How am I to explain signoff and invitational bids?

[blackshoe]

The aim is to exchange information that will help you arrive at the correct contract.

[karlson]

With this post I simply wanted to ascertain whether it is lawfull to request information which has not been agreed upon by a partnership. Here I learned it is.

 

I think you got the wrong message. No, you're not obliged to give information that has not been agreed upon. But the opponents do not have to ask exactly the right question to get information that is relevant.

 

Read Zel's post above again. 1♥=4+♠ and 3♦=natural is consistent with everything from 9040 to 4090 to 4243 shape. Now do you really have no agreements that might be useful to the opponents here?

[avoscill]

I think you got the wrong message. No, you're not obliged to give information that has not been agreed upon. But the opponents do not have to ask exactly the right question to get information that is relevant.

If I show to my partner a narrow strength range + a 5-card suit, and he raises my suit, what might be more relevant than saying that he has support and invites me to undertake same action (some normal action, not a codified one) with a maximum? In fact I can't see anything relevant at all except this, and this is the whole point of my post.

 

Read Zel's post above again. 1♥=4+♠ and 3♦=natural is consistent with everything from 9040 to 4090 to 4243 shape. Now do you really have no agreements that might be useful to the opponents here?

Zel didn't say that my 3♦ rebid was consistent with all that shapes, he simply said that my partner should probably know a little bit more than my opponents with which shapes I would make such a bid. While he's right about this point, my contention is that questions of style are not relevant here. If partner is broke, the only action he can undertake at all is a pass/correct action, so it is my responsibility to hold a hand which could bear such action. If one of my suits were substantially longer than the other, I would simply bid differently. The main difficulty with this hand is to convey to partner the invitational character of a suit jump rebid. If partner is keen enough to notice that, if I wanted to force to (some) game, I could start with an obviously artificial 2NT, we'll be on the right track.

[Vampyr]

The undiscussed situation I gave above (opener's rebid ofter LHO's 1NT overcall) remains undiscussed.

 

This is totally unacceptable. If it comes up once, OK, but the second time you must be able to explain it.

 

Also, if a call comes up that is not explicitly discussed but you can work out the meaning by "logic and general rules" you must also explain the meaning you have thereby worked out to the opponents.

[blackshoe]

This is totally unacceptable. If it comes up once, OK, bit the second time you must be able to explain it.

 

Also, if a call comes up that is not explicitly discussed but you can work out the meaning by "logic and general rules" you must also explain the meaning you have thereby worked out to the opponents.

What of "he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players"?

[barmar]

What of "he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players"?

I think she meant "logic and general rules" in the context of the inferences from their system, meta-agreements, and partnership experience. So you have to provide enough information about your agreements so that they can apply the same logic.

[blackshoe]

I think she meant "logic and general rules" in the context of the inferences from their system, meta-agreements, and partnership experience. So you have to provide enough information about your agreements so that they can apply the same logic.

Fair enough.

[Vampyr]

I think she meant "logic and general rules" in the context of the inferences from their system, meta-agreements, and partnership experience. So you have to provide enough information about your agreements so that they can apply the same logic.

 

Mainly I meant this, but we have had countless threads about "general bridge knowledge", mainly in the context of people wishing to hide behind GBK to avoid proper disclosure. Much so-called GBK is not as "general" as these people think, or claim.

[Vampyr]

Zel didn't say that my 3♦ rebid was consistent with all that shapes, he simply said that my partner should probably know a little bit more than my opponents with which shapes I would make such a bid. While he's right about this point, my contention is that questions of style are not relevant here. If partner is broke, the only action he can undertake at all is a pass/correct action, so it is my responsibility to hold a hand which could bear such action. If one of my suits were substantially longer than the other, I would simply bid differently. The main difficulty with this hand is to convey to partner the invitational character of a suit jump rebid. If partner is keen enough to notice that, if I wanted to force to (some) game, I could start with an obviously artificial 2NT, we'll be on the right track.

 

"Style" is entirely relevant, as is everything you have discussed above. All are subject to disclosure -- in particular the fact that there are some hands with a disparity in suit length that you would, as you say, have bid differently.

 

I am surprised that you thought you would have seen different responses in these forums; presumably you asked because you didn't know the answer?

Edited July 20, 2015 by Vampyr
Led to misunderstanding

[Zelandakh]

If one of my suits were substantially longer than the other, I would simply bid differently.

Assuming your partner might also be aware of this, that is information relevant for the opponents. Try to remember that they have absolutely no idea about your system. it might be obvious to you that some of these hands would be bid differently but not to them...and you need to be able to explain these factors.

