alerts

[Brandal]

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".

So even if we HAVE agreed weak 2 we can't explain

what they're supposed to be,because we don't know

the style?

 

Man,this just doesn't sound right :D

[luke warm]

no brandal, that isn't correct.. you're my opp and i open 2H and alert "weak"... my alert only tells you how our p'ship plays a 2H bid... now if you ask me for further info, i can say "our agreement is <11 hcp and 6+ cards"

 

whether or not i actually *have* that hand is irrelevant... you are only entitled to know our understandings... you can ask further questions, of course... f2f you can ask my partner if i could have fewer than 6 cards... he answers (but as ron's post shows, he has to be careful of saying anything that could later bite him in the ass) 'according to our agreements, 2H shows 6+ pcs and <11 hcp'... "can he have more than 11 hcp?" ... "according to our agreements, the bid shows <11 hcp"

 

say i show up with 12 hcp and 5 hearts... my partner has not given misleading info and the opps are not harmed

[luke warm]

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.

i think ron is showing that, in an effort to be as ethical as possible, a player was punished... he wasn't trying to mislead the opps, he was trying to help

 

as for online bridge, the bidder can't tell the opps what he has... he can only tell them what his partner *expects* him to have... to do anything else would be unfair to others playing the same board

[TimG]

(but as ron's post shows, he has to be careful of saying anything that could later bite him in the ass)

If he accurately describes the agreement, there is no danger of the explanation coming back to bite him in the ass. What must not happen is players intentionally not disclosing their complete agreement for fear of committee or director reprisal. I know that my partner never opens 2♥ when holding four spades, but no one is likely to be able to prove that it's part of our agreements, so it's ok to say "we don't have any agreement". I know from experience that partner is unlikely to do X, but we have no explicit agreement to this effect, so I can be vague and no one will be the wiser.

you can ask further questions, of course... f2f you can ask my partner if i could have fewer than 6 cards

The opponents shouldn't need to grill you to get a complete description. Yes, when you open 2♠ it's fine to describe it as a weak two-bid. But, if an opponents asks for more information, you should be totally forthcoming rather than waiting for them to ask about specific aspects of your agreements. A side four-card majoris a perfect example. How would you like it if, in a ftf game, your opponent asked about the possibility of a side four-card major, your side ended up defending and questioner's partner leads the unbid major?

'according to our agreements

There's no need to qualify each explanation with "according to our agreements" -- every explanation is according to agreement.

 

Tim

[luke warm]

I know that my partner never opens 2♥ when holding four spades, but no one is likely to be able to prove that it's part of our agreements, so it's ok to say "we don't have any agreement".

ok, now what if your partner actually did open 2H one hand when holding 4 spades, maybe 4 to the 10 or 9? and you alert 2H as 'weak, can't have 4 spades'... have you given misinformation? it's far better to say what the bid means and, if questioned, reply that you've never known him to hold a side 4 card major in related auctions

 

The opponents shouldn't need to grill you to get a complete description. Yes, when you open 2♠ it's fine to describe it as a weak two-bid. But, if an opponents asks for more information, you should be totally forthcoming rather than waiting for them to ask about specific aspects of your agreements.

i agree with this, i haven't said anything that implies i don't

 

A side four-card majoris a perfect example. How would you like it if, in a ftf game, your opponent asked about the possibility of a side four-card major, your side ended up defending and questioner's partner leads the unbid major?

i don't understand the question... if you mean after my pard opens a weak 2 and the opps ask about a side 4 card major, they would have recourse if i stated "he never has a 4 card major when opening with a weak 2"... never say never... tell tendencies, yes... tell past experiences, yes

 

There's no need to qualify each explanation with "according to our agreements" -- every explanation is according to agreement.

perhaps there *shouldn't* be a need for such qualification, but many times i've seen world class players alert using the words "in theory this means ____" larry cohen is a good example... did he need to qualify his remarks? he thought so

[TimG]

A side four-card majoris a perfect example. How would you like it if, in a ftf game, your opponent asked about the possibility of a side four-card major, your side ended up defending and questioner's partner leads the unbid major?

i don't understand the question... if you mean after my pard opens a weak 2 and the opps ask about a side 4 card major, they would have recourse if i stated "he never has a 4 card major when opening with a weak 2"... never say never... tell tendencies, yes... tell past experiences, yes

Suppose the auction goes:

 

2♠-P-3N-All pass

 

After the 2♠ opening bid, the next players asked: "does 2♠ deny four hearts?" Would you be at all suspicious if opening leader produces a heart?

