Bidding based on prior impressions of indy partner

[epeeist]

I thought this was sufficiently different from my other post on ethics in individual tournaments to warrant a new topic.

 

With a regular partner, one may have bidding understandings, express or implied, to which the opponents should be alerted to (e.g. partner psyches frequently, or whatever).

 

With an individual partner, I not infrequently find my partner is someone who was an opponent a previous round and I base my bidding and/or defense in part on my impression from that previous round. For instance, maybe we've agreed SAYC but I noted p was a timid bidder while an opponent so I jump to game instead of inviting or whatever. Maybe I noted that despite having agreed to a particular signalling method my partner messed it up in a previous round with their then-partner. Is there any obligation to alert opponents to this information I am using to affect my decisions? I can see honest reporting being deemed insulting (e.g. private chat to opponents "My p was an opponent of mine in an earlier round, and bid, and played, atrociously, so my bidding will take that into account... ;) ).

 

Also, one sometimes finds oneself playing with a partner in an indy who is NOT a regular partner by any means, but who one has profile notes on (e.g. I might have a partner with a profile note, possibly made months prior, "NOT an expert, passed cuebid in opponent suit!"). Unfortunately that's a real example, not a hypothetical one... :lol:

 

During bidding and defence in an individual tournament, I will take into account such "extraneous" information. If I think my partner is a bad bidder because of their bidding while an opponent in an earlier round, or overly timid, or overly aggressive, or whatever.

 

I've never thought there was any ethical obligation to alert opponents to this "extra" information about one's partner in an individual -- but is there one?

[Finch]

This is a slippery slope.

If you think the answer is yes, then are you obliged to say

 

"last time I played you I noticed your defence was atrocious so I will overbid while you are my opponent"?

 

or

 

"You always bid one more. I will compete totally unsoundly because I know I won't have to play it."

[epeeist]

This is a slippery slope.

If you think the answer is yes, then are you obliged to say

 

"last time I played you I noticed your defence was atrocious so I will overbid while you are my opponent"?

 

or

 

"You always bid one more. I will compete totally unsoundly because I know I won't have to play it."

Sorry, I may have been unclear. I agree it's a slippery slope, but from your comments you are taking my question as relating to opinion of opponents which is not what I meant.

 

My question related to one's partner (who was e.g. an opponent in a PREVIOUS round). And the duty to alert opponents to "extra" information about one's partner which may amount to an "understanding" (in effect).

 

For instance, let's say "X" is my opponent in round 1. I form an impression of his bidding and play that X is overly aggressive (i.e. bids too high and is not skilled enough to make a good play for the overbid contract).

 

Two rounds later, X is now my partner. I will take into account what I know of X. Am I obliged to alert opponents to a "partnership understanding"? That e.g. I will not raise preemptive bids by X, nor raise invitational bids to game, because I think X is overaggressive?

[cherdano]

These are not partnership understandings or agreements, so I don't see how opponents are entitled to that information. Frances' examples are much more delicate, since partner probably knows that I know that opponents are horrible defenders, and may understand my bids accordingly.

 

Arend

[helene_t]

As I understand the laws, even with a regular partner you're not required to reveal such information.

 

You must supply information about system issues such as how sound a single raise of partner's major should be, and if you frequently overcall on four-cards. But not about judgement issues such as agresiveness towards accepting invites.

 

Online, we use self-alerts. So if your partner has a strange style, such as overcalling vulnerable at the two-level on Jxxx, then he must alert hes own calls if he thinks that you anticipate on his style. If this means that you don't usually lead your partner's suit and you don't raise with less than 5-card support, it's ok. You don't have to alert anything.

[coyot]

These are not partnership understandings or agreements, so I don't see how opponents are entitled to that information. Frances' examples are much more delicate, since partner probably knows that I know that opponents are horrible defenders, and may understand my bids accordingly.

 

Arend

I dare to disagree :-). If you have witnessed someone bid aggresively twice in a row when he was an opponent and you PLAN to act on that information (that is, not accepting invites, not raising preempts), you ARE using something that constitutes a partnership understanding (albeit oneway).

 

Your failure to raise a preempt which you would raise against any "random" partner then tricks opponents into believing that the values on which you are not bidding are in their partner's hands...

 

On the other hand, there is the problem of how to convey this information to opponents... I can hardly imagine telling the opponents privately "hey, he's bidding one more than he should so you can't infer from my pass that I don't have a raise".

