alerts

[cheech]

Exactly how much information do you have to disclose to your opponent's when playing online? As much as your partner has, or more? When Playing in a tournament with a scratch partnership, I made a bid which I had not discussed with my partner - i was unsure of whether my partner would take it as pre-emptive (as i play it with my regular partner, invitational or forcing. My partner raised it to 4, and my opponents asked what my bid meant. I told them we had no agreement as to it's strength, but they were not happy with this and called the director, who said I had to tell them how I meant it, regardless of whether my partner knew or not. I complied with the director's ruling, but it seems to me that if my partner doesn't know, my opponents shouldn't either. They can of course ask my partner how they take it, but that should be all.

 

What do people think? It seems to me an abuse of the system that if i make a bid which i intend as pre-emptive, but my partner takes as forcing, I have to tell this to my opponents, so they know to dbl the final contract. How do people feel about this? Am I being unreasonable? I would appreciate your opinions.

 

Thanks,

Chica

[inquiry]

You only have to provide information on what your agreement is, not what you hold. AFter this hand, the next time in same event, you will need to provide more information, as your parnter will then have an idea what your bids mean. But the first time? Nope. Your opponents will be in as much of the dark as your partner. In this situation, they actually have the advantage over your partner... if you are strong, your parnter may pass and miss game/slam. If you are weak, he may overbid and you get crushed. That is a big advantage they have, that is enough by law and by logic to the rest of the field.

[TimG]

I would contend that by making a bid that you intend as preemptive, you are assuming, hoping, guessing, that your partnership has this agreement. As such, you should disclose this information to the opponents.

 

I will admit: the letter of the Law can easily be interpreted in a contrary manner. But, I think if an error is made on one side or the other, it should be on giving the opponents more information than they deserve rather than less information than they deserve.

[Brandal]

Exactly how much information do you have to disclose to your opponent's when playing online? As much as your partner has, or more? When Playing in a tournament with a scratch partnership, I made a bid which I had not discussed with my partner - i was unsure of whether my partner would take it as pre-emptive (as i play it with my regular partner, invitational or forcing. My partner raised it to 4, and my opponents asked what my bid meant. I told them we had no agreement as to it's strength, but they were not happy with this and called the director, who said I had to tell them how I meant it, regardless of whether my partner knew or not. I complied with the director's ruling, but it seems to me that if my partner doesn't know, my opponents shouldn't either. They can of course ask my partner how they take it, but that should be all.

 

What do people think? It seems to me an abuse of the system that if i make a bid which i intend as pre-emptive, but my partner takes as forcing, I have to tell this to my opponents, so they know to dbl the final contract. How do people feel about this? Am I being unreasonable? I would appreciate your opinions.

 

Thanks,

Chica

Since we self-alert on BBO,if I make a pre-emptive

bid that is what I disclose to opps,not if we have

or have not an agreement.

 

I simply tell them what my bid is,not how anyone

will interpret it.

 

:lol:

[Walddk]

I will admit: the letter of the Law can easily be interpreted in a contrary manner. But, I think if an error is made on one side or the other, it should be on giving the opponents more information than they deserve rather than less information than they deserve.

The point is, however, that no error had been made. No agreement is an adequate explanation when you actually have no agreement. As Ben writes: You are not supposed to tell the opponents what you hold and therefore what your call is intended as.

 

The same applies to partner if asked. No agreement is what you should say unless you have a specific agreement. "I interpret it as ......." is wrong. No guessing should be involved in an explanation.

 

Then your guess is as good or bad as theirs.

 

Roland

[inquiry]

Since we self-alert on BBO,if I make a pre-emptive

bid that is what I disclose to opps,not if we have

or have not an agreement.

 

I simply tell them what my bid is,not how anyone

will interpret it.

I think this is wrong, as the case is described in this thead. What does the ACBL say about this in their "active ethics" documents?

 

"A major tenet of active ethics is the principle of full disclosure. This means that all information available to your partnership must be made available to your opponents." (empahsis added).