[luke warm]

no, why? are you saying that the asking of the question said to partner "lead a heart?"

[TimG]

no, why? are you saying that the asking of the question said to partner "lead a heart?"

Let's just say it put a focus on hearts.

 

One of my favorite related stories:

 

I frequently play four-card majors (which is unusual around here). Many years ago my partner opened 1♠, the next player glanced at our convention card and then asked if we played four-card majors. I became declarer in 3N after a non-competitive auction. My LHO led her (singleton) spade, dummy came down with ♠T9xxx, and RHO duly cashed her ♠AKQJ before getting out with her fifth spade. The spade trick was my 9th, one I wasn't likely to get anywhere else.

[Brandal]

no brandal, that isn't correct.. you're my opp and i open 2H and alert "weak"... my alert only tells you how our p'ship plays a 2H bid... now if you ask me for further info, i can say "our agreement is <11 hcp and 6+ cards"

 

whether or not i actually *have* that hand is irrelevant... you are only entitled to know our understandings... you can ask further questions, of course... f2f you can ask my partner if i could have fewer than 6 cards... he answers (but as ron's post shows, he has to be careful of saying anything that could later bite him in the ass) 'according to our agreements, 2H shows 6+ pcs and <11 hcp'... "can he have more than 11 hcp?" ... "according to our agreements, the bid shows <11 hcp"

 

say i show up with 12 hcp and 5 hearts... my partner has not given misleading info and the opps are not harmed

In my (humble or not) opinion F2F and online where

we self alert just isn't "the same thing". :)

 

When someone else(my pd) has to explain my bid

obviously he has to refer to agreement nad be careful

saying much more.

 

What I react the most on,is luis saying it's unlawful

and that I am unethical to just about everyone on BBO.

 

He may be correct,but I find it alot more unethical

not to inform opps about my bid/style,I'm not the

only one at the table and bridge is a social event.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Yesterday in a tourney I opened 1C and when asked

to explain I wrote "4+ cl 12-19" (we open 4 card)

Opps were in 1nt and went down 1 since declarer didn't

know how to count clubs,my pd had 1 and dummy 2

and me and declarer had 5,he then proceeded to inform

me 1c should be alerted (apparently since I had 5 clubs)

 

Even that made me feel bad,imagine how I will feel at

the table saying "no agreement" :)

[luke warm]

your opp was just flat wrong, 1C (unless artificial) isn't alertable anyway... he asked and you answered honestly...

 

declarer is supposed to plan a line of play based on certain distributions... he went down not because you had 5 clubs, and not because you misinformed him, but because the contract was not makable or he misplayed it

 

What I react the most on,is luis saying it's unlawful

and that I am unethical to just about everyone on BBO.

imagine you and your partner sit n/s... your e/w opps are not playing against you, they're playing against all other e/w pairs... if you give information to them that is unavailable to the other e/w pairs, and if the giving of this info is counter to the laws of bridge, and if the possession of this info results in your e/w receiving a higher score than other e/w, you have (albeit inadvertantly and with the purest of motives) harmed others... do you see?

 

you can't think only about the e/w pair sitting at your table... you have a responsibility to: your partner; your opps; all other n/s pairs; all other e/w pairs; the game of bridge..

 

that's what luis was speaking about, imo, and he's right

[Brandal]

imagine you and your partner sit n/s... your e/w opps are not playing against you, they're playing against all other e/w pairs... if you give information to them that is unavailable to the other e/w pairs, and if the giving of this info is counter to the laws of bridge, and if the possession of this info results in your e/w receiving a higher score than other e/w, you have (albeit inadvertantly and with the purest of motives) harmed others... do you see?