 

Therefore, you should bid "normally" and take the incoming bad result as just a bad luck.

 

I know this is hard to achieve, especially if the partner overbids significantly and you just know you're going to lose a lot of IMPs.

 

Maybe a TD that runs Indies in real life often could say what the rules do about this.

 

This goes even further when using information stored about the player from any previous encounters. Here we don't need real life experience, because it is hardly plausible that you would make a note about one player in 10.000 random people and remember it when you meet that person in another tournament several months later...

 

I know it is a thin ice, because in real life some players are "known" to be aggressive while some are timid - but it usually is information that is known to the whole audience...

(I.e. if you see an obvious beginner old lady, you can adjust your play and bidding to it - but so can everyone else at the table... if you see a perfectly average-looking player and just happen to know something others don't know, you can use this information freely when you're his opponent - but NOT when you're his partner).

[Finch]

Sorry, I may have been unclear. I agree it's a slippery slope, but from your comments you are taking my question as relating to opinion of opponents which is not what I meant.

 

My question related to one's partner (who was e.g. an opponent in a PREVIOUS round).

I understand what you meant. I was trying to make the point that in an individual, there is no real difference between partner and opponents in terms of understandings. So I was doing a reductio ad absurdam : if you have to alert the opponents to how your partner will affect your bidding, then you should also alert the oppoentsn to how their identities will affect your partnership understandings. And I bet you don't think you should do that.

[MickyB]

How their identities will affect your partnership understandings, yes; But in most cases I wouldn't expect it to do so. It might affect how you play, but I wouldn't expect partner to be in on the act.

[pigpenz]

Not any difference its part of the knowledge you have gained at the table...a friend was asking me about playing in indies and I said, sometimes if you have seen the person play the hand before you might be better often opening a four card major once in awhile and maybe bidding notrump before they do....sort of sounds like client bridge doesnt it :o

 

And on defense there are generally alot more errors, so bidding one more for the road helps, and underlead those Aces on defense :)

[McBruce]

A "one-way partnership understanding" is not a partnership understanding. Partner doesn't even know about it and probably wouldn't understand. ;)

[hotShot]

You saw player X overbid in round one, so when he is your partner in round 3, you bid "rock solid". Now player Y who was you opp in that round, knows he will have to bid more aggressiv, because he "knows" you bid way to careful.

Would you like that?

 

But much more imported, if you tell your opps that your partner often overbids, they might dbl and call TD if you make it, claiming that you missinformed them.

 

You are of cause allowed to base your bids on anything you like, but keep opps out of it. One or 2 boards are by far not enough to have a "partnership understanding".

[barmar]

I understand what you meant. I was trying to make the point that in an individual, there is no real difference between partner and opponents in terms of understandings. So I was doing a reductio ad absurdam : if you have to alert the opponents to how your partner will affect your bidding, then you should also alert the oppoentsn to how their identities will affect your partnership understandings. And I bet you don't think you should do that.

I don't think this logic holds up. We're not generally required to tell opponents how we're going to play based on who they are. For instance, you're not require to tell a beginner pair that you're more likely to double them because you don't think they play the cards well.

 

But you *are* generally required to inform opponents of how your partnership bids and plays in general. If there's something unexpected about your bidding that results from the partner you've been assigned, it's not unreasonable to require it be divulged.

 

One thing, though: I'm not sure I really believe the basic premise of this discussion. Just playing one or two boards against someone is not a way to form a reasonable opinion of someone's ability. We've all had hands where we did something stupid, or took a shot that didn't work out, or whatever. I sure hope I wouldn't be judged forever because of the occasional mistake like this. Regular partnerships are expected to disclose undiscussed understandings because they've played together enough to recognize patterns of behavior. But unless you've run into someone a number of times in various indies and recognize common actions, I don't think you should try too hard to adjust to them.

[barmar]

But much more imported, if you tell your opps that your partner often overbids, they might dbl and call TD if you make it, claiming that you missinformed them.

How is that "misinforming them"? Just because he often overbids doesn't mean he *always* overbids.

 

And if the player who informs about the overbidding also underbids to adjust, he could damage himself just as much -- he might miss a game or slam when he fails to accept an invitation.

[epeeist]

....