 

Obviously, the only information available to your partner is that you made a jump bid. Is it weak? Is it strong? Is it intermediate? Is it some kind of Roman jump showing this suit and another? Your partner doesn't know because you have no agreement, and this has never occured before. Let's see what the same active ethics document from the acbl says about this very situation.

 

"New players or infrequent partnerships usually will not have understandings (snip) and , of course, it will be perfectly proper for them to reply "We have no agreement (snip)."

 

Now why do I feel and I think the rules/laws/ethics dictate that you not merely be a nice guy and tell your opponents what you hold? If you tell them what you hold for your bid, they have an advantage over the remainder of the field. No one else will get a "decription" of what an opponent holds that is "locked in stone". Instead they others in the field will get a description of what the "partnership agreement is". People are allowed to deviate from their agreement, so at these other tables there is some uncertainty about what is held even when the description of the partnership agreement is accurate. This is how bridge should be.

 

Now, a counter argument will be at the other table when someone makes a jump bid, an explaination of what the partnership understanding will be given, so the opponents will ahve a better idea of to bid or not. Here, with "no agreement" as an answer, the opponents are in dark. But the truth of the matter, even with an adequate explaination of the jump bid, your bid or not bid is still problematic because the other player is undefined. Also, as I noted in earlier post, if neither opponent knows how the other will interpret the jump bid, you are already ahve an advantage over the field... if they don't know waht they are doing, the odds are stacked in your favor. You will not always get a good result from their lack of agreement, but that is also normal bridge. Having the opponent explain to you the meaning of his bid while his partner remains in the dark STACKS the odds so far in your FAVOR as to be HIGHLY UNFAIR to remainder of the field sitting in your direction.

 

Ben

[epeeist]

The example given by the original poster sounds like a situation in which there was, genuinely, no partnership agreement -- one's partner would be put to a guess, entirely fair for it to be likewise for the opponents.

 

However, in other situations, "Partnership Agreement" has to, in my humble opinion, include implicit partnership agreements, not just what has been explicitly discussed or agreed to.

 

Meaning, I think that ethically, if you reasonably expect your partner to know what your bid means, you have to explain it that way. And especially if they "field" your bid, bidding as if they understood it, I don't think "no agreement" is valid.

 

Otherwise, e.g. in an individual where you haven't discussed bidding, EVERY bid would be "no agreement" -- your 1NT opening, partner's 2 heart response, your 2 spade rebid, etc. Your partner expected you to understand what the 2 heart bid meant, and you did, even though there was no explicit partnership agreement.

 

Obviously, that's a pretty obvious example. A better one might be, if my partner in a round of an individual tournament were a (genuine) expert or star, I would expect him or her to know/infer that my jump to 4 diamonds in response to 1 spade was a splinter. Even if there was NO explicit agreement, since I reasonably expect my partner to understand my bid, I think I have to alert it and explain it, if asked as if there were an explicit agreement.

[inquiry]

However, in other situations, "Partnership Agreement" has to, in my humble opinion, include implicit partnership agreements, not just what has been explicitly discussed or agreed to.

 

 

 

Otherwise, e.g. in an individual where you haven't discussed bidding, EVERY bid would be "no agreement" -- your 1NT opening, partner's 2 heart response, your 2 spade rebid, etc. Your partner expected you to understand what the 2 heart bid meant, and you did, even though there was no explicit partnership agreement.

 

Obviously, that's a pretty obvious example. A better one might be, if my partner in a round of an individual tournament were a (genuine) expert or star, I would expect him or her to know/infer that my jump to 4 diamonds in response to 1 spade was a splinter. Even if there was NO explicit agreement, since I reasonably expect my partner to understand my bid, I think I have to alert it and explain it, if asked as if there were an explicit agreement.

Your example of jacoby transfer and being implicit is fine. If you sit down with someone and agree to play standard, or sayc, or precision, or 2/1, the default NT method of each is jacoby transfer. Such that if you bid 2♦ over 1NT, you should alert as transfer. This is understood.