[kevperk]

I would suggest to avoscill to imagine that he is the opponent playing against two who are playing his methods. Now imagine that someone who doesn't know the methods is going to take over for him at the moment in question. What information would he know about the bid (and auction) that he would tell the fillin player? That is the information that the opponents should be told. Of course, full disclosure has to be tempered by brevity due to time constraints.

[blackshoe]

Of course, full disclosure has to be tempered by brevity due to time constraints.

It does? Which law says so?

[avoscill]

I am surprised that you thought you would have seen different responses in these forums; do we have a reputation as a bunch of cheaters?

This phrase comes as a good example of one of the two main points in the present discussion. If someone were to ask me what did you mean with this words, "full disclosure" should not compel me to answer: there is enough for anybody to make the correct inferences!

 

The second point, which seems to have escaped the attention of many here, is the following: if you can make a bid which drives your partner to the correct action without giving away much of your hand, well, that is a good bid. The same holds when you know enough of partner's hand to be able to place the contract. Such sequences happen also in standard bidding. When you hear from the opponents the simple action 2♠-4♠, you know almost nothing about responder's hand, yet nobody complains. I understand that a bidding system where such sequences happen frequently may make you feel uncomfortably. In the USA they solve the problem by simply banning such systems from competitions, and this is not fair.

[Vampyr]

This phrase comes as a good example of one of the two main points in the present discussion. If someone were to ask me what did you mean with this words, "full disclosure" should not compel me to answer: there is enough for anybody to make the correct inferences!

 

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Inferences available to you must be made available to your opponents.

 

The second point, which seems to have escaped the attention of many here, is the following: if you can make a bid which drives your partner to the correct action without giving away much of your hand, well, that is a good bid. The same holds when you know enough of partner's hand to be able to place the contract. Such sequences happen also in standard bidding. When you hear from the opponents the simple action 2♠-4♠, you know almost nothing about responder's hand, yet nobody complains. I understand that a bidding system where such sequences happen frequently may make you feel uncomfortably. In the USA they solve the problem by simply banning such systems from competitions, and this is not fair.

 

In the auction you mention, the key difference is that opener also does not know about responder's hand. However, if he knows more than the opponents based on agreements or partnership experience, then he must disclose what he knows, if asked.

 

You have been told your obligations, and complaining about them will not change a thing. So there is no point being a crybaby.

[karlson]

If one of my suits were substantially longer than the other, I would simply bid differently.

 

Great! That's information the opponents are entitled to know.

 

After all the discussion I actually still have absolutely no idea if this is a normal way to bid 4♠-6♦ in your system, or if you would show diamonds first. Hopefully you get my drift at this point.

 

Edit: I see that I'm parroting Zelandakh yet again.

[avoscill]

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

With exception of a few, people here seems to not being able to differentiate between "making inferences available to the opponents" and "telling one's own inferences to the opponents". Nowhere I said that I hide (or want to) information to the opponents, yet everybody implies I do it (or would like to find excuses for doing it). To Karlson I say: we open 4♠-6♦ hands in spades, and yes, we inform our opponents about this treatment.

 

Arturo Franco states that one of the principles upon which is based the Blue Team Club bidding system is: Don’t tell the opponents how to play the hand. In the ♠opening - 1NT overcall - 3♦ rebid example, West led a spade, and when he later had to decide the continuation, he felt he had the right to know the exact number of my spades, and therefore to know whether he can play a spade for East to ruff. Sorry West, but we like to follow the above Blue Team Club precept. I must conclude that in this forum the prevailing view is just the opposite: you are obliged by the Law to tell the opponents how to play the hand. I you don't need to define a bid (because partner don't need this information), never mind, you still must define it, because the opponents may need this information. But maybe we are playing different games (or speaking different languages).

 

Since I have exhausted my arguments (much cited, but not rebuted), greeting to all.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Vampyr
Too confrontational

[nige1]

What of "he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players"?

Many players, including TDs, use this seemingly innocuous law to rationalise prevarication. Perhaps I've lived a sheltered life, but after the hand, the "general bridge knowledge" usually comes as an unexpected revelation. Another rule that adds no value and should be dropped. Under current law, however, I sympathise with avoscii's predicament.

[Vampyr]

I must conclude that in this forum the prevailing view is just the opposite: you are obliged by the Law to tell the opponents how to play the hand. I you don't need to define a bid (because partner don't need this information), never mind, you still must define it, because the opponents may need this information. But maybe we are playing different games (or speaking different languages).

 

Since I have exhausted my arguments (much cited, but not rebuted), greeting to all.