One thing, though: I'm not sure I really believe the basic premise of this discussion.  Just playing one or two boards against someone is not a way to form a reasonable opinion of someone's ability.  We've all had hands where we did something stupid, or took a shot that didn't work out, or whatever.  I sure hope I wouldn't be judged forever because of the occasional mistake like this.  Regular partnerships are expected to disclose undiscussed understandings because they've played together enough to recognize patterns of behavior.  But unless you've run into someone a number of times in various indies and recognize common actions, I don't think you should try too hard to adjust to them.

To give three examples, which actually happened to me. If I recall correctly, my "partners" in both instances had profiles which said intermediate, and either sayc or 2/1 had been agreed upon, and all appeared (by nationality) to be English speakers so no likely miscommunication.

 

(1) I opened 2♣, partner passed, so I played in 2♣.

 

(2) I cuebid in a suit in which the opponents had opened, and partner passed, I ended up playing in something like 4♥ (the cuebid, opponents smart enough not to double or make any other bid which would give me a chance to bid again).

 

(3) I opened 1st or second seat with 1♠, partner had 4 spades headed by the queen and seven or eight points total (not counting distribution) and passed.

 

There was nothing (after the hand was over of course) "sorry misclick" or anything like that. So it's possible they were not bad players, simply rude or uncommunicative.

 

Now, based on these single instances of atrocious bidding (in my view -- I saw their hands afterwards, of course), I reached highly unfavourable conclusions about the bidding skill of these people. Whether justified or not, that is my honest opinion. And I put notes in their profile accordingly. I don't think it was unreasonable for me to do so. And if I am ever unlucky enough to be partnered with either of these people again, I will certainly bear their prior bidding history -- even if it's only these single instances I noted in their profiles -- in my bidding. For instance, maybe instead of making a Michaels cuebid or unusual NT call or takeout double of an opponent bid, I'll consider it safer to overcall one of my preferred suits. Maybe if the player in example (3) above raises my 1NT opening to 2NT, I'll suspect that such a conservative bidder probably has a better than "normal" hand for 2NT and I'll bid 3NT even if I have only 15 points. Stuff like that.

[coyot]

Using player notes is not exactly fair as you're using information majority of other players in the tournament likely do not have.

 

There are a few possible enhancements:

 

1) Prescribed bidding system for individual tourneys (exact list of allowed conventions etc) - I would highly recommend this one

 

2) Disable "viewing of player notes" during tournament

 

3) (Privacy breaching) Show player notes to everyone at the table (not kibitzers)

 

4) Cyclic seating. In many indies I played, the seating system made all variations of the four players at the table. I.e. 3 boards per round and you play with all 3 partners one board each. In this case, the only "damaged" player will be the one that plays with the "overbidder" the first board - but that cannot be avoided anyway.

[epeeist]

Using player notes is not exactly fair as you're using information majority of other players in the tournament likely do not have.

 

There are a few possible enhancements:

 

1) Prescribed bidding system for individual tourneys (exact list of allowed conventions etc) - I would highly recommend this one

 

2) Disable "viewing of player notes" during tournament

 

3) (Privacy breaching) Show player notes to everyone at the table (not kibitzers)

 

4) Cyclic seating. In many indies I played, the seating system made all variations of the four players at the table. I.e. 3 boards per round and you play with all 3 partners one board each. In this case, the only "damaged" player will be the one that plays with the "overbidder" the first board - but that cannot be avoided anyway.

The concern about fairness is why I started this thread... :rolleyes:

 

For your numbered points,

 

(1) even with a prescribed bidding system (sayc only or whatever) player notes would still influence my bidding, as I gave some examples of (accepting/not accepting game invitations, overcalling vs. cuebidding, etc.);

 

(2) seems fair;

 

(3) aside from the privacy issue, my comments about some players should not be shared (e.g. "Rude Moron!!") if only due to concerns about defamation, and I assume others have a few comments like this... :D

 

(4) my concern is not about damage, but ethics -- my point being that if I know because of my player notes from past behaviour that partner X is an over or underbidder, that influences my bidding in a way that opponents probably won't and can't know unless I tell them.

[coyot]

Using player notes is not exactly fair as you're using information majority of other players in the tournament likely do not have.