 

However, I think you may too far with this statement, although I may not have interpreted it the way you mean...

 

I think that ethically, if you reasonably expect your partner to know what your bid means, you have to explain it that way. And especially if they "field" your bid, bidding as if they understood it, I don't think "no agreement" is valid.

 

On the one hand, if you REASONABLY expect (not just hope or pray) your partner to get it right, you have an agreement, and you should explain rather or not your partner fields it. But if you have no agreement, you should say no-agreement. IF partner gets it right, lucky you. As long as he has to guess, he will guess it right sometimes (and from clues from opppoenents bidding or lack of bidding and his own hand, he may make an educated guess and get it right more than half the time). This isn't "fielding" the bid in some nefarious context. This is bridge....sometimes even I guess right.

 

Ben

[EricK]

With self-alerts this can get really confusing.

 

In F2F bridge you sometimes get the situation where a player alerts his partner's bid but can't say what it means because they have no agreement and there are at least two possible conventional meanings for the bid. But equally in F2F bridge, you shouldn't leave it at "No agreement" if you have some prior partnership experience of similar situations. So for example you could say "We have no agreement about this particular situation but in a fairly similar situation that bid would be a splinter"

 

With self-alerts, if you make a conventional bid which you hope partner will understand what do you do? Do you alert and when asked say "No agreement". That sounds plain crazy. Even worse, if you go along the lines of "In a similar situation ..." then you are effectively telling the opponents what your bid means anyway.

 

Eric

[luis]

Exactly how much information do you have to disclose to your opponent's when playing online? As much as your partner has, or more? When Playing in a tournament with a scratch partnership, I made a bid which I had not discussed with my partner - i was unsure of whether my partner would take it as pre-emptive (as i play it with my regular partner, invitational or forcing. My partner raised it to 4, and my opponents asked what my bid meant. I told them we had no agreement as to it's strength, but they were not happy with this and called the director, who said I had to tell them how I meant it, regardless of whether my partner knew or not. I complied with the director's ruling, but it seems to me that if my partner doesn't know, my opponents shouldn't either. They can of course ask my partner how they take it, but that should be all.

 

What do people think? It seems to me an abuse of the system that if i make a bid which i intend as pre-emptive, but my partner takes as forcing, I have to tell this to my opponents, so they know to dbl the final contract. How do people feel about this? Am I being unreasonable? I would appreciate your opinions.

 

Thanks,

            Chica

Since we self-alert on BBO,if I make a pre-emptive

bid that is what I disclose to opps,not if we have

or have not an agreement.

 

I simply tell them what my bid is,not how anyone

will interpret it.

 

:P

This is so wrong, so wrong, and there're so many players doing this... Your opponents have no right at all to know what you have for any particular bid or what you intend any particular bid to be. You must only tell them what agreements you have with your pd. If your pd can figure out the meaning of non-arranged bids better than your opponents then you will win and that's just because you are a better partnership or because your pd is a better player.

Why, oh why, would you want your opponents to have a better understanding of your hand than your pd? Does this make any sense to you? Your pd will have to guess or figure out what you have while your opponents will know exactly, a complete nonsense.

[uday]

I've had players who've been playing together and sleeping together for 10 years say "No agreement" in a 2 round auction.

 

How could most opps have any chance of figuring out the meanings of bids better than most partners?

[luis]

I've had players who've been playing together and sleeping together for 10 years say "No agreement" in a 2 round auction.

 

How could most opps have any chance of figuring out the meanings of bids better than most partners?

If there's no agreement there's no agreement opps should disclose even implicit agreements but if they don't have it they don't have it.

You bid intending your pd to understand your hand, not your opponents.

[inquiry]

With self-alerts, if you make a conventional bid which you hope partner will understand what do you do?