 

you can't think only about the e/w pair sitting at your table... you have a responsibility to: your partner; your opps; all other n/s pairs; all other e/w pairs; the game of bridge..

 

that's what luis was speaking about, imo, and he's right

Indeed I see the point luke,it's not really

about not understanding the point anymore :rolleyes:

 

If me and a pickup pd or in an indy have agreed

weak 2,is it allowed to write "weak 2"?

 

We didn't have time to specify strength,style

is "weak 2" unethical in that scenario,not going

deeper into it than that?

 

Or is that also unethical because we haven't agreed

strength,length,style,responses and so on?

 

:)

 

Frode

[luke warm]

ok, if i'm in an indy (God forbid) and i play with a pickup pard and i open 2H, i alert as "weak"... if opps ask anything at all i say "my weak 2 bids usually show 6+ cards and are usually <11 hcp"

 

i only alert the bid because different people play 2 bids differently, even tho (i think) weak 2s are standard

[TimG]

and if the giving of this info is counter to the laws of bridge

Nobody has yet cited a Law which suggests over-disclosure* is counter to the Laws of bridge.

 

Tim

 

* Not that I think the kind of discloser Brandal is talking about is over-disclosure.

[Brandal]

ok, if i'm in an indy (God forbid) and i play with a pickup pard and i open 2H, i alert as "weak"... if opps ask anything at all i say "my weak 2 bids usually show 6+ cards and are usually <11 hcp"

 

i only alert the bid because different people play 2 bids differently, even tho (i think) weak 2s are standard

I don't play indy myself,and I never play

tourneys with pickup partners without panning

out most used conventions and bids :rolleyes:

 

I'm satisfied now,it was more a principle question

for me,I could just as easily asked why do people

who are regular partners explain 2C opening with

"precision" or "WJ" or "WYSIWYG" lol

[the hog]

I'm satisfied now,it was more a principle question

for me,I could just as easily asked why do people

who are regular partners explain 2C opening with

"precision" or "WJ" or "WYSIWYG" lol

Maybe because its a heck of a lot easier to type "Precision" than

"11-15, 5+C and a 4 card Major, or 6C. Not 5C and 4D, won't be 2425 or 2445 with good doubleton holdings and won't be 3415 or 4315". This is what you get if you want full disclosure.

 

Also maybe because everyone knows what a Precision 2c opening is.

 

Maybe you could use the same argument against all those that don't alert Stayman and its many possible flavours - garbage, always shows values , doesn't promise a 4 card M etc etc.

[Brandal]

regular partners explain 2C opening with "precision" or "WJ"

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Maybe because its a heck of a lot easier to type "Precision" than

"11-15, 5+C and a 4 card Major, or 6C. Not 5C and 4D, won't be 2425 or 2445 with good doubleton holdings and won't be 3415 or 4315". This is what you get if you want full disclosure.

 

Also maybe because everyone knows what a Precision 2c opening is.

 

Maybe you could use the same argument against all those that don't alert Stayman and its many possible flavours - garbage, always shows values , doesn't promise a 4 card M etc etc.

When I wrote _regular partners explain 2C opening with "precision" or "WJ"_

I meant they explained when asked,and that isn't good enough I think.

 

B)

[bearmum]

2♠-P-3N-All pass

 

After the 2♠ opening bid, the next players asked: "does 2♠ deny four hearts?"  Would you be at all suspicious if opening leader produces a heart?

POST edited

 

OK - I assume this was this F2F with convention cards available?

 

IF the question was ASKED at the table by the person on the Left hand of the 2!s bidder who could NOT bid or double no matter WHAT the answer!!!

 

NOW after the bidding as shown IF the opening lead WAS a !h (UNLESS from 4 or 5 NICE Hearts) and the 3NT went off due to the fact that the questioner HAD NICE !hs -----I would call the director --- and say I think the whole thing was a result of UI by opps :)