alerts

[cherdano]

"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.

You see, this is very borderline. There is a standard meaning of breaking the transfer in Lebensohl situations (strong game-forcing hand). Now you and your partner may both have seen Lebensohl transfers broken before, and since you and your partner more likely have similar bridge experience than you and one of your opponents, you two are more likley to understand each other in this case than opponents.

 

If I sat down with you at the table, and we would just have agreed "Lebensohl" in this situation, it would never occur to me to answer "no agreement" if an opponent asked about this bid.

 

Arend

[the hog]

Arend, I should have mentioned that we play a big C system and therefore pd will be limited to 15. That does make a difference, as he could not have a very strong hand - sorry for the omission.

[cherdano]

I think your explanation would be absolutely fine sitting opposite experienced players who are familiar with Lebensohl, and know a bit about your general opening style. Opposite less experienced players, or players coming from a universe without Lebensohl, IMHO the following comes closer to full disclosure (assuming it is right, of course):

We haven't discussed this particular sequence. Normally, in Lebensohl situations this shows a big game-forcing hand. Since partner is limited to 15hcp, this doesn't make much sense here. Note however that he could still have a 2-suiter with lots of playing strength, which we usually don't upgrade to 1♣. Also, we have agreed that in doubt all bids are natural, so I am pretty sure 3♠ shows spades.

Anything else puts you in a better position to guess the meaning of 3♠ than opponents.

 

I think the WBF somewhere has the formulation that you don't need to explain general bridge knowledge, but you MUST disclose any implicit agreement that could be based on experience shared with your partner (which could just be that you both read the same bridge magazines).

 

The line between general bridge knowledge and (possibly) shared experience with your partner is a fine one, and I think one should be careful not to push it.

[TimG]

"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.

I would contend that the basis for your "guess" is at least in part based upon your agreement to play lebehsohl rather than on any general bridge knowledge. But,

 

There is a big difference between being asked to explain your partner's call (as is usually the case in FTF bridge) and being asked to explain your own call (which is the norm in online bridge). "We have no agreement" is often appropriate in FTF bridge where you are left to figure out what your partner intends. But, when explaining your own bids, there's never any guess about what you intend. (Well, if the "what do you bid" threads on this forum are any indication, some people actually don't know what they intend! :) )

 

Part of the trouble, I believe, is in trying to duplicate the ftf environment where partner answers the questions regarding my calls. I think partner explaining the calls is actually a compromise put in place for FTF play in order to reduce the amount of unauthorized information. In a perfect world, the person who makes the call would also do the explaining since he knows exactly what the intent (presumed agreement) is, but his partner would not hear the explanation in order to avoid the possibility of UI. Online is that perfect world.

[mycroft]

Arend, I should have mentioned that we play a big C system and therefore pd will be limited to 15. That does make a difference, as he could not have a very strong hand - sorry for the omission.

I know from knowing Lebensohl that breaking the (potentially weak with clubs) puppet means "I have a hand too [good|strange] for you to pass 3C. Also, I don't mind you bidding 4D with a bad hand with diamonds as best fit." That usually means "reverse strength" to me.

 

I know from playing strong Club systems that non 1C reverses are most likely extreme shape hands - 14 HCP 5S-6D and the like.

 

So I have a pretty good idea what your partner has.

 

You have all of that information, *and* you also know better than I what reverses show in your partnership, and what it takes for a strong, distributional hand to be upgraded to 1C *in your partnership*.

 

Your opponents, who may neither play Lebensohl nor have never really understood how a limited opener system works, *don't have that information* - it's not "general bridge knowledge", it's knowledge of the system you play and the convention you play. In particular, they don't necessarily know that a very likely outcome of the normal auction is that you are going to pass 3C opposite a potential void.

 

"Alert" "We have no explicit agreement about this auction, but I know he doesn't want to play 3C even if I have a bad hand with clubs. In Standard, this would show great strength, but he's still limited to 15 high. I'm not sure what is happening in this case, but our reverses show 5-5 at least and a maximum - say 12+ in the two suits, or 15, with 10 in the suits."

 

No lies, no "guesses", just information about your system and the convention that you know and your opponents may not.

[luis]

"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.

I would contend that the basis for your "guess" is at least in part based upon your agreement to play lebehsohl rather than on any general bridge knowledge. But,

 

There is a big difference between being asked to explain your partner's call (as is usually the case in FTF bridge) and being asked to explain your own call (which is the norm in online bridge). "We have no agreement" is often appropriate in FTF bridge where you are left to figure out what your partner intends. But, when explaining your own bids, there's never any guess about what you intend. (Well, if the "what do you bid" threads on this forum are any indication, some people actually don't know what they intend! :) )

 

Part of the trouble, I believe, is in trying to duplicate the ftf environment where partner answers the questions regarding my calls. I think partner explaining the calls is actually a compromise put in place for FTF play in order to reduce the amount of unauthorized information. In a perfect world, the person who makes the call would also do the explaining since he knows exactly what the intent (presumed agreement) is, but his partner would not hear the explanation in order to avoid the possibility of UI. Online is that perfect world.