If you make a conventional bid (SPEFICALLY A CONVENTIONAL BID), you obviously expect your partner to understand it. The examples are jacoby transfer or michales cue-bid. In these cases you should alert.

 

This is quite different from what happens when your partner opens 1H and you bid 3C. If you bid 3C as "bergin" you had better alert, as clearly you anticipate your parnter will understand. IF you bid 3C as natural, it might be STRONG and FORCING, it might be invitational wiht 6C or it might be weak. Here if your partner has to guess what 3C means (strong, invite, weak), so do your opponents.

[TimG]

This is so wrong, so wrong, and there're so many players doing this... Your opponents have no right at all to know what you have for any particular bid or what you intend any particular bid to be. You must only tell them what agreements you have with your pd. If your pd can figure out the meaning of non-arranged bids better than your opponents then you will win and that's just because you are a better partnership or because your pd is a better player.

This is so wrong, wrong, wrong. If your partner can "guess" better than the opponents because yours is a good partnership, you are not disclosing enough.

[TimG]

With self-alerts, if you make a conventional bid which you hope partner will understand what do you do?

If you make a conventional bid (SPEFICALLY A CONVENTIONAL BID), you obviously expect your partner to understand it. The examples are jacoby transfer or michales cue-bid. In these cases you should alert.

 

This is quite different from what happens when your partner opens 1H and you bid 3C. If you bid 3C as "bergin" you had better alert, as clearly you anticipate your parnter will understand. IF you bid 3C as natural, it might be STRONG and FORCING, it might be invitational wiht 6C or it might be weak. Here if your partner has to guess what 3C means (strong, invite, weak), so do your opponents.

I do not understand the difference. In both cases the bid has special meaning. Why is it that you must disclose if you spring a convention on your partner but not when you spring a treatment on your partner? In either case you anticipate your partner understanding the meaning of the bid -- that is you anticipate there being an agreement. And, of course, agreements must be disclosed.

 

Tim

[inquiry]

The reason is that CONVENTIONAL bids have to be alerted. If I bid JACOBY, my pickup partner might mistakenly pass, but that does not lift my requirement to alert. On the other hand, if I bid 3♣, and I ahve clubs (so it is natural), the only question is how much do I have for this natural bid. I don't have to alert, and if asked, if I have no agreement, that is how I will explain it. Aftter this hand, the next time I make such a bid, I will assume my partner has to know from my last bid.

 

Also if two hands before my partner bid 2C over my 1H opening bid and he held a moose (say 20 points, outstanding suit), I would explain that it my 3C bid now was "not forcing". The reason is I know have a understanding my partner does not play strong jumpshifts responses. This does not solve if it is dirt weak or invitational, and I would not share that information based upon my hand...

 

Ben

[DrTodd13]

You sit down with an expert and agree to play standard american. Your partner opens 1M and you have a hand suitable for a splinter. You haven't explicitly said anything about splinters with your partner that you've just met but you figure that the "default" is to play splinters with expert partners so you bid 4m. Now, do you alert 4m? I think I agree with Ben that if you expect partner to interpret it correctly that you need to alert. If you don't expect them to interpret it correctly then you either shouldn't be doing it or if you do do it then I'd call your bid a psyche.

[Brandal]

Since we self-alert on BBO,if I make a pre-emptive

bid that is what I disclose to opps,not if we have

or have not an agreement.

 

I simply tell them what my bid is,not how anyone

will interpret it.

 

:P

This is so wrong, so wrong, and there're so many players doing this... Your opponents have no right at all to know what you have for any particular bid or what you intend any particular bid to be. You must only tell them what agreements you have with your pd. If your pd can figure out the meaning of non-arranged bids better than your opponents then you will win and that's just because you are a better partnership or because your pd is a better player.

Why, oh why, would you want your opponents to have a better understanding of your hand than your pd? Does this make any sense to you? Your pd will have to guess or figure out what you have while your opponents will know exactly, a complete nonsense.

maybe it's wrong wrong wrong wrong BUT

I just don't hide behind "no agreement".