 

There are a few possible enhancements:

 

1) Prescribed bidding system for individual tourneys (exact list of allowed conventions etc) - I would highly recommend this one

 

2) Disable "viewing of player notes" during tournament

 

3) (Privacy breaching) Show player notes to everyone at the table (not kibitzers)

 

4) Cyclic seating. In many indies I played, the seating system made all variations of the four players at the table. I.e. 3 boards per round and you play with all 3 partners one board each. In this case, the only "damaged" player will be the one that plays with the "overbidder" the first board - but that cannot be avoided anyway.

The concern about fairness is why I started this thread... :rolleyes:

 

For your numbered points,

 

(1) even with a prescribed bidding system (sayc only or whatever) player notes would still influence my bidding, as I gave some examples of (accepting/not accepting game invitations, overcalling vs. cuebidding, etc.);

 

(2) seems fair;

 

(3) aside from the privacy issue, my comments about some players should not be shared (e.g. "Rude Moron!!") if only due to concerns about defamation, and I assume others have a few comments like this... :D

 

(4) my concern is not about damage, but ethics -- my point being that if I know because of my player notes from past behaviour that partner X is an over or underbidder, that influences my bidding in a way that opponents probably won't and can't know unless I tell them.

I agree completely :))

 

I didn't mean the numbered bits to solve this issue...

 

3) I wouldn't probably have problems with player notes, because if I think that somebody is a rude moron, I put him to my enemy list. I make only positive notes :).

 

4) Cyclic seating would solve the problem of "fresh" information effectively. Both defenders would have witnessed your partner's bidding from the previous board or two.

The only problem with this system is that it will produce strange results for small tourneys. 2 boards per round means that you will spend 3 rounds with the same folks at one table. Then you get 3 new faces for 6 next boards... so, after 12 boards, your score is determined by performance of 6 other people only... whereas in random seating, you get close to 18 variables.

[barmar]

To give three examples, which actually happened to me. If I recall correctly, my "partners" in both instances had profiles which said intermediate, and either sayc or 2/1 had been agreed upon, and all appeared (by nationality) to be English speakers so no likely miscommunication.

We've all seen idiotic stuff like this. A week or two ago I saw my LHO raise his partner's 1♦ opening to 2♦ with 16 HCP, 4-4 majors, and just ♦AK. His profile said Advanced, yet he tried to explain that he had no better bid! He honestly seemed to think that responding in a major required 5 of them, but at least he knew better than to jump raise with only 2-card support.

 

But if I were later partnered with this guy, I honestly can't think of how I would use this experience. All I know is that he's an idiot, so I can't trust his bids. But what am I supposed to do with this knowledge, just open 3NT and hope for the best? What could I disclose to the opponents?

 

Let's take a more realistic example. Suppose you're a pro playing with a novice student in a normal pair or team game at a face-to-face club or tournament. Would you be expected to inform your opponents that your partner is inexperienced and may frequently misbid, forget conventions, and/or signal incorrectly?

[epeeist]

....

But if I were later partnered with this guy, I honestly can't think of how I would use this experience. All I know is that he's an idiot, so I can't trust his bids. But what am I supposed to do with this knowledge, just open 3NT and hope for the best? What could I disclose to the opponents?

 

Let's take a more realistic example. Suppose you're a pro playing with a novice student in a normal pair or team game at a face-to-face club or tournament. Would you be expected to inform your opponents that your partner is inexperienced and may frequently misbid, forget conventions, and/or signal incorrectly?

As to what I do differently, let's say I know I have one of these partners (because of notes) and bidding goes 1♣ by me, 1♠ by partner. I have 18-20 points and a balanced hand, only a doubleton spade. So I know we probably have game, possibly more. The proper bid is a jump to 2NT, showing 18-20 points and a balanced hand. The bid I actually make is a jump to 3NT, because I figure if partner has a weak hand he or she will wrongly pass 2NT even if we probably have game.

 

As well as the simpler examples, I may avoid t/o doubles, Michaels or unusual NT, jump to game in a major in response to NT opening instead of using transfers, etc.

 

As for your second question, perhaps let a pro (unlike me!) answer it. I note, however, that you're assuming a situation in which you know the skill level of your partner -- quite unlike the situation on BBO, where I've seen (real) experts put novice in their profile and (bad intermediates) put expert or world class... :lol:

 

That said, I'd go with whatever the tournament director said to do -- I'd ask before the tournament started. All else failing (i.e. if for some reason I can't ask TD in advance what to do), I'd probably say something like (checking with p first) "this is a new partnership and my p's a novice, so take that into account when judging what our bids and carding means".