Gee, the WBF should publish some kind of booklet about alerting with screens and that is the rule that we have to use when self-alerting online.

I'm too tired to explain that it's unlawful to say what you have.

In fact when a bid is not alerted then there's nothing to ask about since all the bids that carry some meaning either by explicit or implicit agreement must be alerted. That's why I think that 99.99% of the non-alerted bids when asked should answer "no agreement" or "natural" because there's no conventional meaning.

 

Somehow some players requiere others to explain what they have and somehow some players think they are ethical by telling their opponents what they have I think those players should be punished with procedural penalties as if they were helping or showing their cards inentionally to their opponents.

[TimG]

I'm too tired to explain that it's unlawful to say what you have.

After you've gotten some rest, please try to explain how it is unlawful to explain what your presumed agreements are or what you intend to show with your call. Make sure to reference the specific Laws, please.

In fact when a bid is not alerted then there's nothing to ask about since all the bids that carry some meaning either by explicit or implicit agreement must be alerted. That's why I think that 99.99% of the non-alerted bids when asked should answer "no agreement" or "natural" because there's no conventional meaning.

You've got to be kidding. When I open 2♥, I don't alert. Might you be interested in the range or the style? Wouldn't you ask if you were interested? And, wouldn't you be rather annoyed if the answer I gave was: "natural"?

Somehow some players requiere others to explain what they have

Not what they have, what they've shown (or tried to show). There's a big difference between telling the opponents that your weak two-bids show 3 of the top 5 honors and telling them that you hold KJT. I have never suggested that anyone should tell the opponents their exact holding, let alone that they should be required to give this information.

and somehow some players think they are ethical by telling their opponents what they have  I think those players should be punished with procedural penalties as if they were helping or showing their cards inentionally to their opponents.

Again, you'll have to reference the specific Law if you're going to convince me that full disclosure, even over-disclosure, is un-Lawful.

 

Tim

[luis]

I'm too tired to explain that it's unlawful to say what you have.

After you've gotten some rest, please try to explain how it is unlawful to explain what your presumed agreements are or what you intend to show with your call. Make sure to reference the specific Laws, please.

 

75-C

When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience.

 

In fact when a bid is not alerted then there's nothing to ask about since all the bids that carry some meaning either by explicit or implicit agreement must be alerted. That's why I think that 99.99% of the non-alerted bids when asked should answer "no agreement" or "natural" because there's no conventional meaning.

You've got to be kidding. When I open 2♥, I don't alert. Might you be interested in the range or the style? Wouldn't you ask if you were interested? And, wouldn't you be rather annoyed if the answer I gave was: "natural"?

 

When you open 2♥ I guess you do have an agreement with pd so you must alert. If I ask about style "natural" is not an answer. I think what I've said was quite clear, if you don't have agreed the meaning of some bid with your pd then there's no alert and there's nothing to explain about the bid.

 

nd somehow some players think they are ethical by telling their opponents what they have  I think those players should be punished with procedural penalties as if they were helping or showing their cards inentionally to their opponents.

Again, you'll have to reference the specific Law if you're going to convince me that full disclosure, even over-disclosure, is un-Lawful.

 

I think this is not over-disclosure it's just showing cards to your opponents, I can't find a specific law saying that you should play to win and not to lose but if you play to lose I think you can be suspended or something. Telling the opponents what you have is playing to lose. Of course for beginers this will only merit a warning and an explanation of the proper procedure.

 

Full disclosure of agreements is one thing, explaining what you have for each bid is something entirely different. As Ben said you are giving unfair advantage to your oppoents compared to the field so it must be a violation of the conditions of contest.

[TimG]

I'm too tired to explain that it's unlawful to say what you have.

After you've gotten some rest, please try to explain how it is unlawful to explain what your presumed agreements are or what you intend to show with your call. Make sure to reference the specific Laws, please.

 

75-C

When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience.

Nothing in Law 75-C limits what I may disclose; "need not" does not equal "may not". Even if I am not required to disclose what I believe to be general bridge knowledge, nothing in this law bars me from such disclosure. But, we're not even talking about general bridge knowledge, we're talking about implied or presumed agreements and intended meanings.

[Brandal]

"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.

