use to nail down the bidder if he is deviating from a normal model hand.

OT: This may have been addressed already (if so, my apologies), but I have not yet read the full thread and Chamaco has mentioned this twice. You've been getting shafted if you have gotten adjustments against you for making bids which don't conform to your system (unless it happens A LOT in which case it is a hidden partnership agreement) since it is legal. You can certainly deviate from systemic agreements provided your partner is as much in the dark as the opponents are. The same thing has happened to me and I think it is rotten.

 

If I make such a bid and the opponents request an explanation, I feel no guilt whatsoever telling them what it is supposed to mean, not what I have (as I have seen so many others do). It really ticks me off to see someone adjust his/her explanation of a call to suit his/her holding. I don't care if it is supposed to help me know what they have, I'd rather play by the rules.

 

Incidentally, Fred, I totally agree with your statements regarding "to play", and frankly I am a little surprised it took so long for other posters to make the same point (I am a little late arriving to the thread I'm afraid.) It seems clear there are two possible definitions of it: partner has limited his/her hand earlier in the auction and is expected to pass under any circumstances, or partner will normally pass but may bid again under certain circumstances. Because of this ambiguity, the explanation should be discarded in favor of a more accurate explanation, as you suggest. However, I think that, in any event, despite your explanation, partner should not be barred from making another call under the rules.

 

Suppose partner has (as i have on occasion) had a brain fart and miscounted the hand somehow or there has been a partnership misunderstanding, and partner elects to call again despite your having described your call as "to play" or "signoff"? It is my understanding that no penalty should attach in this situation.

[Flame]

To play may not be a very good explanation, but its both sides duty to make sure the message pass, so if you say "to play" and im not sure what this mean i will ask again.

[helene_t]

Helium says: "Non-forcing" or "natural" [are] better terms.

 

Arrow asks: suppose my partner opens a preemptive 3♥, and

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

 

Lol, now we can start a similar thread about what "natural" means, actually we have had that thread a couple of times before. IMHO (But Helium obviously disagrees), "natural" is even more confusing than "to play".

[jikl]

I never say to play; ever. My explanation that fits this subject is to say "I think this is what I can make opposite my partner's hand but partner may have other ideas :)". This is when playing behind screens of course. At a table where verbal alerts are given then I say non-forcing.

 

Sean

[Free]

I never say to play; ever. My explanation that fits this subject is to say "I think this is what I can make opposite my partner's hand but partner may have other ideas :D". This is when playing behind screens of course. At a table where verbal alerts are given then I say non-forcing.

 

Sean

Lol, even that's not always true. Consider this hand:

 

-

xxx

xxx

Qxxxxxx

 

NV, partner opens a 10-12 1NT opening which doens't contain any 5 card M. I bid 2♠, a real "to play" bid (partner WILL pass, even if he's max and a 4 card support). If opps Dbl, I can easily go to 3♣ and they might not find their 9 card ♠ fit anymore, if they don't Dbl, we have a top board :)

"to play" is clearly NOT a synonim for "I think this is what I can make" :(

[arrows]

I see serious confusion here.

 

When you are asked the meaning of a call, you are supposed to tell them

what does the call mean to your parnter (if you have agreement), or what the

expectation other people should have upon this call.

NOT your motive of making this call.

 

For example, 1NT-2♠ means I wanna play 2♠, not a minor suit stayman,

not transfer or anything else, I don't have to address whether I expect I will

make it or not, is that a problem?

 

Giving a wordy explanation just make people think

you ware trying to deliberately mislead them in such a particular situation that

you have no ♠. I am not sure it is illegal or not.