 

The "prevailing view" in this forum is not people's opinions; we really do know what your obligations are according to law. LOL we may not know much, but this we do know.

[helene_t]

North, who is generally interested in precise point count (but only for the opponents, as can infer from his present overcall!), this time wanted to know the exact length of my suits, and got quite upset when my pard could'nt satisfy him (simply because he didn't know).

It is probably general bridge logic that the 3♦ bid shows ten cards in the pointed suits (unless dbl would have shown something specific so that you might have to make this bid with some strong hands with only 9 cards in the pointed suits).

 

But it is not obvious at all whether it could be 4-6 or 5-5 or 6-4 or two of the three patters or all three. It is also maybe not entirely obvious that it is strong. So to the extent that p knows any of those things he has to disclose it.

 

If your partner doesn't know any of these things then obviously all he can say is the it shows diamonds in addition to the spades. I don't think he has to tell opps that it won't be a 13-count with 4-4 in the pointed suits.

[Trinidad]

The "prevailing view" in this forum is not people's opinions; we really do know what your obligations are according to law. LOL we may not know much, but this we do know.

I think you are wrong on many levels.

 

1. 
    
   
2. You are wrong in your assertion that a pair must have an agreement, if not the first time they use a bid, then at least the second time. (Post #29).
   
3. You are very wrong in implicitly calling avoscill a cheat. (Post 34)
   
4. You are clearly wrong that BBF knows what avoscill's obligations are according to law.
   
5. You are definitely wrong for not apologizing to avoscill for number 2 in this list.
   

 

Avoscill needs to explain what he knows about his partner's hand and his partner needs to explain what he knows about avoscill's hand. It is allowed to have bids that have little meaning (though the fact that none of the other bids were made does carry meaning). A typical example is the defense that you sometimes see against strong club systems: After a 1♣ opening a 1♠ overcall is automatic and without meaning. (There is no agreement about any other calls and if they would exist they are extremely rare.)

 

Rik

[kevperk]

It does? Which law says so?

Who said it had to be a law that says so? I was just saying you can't have a lengthy discussion. I meant more along the lines of how you explain, in my hypothetical, if you had all the time in the world, you might take a lot longer to be sure the fillin understands. In a real world situation, you would try to be as brief as possible, as long as you were sure the opponents understood. And I would stress SURE.

[Zelandakh]

Avoscill needs to explain what he knows about his partner's hand and his partner needs to explain what he knows about avoscill's hand.

He does...but it is quite clear from the responses that he does not agree with this. I would say that BBFers are amongst the more system-aware group, esepcially in comparison with regular club players. I doubt anyone here can give an accurate description of the hands that could be held as known to the OP's partner. I think if I were playing in this club a hand might take 30 minutes as I would be inclined to ask supplmentary questions about every call along with further questions about alternative calls that were not made. That the actual opponents are unwilling to go through this procedure is not surprising.

[blackshoe]

Many players, including TDs, use this seemingly innocuous law to rationalise prevarication. Perhaps I've lived a sheltered life, but after the hand, the "general bridge knowledge" usually comes as an unexpected revelation. Another rule that adds no value and should be dropped. Under current law, however, I sympathise with avoscii's predicament.

The fact that some bit of knowledge is "generally available to bridge players" does not imply that every bridge player has made himself aware of that knowledge. In effect then, the law says that if something is "generally available" to you, but you are not aware of it, that's not your opponents' problem, it's yours. For example, the knowledge of how to strategize at matchpoints is "generally available" — it's in Kit Woolsey's book (not to mention Hugh Kelsey's). The latter may be out of print and thus hard to come by, but the former has just been published. LOTT is another example. It seems quite a few players don't really know how it works. Nonetheless, that information is widely (i.e., generally) available. Should players be required to disclose that their partnership has agreed to use LOTT in deciding what to bid? I'm not suggesting they should or should not, I'm asking.

 

As for the laws changes you keep talking about, come up with a revised version of the laws, post it somewhere folks can get at it, and then maybe we'll have something to discuss.

[blackshoe]

Who said it had to be a law that says so? I was just saying you can't have a lengthy discussion. I meant more along the lines of how you explain, in my hypothetical, if you had all the time in the world, you might take a lot longer to be sure the fillin understands. In a real world situation, you would try to be as brief as possible, as long as you were sure the opponents understood. And I would stress SURE.

Fair enough.

[blackshoe]

There has been a sub thread here along the lines of "who's a cheater?" amongst the posters here. Not appropriate. I have disapproved the posts involved — they will not be visible until re-approved (if they are re-approved). I have sent a PM to Vampyr about this. Others whose messages are no longer visible, please have patience.