I would contend that the basis for your "guess" is at least in part based upon your agreement to play lebehsohl rather than on any general bridge knowledge. But,

 

There is a big difference between being asked to explain your partner's call (as is usually the case in FTF bridge) and being asked to explain your own call (which is the norm in online bridge). "We have no agreement" is often appropriate in FTF bridge where you are left to figure out what your partner intends. But, when explaining your own bids, there's never any guess about what you intend. (Well, if the "what do you bid" threads on this forum are any indication, some people actually don't know what they intend! :D )

 

Part of the trouble, I believe, is in trying to duplicate the ftf environment where partner answers the questions regarding my calls. I think partner explaining the calls is actually a compromise put in place for FTF play in order to reduce the amount of unauthorized information. In a perfect world, the person who makes the call would also do the explaining since he knows exactly what the intent (presumed agreement) is, but his partner would not hear the explanation in order to avoid the possibility of UI. Online is that perfect world.

Gee, the WBF should publish some kind of booklet about alerting with screens and that is the rule that we have to use when self-alerting online.

I'm too tired to explain that it's unlawful to say what you have.

In fact when a bid is not alerted then there's nothing to ask about since all the bids that carry some meaning either by explicit or implicit agreement must be alerted. That's why I think that 99.99% of the non-alerted bids when asked should answer "no agreement" or "natural" because there's no conventional meaning.

 

Somehow some players requiere others to explain what they have and somehow some players think they are ethical by telling their opponents what they have I think those players should be punished with procedural penalties as if they were helping or showing their cards inentionally to their opponents.

You scare me

 

 

Is it unlawful to selfalert "6card 6-11hcp" if I open

2H with someone I never met before?

[TimG]

Is it unlawful to selfalert "6card 6-11hcp" if I open

2H with someone I never met before?

Not only that, but luis is going to slap you with a procedural penalty!

[luis]

Is it unlawful to selfalert "6card 6-11hcp" if I open

2H with someone I never met before?

Not only that, but luis is going to slap you with a procedural penalty!

Exactly. The example is a clear MI case, you are giving your opponents information that your pd doesn't have. I don't know if you can understand this but you are saying you have an agreement that you don't have so your pd may not be bidding based on what you said you have but something else he imagines you may have. All this can lead to self-inflicted MI.

Alerting 2h as 6-11 because you have 6-11 without agreement IMO deserves a procedural penalty and it's MI and it's also unethical since you are giving unfair advantage to your opponents in turn.

[luke warm]

luis, sometimes i play with pickup partners... if i open a 6 spades, 5 hcp with 2S, should i alert it as 'weak' even if undiscussed?

[Brandal]

luis, sometimes i play with pickup partners... if i open a 6 spades, 5 hcp with 2S, should i alert it as 'weak' even if undiscussed?

"no agreement"

"no idea"

"ooooops"

"why shld I tell you??"

"no comment"

"in your dreams"

 

are all better than "weak 6 card" :D

 

unless you wanna look at 3 to 5 in BBO Jail

 

:D

 

(For the record,this was mostly a joke) :)

[Brandal]

I don't know if you can understand this but you are saying you have an agreement that you don't have so your pd may not be bidding based on what you said you have but something else he imagines you may have.

Why does what my partner might or might not do

based on my bid have to do with me selfalerting/explaining

to opps what my bid is?

 

My pd doesn't know what I alerted with,or if I alerted?

 

So yes,I understand what you're saying,but I strongly

disagree with you

 

:D

[the hog]

Is it unlawful to selfalert "6card 6-11hcp" if I open

2H with someone I never met before?

Not only that, but luis is going to slap you with a procedural penalty!

Exactly. The example is a clear MI case, you are giving your opponents information that your pd doesn't have. I don't know if you can understand this but you are saying you have an agreement that you don't have so your pd may not be bidding based on what you said you have but something else he imagines you may have. All this can lead to self-inflicted MI.

Alerting 2h as 6-11 because you have 6-11 without agreement IMO deserves a procedural penalty and it's MI and it's also unethical since you are giving unfair advantage to your opponents in turn.

I totally agree with Luis here.

 

Example - my pd also plays in the Seniors with someone who believes in dsiclosing everything. One two occasions they have run into director calls when the actual hand was not exactly what was described. "We play sound weak 2 bids, always 6 cards etc etc". Well on this occassion at this vul this was not the held hand.

[the hog]

Arend, I should have mentioned that we play a big C system and therefore pd will be limited to 15. That does make a difference, as he could not have a very strong hand - sorry for the omission.

I know from knowing Lebensohl that breaking the (potentially weak with clubs) puppet means "I have a hand too [good|strange] for you to pass 3C. Also, I don't mind you bidding 4D with a bad hand with diamonds as best fit." That usually means "reverse strength" to me.

 

I know from playing strong Club systems that non 1C reverses are most likely extreme shape hands - 14 HCP 5S-6D and the like.

 

So I have a pretty good idea what your partner has.

 

You have all of that information, *and* you also know better than I what reverses show in your partnership, and what it takes for a strong, distributional hand to be upgraded to 1C *in your partnership*.