 

When I make a bid,I stand for it,and if it's

pre-emptive I tell opps it's pre-emptive

because I selfalert and I KNOW what the bid

is,and am I not obligated to tell opps?

 

Why is everyone so "oh i'm protected by

the law,I can just say no agreement".

 

If that makes me nice,gullible,naive or a

pushover then so be it,it's not so bad :)

 

Why am I "the guy" who is doing wrong to the

entire field because everyone else is comfortable

saying "no agreement,sorry"?

[Gerardo]

Brandal, playing online (or f2f with screens) is not different to play f2f without screen about how a bid should be explained (just by whom).

 

So, assume you're playing f2f and your partner is asked about one of your bids. What would your partner answer to that question? That's what you should say, not more, not less.

[Brandal]

If you tell them what you hold for your bid, they have an advantage over the remainder of the field. No one else will get a "decription" of what an opponent holds that is "locked in stone". Instead they others in the field will get a description of what the "partnership agreement is". People are allowed to deviate from their agreement, so at these other tables there is some uncertainty about what is held even when the description of the partnership agreement is accurate. This is how bridge should be.

 

Ben

I'm sorry for that

[Brandal]

Brandal, playing online (or f2f with screens) is not different to play f2f without screen about how a bid should be explained (just by whom).

 

So, assume you're playing f2f and your partner is asked about one of your bids. What would your partner answer to that question? That's what you should say, not more, not less.

Well I for one would be very surprised if he

said no agreement,anything but that

 

:)

 

he would try his best to tell opps what I am supposed

to have,as I do self alerting online

[cheech]

I think the key issue here is how much information are your opponents entitled to. As much as your partner has, or more. In cases where the partnership is eshtablished, there will be very few situations in which partner is in the dark about how a bid is intended (though I must admit, even with my regular partner there are occaisions where I'm not entirely sure what is meant). With scratch partnerships, however, there will be many situations where partner is at a guess as to the strength (or length) promised by a particular bid, and it seems unfair to me (and clearly to quite a few others) that opponents should get this information when partner does not. It seems to me, in these situations, a person should be able to reply "no agreement", but opps should be able to ask partner how they were taking it, so opps get the benefit of partner's judgement, and any inferences available from the nature of the system played (for instance, playing acol, I might be able to more accurately judge the nature of my partner's bid than a sayc player who was not familiar with acol).

[TimG]

The reason is that CONVENTIONAL bids have to be alerted. If I bid JACOBY, my pickup partner might mistakenly pass, but that does not lift my requirement to alert. On the other hand, if I bid 3♣, and I ahve clubs (so it is natural), the only question is how much do I have for this natural bid. I don't have to alert, and if asked, if I have no agreement, that is how I will explain it.

Well then, you should have said "alertable" instead of "conventional". :)

 

If you alert your Jacoby and the next player asks for an explanation, do you say: "We have no agreement"? If not, how is this different from when the opponent asks about your non-alertable bid for which you have no agreement?

 

I would also suggest that you only have to alert partnership agreements. So, if you try a non-discussed Jacoby, and you contend that non-discussed means no agreement and thus no disclosure, then you are technically not supposed to alert it.

[TimG]

maybe it's wrong wrong wrong wrong BUT

I just don't hide behind "no agreement".

I think you are to be commended for this.

[the hog]

"I think you are to be commended for this. "

 

Well, yes, Tim while I agree, there is the issue of when there really is no agreement. Ftf we had this sequence:

 

1D (2H) 2N (P)

3S

 

My 2N was Leb and pd is systemically forced to bid 3C. So what is 3S? It never came up before. My rho asked what this means. Well we do have no agreement, so I am hardly "hiding" behind this comment. I can make a bridge judgement call as to what 3S means, but that is based on my bridge knowledge and not on any discussion I have had with partner, and so this is not something I need to share with them.

 

Yes, the opps were not happy with my "No agreement", particularly when my judgement call proved to be correct., but tough luck.