My pet peeve

[RuflRbt]

Why is "no explanation available" an acceptable response to an inquiry about what a bid means?

The inquiry is as to what the bidder means by the bid, not to any partnership understanding. Accordingly, "no explanation available" means the bidder has no idea what he/she/they is doing.

This response should not be allowed or encouraged, yes?

[smerriman]

In the laws of bridge, you aren't entitled to know what the bidder meant by the bid. Solely what the partnership understanding of the bid is.

 

Of course, playing with randoms online, many don't understand the rules regarding alerts and just ignore requests for explanations; that's the responsibility of a TD to sort out.

[mikeh]

I don't play on BBO other than with set partners and opps, so this is not something I encounter. However, I wonder if the software allows a bidder, asked what his or her call meant, to answer along the lines of 'we've never discussed it' or 'hey, this is a pickup partner, your guess is as good as mine as to what he will think I have'.

 

I don't think that you are entitled to know what the bidder hopes his partner will take his bid to mean, when there is no agreement. And I suspect that the software doesn't allow for 'undiscussed' or 'no agreement', either of which may be the correct explanation and all you are entitled to know.

[TylerE]

You have it exactly backwards. You are ONLY entitled to the partnership agreement, if any, not what they're thinking or intending.

[3338231]

I am one of those people who recently replied

'no partnership agreement'.

 

After 1S - 1 NT, I rebid 2C and was asked what I meant.

But it wasn't clear to me who was asking, and I didn't

want to give my partner UI.

 

All the Automated games I play announce "you agree to play 2/1",

but that doesn't always indicate what a 1 NT response means.

Some play 6-9 balanced, some play semi-forcing.

I can never know which my partner intends, so I bid a 3-card suit

assuming the latter.

 

Unfortunately, I ended up playing a 3-3 club fit.

[msmaple]

Hi Mike:)

This came up in a BIL tourney recently, I was TD and had a call from a player that opps has responded to an enquiry about a bid with "no explanation available". Opps did not reply to my private message for clarification. I like the "no partnership agreement" and will suggest in my announcements re unusual bids and conventions to my profile. Hopefully it will help in INDY tourneys.Thank you for bringing this up.

[barmar]

I don't play on BBO other than with set partners and opps, so this is not something I encounter. However, I wonder if the software allows a bidder, asked what his or her call meant, to answer along the lines of 'we've never discussed it' or 'hey, this is a pickup partner, your guess is as good as mine as to what he will think I have'.

How could it stop you from answering like that? It's an unstructured text input, you can type anything you like.

 

The only predefined response is "No information available" if you click on the "Cancel" button instead of explaining.

[smerriman]

But it wasn't clear to me who was asking, and I didn't want to give my partner UI.

FYI, partner can't see anything you type in the alert box. Only the opponents.

[brazosbtm]

I fully expect an answer when I ask about a bid that could be a convention bid. And if the partner of that bid does something not in line with the alert bid, I will ask for a undo. Normally I just tell them.

[helene_t]

I fully expect an answer when I ask about a bid that could be a convention bid. And if the partner of that bid does something not in line with the alert bid, I will ask for a undo. Normally I just tell them.

It's good if all four players can agree on such a set of relaxed rules when playing with random partners in the main (or relaxed) club.

 

It's not consistent with the laws of bridge, as you probably know, but that maybe shouldn't be a priority under such circumstances.

 

Some agree to follow the law with respect to the auction, but whenever that leads to a nonsense contract (for example because someone passes his partner's transfer bid) they redeal instead of playing it out.

 

If people make different assumptions about which rules apply, it can of course lead to tensions.

 

In an indy tournament (or in pairs when picking someone from the partnership desk), you should follow the law (unless the TD instructs you otherwise), and if that leads to silly results it's just part of the game.

 

If someone subs in mid-hand in a pairs tournament and think it's reasonable to give the sub an explanation of the auction, maybe even including intended meaning of undiscussed calls by the sub's partner.