 

Your opponents, who may neither play Lebensohl nor have never really understood how a limited opener system works, *don't have that information* - it's not "general bridge knowledge", it's knowledge of the system you play and the convention you play. In particular, they don't necessarily know that a very likely outcome of the normal auction is that you are going to pass 3C opposite a potential void.

 

"Alert" "We have no explicit agreement about this auction, but I know he doesn't want to play 3C even if I have a bad hand with clubs. In Standard, this would show great strength, but he's still limited to 15 high. I'm not sure what is happening in this case, but our reverses show 5-5 at least and a maximum - say 12+ in the two suits, or 15, with 10 in the suits."

 

No lies, no "guesses", just information about your system and the convention that you know and your opponents may not.

Do you really have a good idea of what he has, Mike?

For the record he held

Axxx void AQxxx AJxx

Happy to play at a high level in a minor.

 

Furthermore sure Leb may not be general bridge knowledge, but neither are the rules of 10 & 12, Casino count, or even for that matter squeeze plays. Should I also inform the opponents of these?

[Brandal]

Example - my pd also plays in the Seniors with someone who believes in dsiclosing everything. One two occasions they have run into director calls when the actual hand was not exactly what was described. "We play sound weak 2 bids, always 6 cards etc etc". Well on this occassion at this vul this was not the held hand.

But this was a partners explanation,not selfalert?

 

No difference,you mean?

 

And isn't the hand not being as pd describes,something

else alltogether? :D

[the hog]

My comments have all related to ftf bridge. Luis' comments re on line bridge are also absolutely correct.

 

To make what Luis is saying clearer -

You are playing on line with someone for the first time, and have agreed to "Weak 2 bids"

 

Ok you are nv vs vul and decide to open 2H on x KJxxx xxxx xxx. You CANNOT alert this as 5+H any 4-10. Why?

You have no idea what your partner conceives a weak 2 bid to be; he may be brought up in an environment where even at this vul Kx KQJTxxx xxxx x is a weak 2. When pd bids 2NT enquiry, what is he expecting? The ONLY correct answer to the opponents if they ask about style is "We have no agreement".

[Brandal]

My comments have all related to ftf bridge. Luis' comments re on line bridge are also absolutely correct.

Ofcourse they are,what was I thinking

 

If I ever play tournament on BBO again

I will try to get with the program and not

disclose anything without having an agreement

 

I will be very uncomfortable not knowing what

my bid means,I can tell you that....

 

Time for me to stop here,thx all for your patience

[luke warm]

probably it's just better, whether f2f or online, to alert then explain "in theory this shows whatever"

 

so your partner opens 2H, weak, you alert and say "in theory this is <11 hcp with 6+ pcs"... i think that's allowed, and it also tells the opps exactly what your p'ship methods are

 

if an opp asks "you mean he can bid 2H with zero points?" you can say, "he can, but i've never seen him do so at this vulnerability" or "he has done so on occasion" etc

[the hog]

Brandal and Luke,

On the assumption you are still reading this thread, here is an example from real life that my partner told me about.

 

This was a Seniors final, ftf.

On a relay auction dummy had shown a 1534 shape, s/t S. The final contract was 3NT. When opps enquired about the auction before the lead, they were given the meaning of all bids and the comment was made, "There are additional inferences, as I have shown a s/t S you can assume partner has a good S suit". I know this guy, and the comment was made with the best intentions of active ethics.

 

Well, leader with a choice of Axxxx in S or QJTx in D, chose a D lead allowing the contract to make - a S lead would have set it as declarer had KJx. All hell broke loose. The director allowed the result to stand; it went to appeal, which lost, but my pd and his teammate on this occasion were warned to not "add gratuitous comments to explanations, but stick to an exact explanation of the auction only". So there you have it....

[luke warm]

ok, i understand that... it makes sense.. so in my example, if an opp asks "can he have zero points for that bid?" just answer "yes" or "no" and that's that... thx ron

[TimG]

Example - my pd also plays in the Seniors with someone who believes in dsiclosing everything. One two occasions they have run into director calls when the actual hand was not exactly what was described. "We play sound weak 2 bids, always 6 cards etc etc". Well on this occassion at this vul this was not the held hand.

I don't understand what this is supposed to show. What it tells me is that the player made an incorrect explanation. The solution is not to be intentionally vague withyour explanations, but rather to be accurate.

 

Again, this is not an issue in online bridge. The bidder, who is the one who explains his calls, will always get the explanation correct.

[TimG]

The director allowed the result to stand; it went to appeal, which lost, but my pd and his teammate on this occasion were warned to not "add gratuitous comments to explanations, but stick to an exact explanation of the auction only". So there you have it....

Note, however, that they were also warned to stick to the "exact explanation of the auction". They were not advised to be as vague as possible under the Laws so as to minimize the risk of giving the opponents more information than partner has available to him.

 

Sounds to me like the committee got it right, except for the part about lecturing the players.