Do you have to explain your bid?

[hrothgar]

Here are the proceedures that I follow when I am playing in an Indy

 

On most hands bidding/play commences without any explicit agreement regarding bidding system. In these cases, I typically assume that we are playing something similar to BBO-Basic

 

I self alert conventional calls which are "alertable". Jacoby Transfers over a partner's 1NT opening are a classic example.

 

I do not provide explanations for non-alertable bids. Case in point, if the opponents asked for a discription of my 2♦ opening, I reply "No agreement". Playing without any partnership agreement is enough of a disadvantage without also providing the opponents with extra disclosure...

 

On those occasions where I do agree on system (2/1 GF or whatever) I am, of course, willing to provide additional information regarding the meaning of non-alertable bids.

[kgr]

I ask and they say "No agreements. All we have agreed is Standard Bulgarian". Is that fair?

No, "Standard Bulgarian" is not a sufficient explanation. If this is the reply you get, you just ask another question: "What is 2♦ in Standard Bulgarian"?

 

Now they must tell you what the bid means (full disclosure).

 

Roland

..and the same is true if they agreed SAYC, ACOL,...

Because of that I suppose that there is an implicit agreement about 2D and if opps ask you should explain.

The Bulgarians do not need to know that in SAYC 2D is weak with 6-card D.

 

It is difficult for me to imagine a situation where you open 2D, Opps ask what it means and you have the right not to explain it because you don't have an agreement with your partner. This would mean that you didn't even agree what system (eg SAYC) you play.

[kgr]

Here are the proceedures that I follow when I am playing in an Indy

 

On most hands bidding/play commences without any explicit agreement regarding bidding system. In these cases, I typically assume that we are playing something similar to BBO-Basic

 

I self alert conventional calls which are "alertable". Jacoby Transfers over a partner's 1NT opening are a classic example.

 

I do not provide explanations for non-alertable bids. Case in point, if the opponents asked for a discription of my 2♦ opening, I reply "No agreement". Playing without any partnership agreement is enough of a disadvantage without also providing the opponents with extra disclosure...

 

On those occasions where I do agree on system (2/1 GF or whatever) I am, of course, willing to provide additional information regarding the meaning of non-alertable bids.

Even if you did not agree system and opps ask explanation you should still say "weak with 6-card Diamond".

 

Suppose I never played on BBO. I did always play f2f bridge in Belgium and never saw anybody play weak 2D (2D would either be multi or something strong).

Now I play for the first time on BBO and you open 2D. I ask you an explanation and you answer: "No agreement"...while in fact the implicit agreement is 2D is weak with 6-card D (because this is mostly played if no other agreement).

Do you now think that you gave me the correct information with "No agreement"?

[hrothgar]

Suppose I never played on BBO. I did always play f2f bridge in Belgium and never saw anybody play weak 2D (2D would either be multi or something strong).  Now I play for the first time on BBO and you open 2D. I ask you an explanation and you answer: "No agreement"...while in fact the implicit agreement is 2D is weak with 6-card D (because this is mostly played if no other agreement).

I suggest that you might find it valuable to learn something about "standard" bidding before entering an Individual. If you are this clueless then I severely doubt that your partners are going to appreciate the opportunity to play with you...

 

The laws surrounding disclosure are intended to provide the opponents with specific information about explict partnership agreement. They are not intended to protect the opponents from their own ignorance regarding the basics.

[Cascade]

The laws surrounding disclosure are intended to provide the opponents with specific information about explict partnership agreement.

The laws provide for disclosure of much more. They require disclosure explict agreements, implicit agreements and partnership experience.

[hrothgar]

The laws surrounding disclosure are intended to provide the opponents with specific information about explict partnership agreement.

The laws provide for disclosure of much more. They require disclosure explict agreements, implicit agreements and partnership experience.

Cascade is correct: I should have said "explicit and implict"

 

With this said and done, the important thing to focus on is "partnership agreement". Under the conditions that I specified its hard to claim that I have any kind of partnership agreement.

 

One point that I think is VERY worth considering:

 

In order for an opponent to be damaged by my failure to disclose my hand type, they need to be unsure regarding the definition of the bid in question.

 

If they are unsure regarding the definition of the bid in question than there is clearly no consensus regarding the definition of the bid in question. Ergo, there can not be any kind of implicit agreement that I am obliged to disclose.

[hotShot]

Having players from everywhere in the world online, it is possible to hit someone you is unfamiliar with english. So "ask partner" might have just suggested, that partner can understand english.

 

Without any other agreement the site rules apply. They say, if nothing else is said, BBO Basic is on.

[cherdano]

I think it will rarely be right to answer "no agreement". Say a partner with "US" flag sits down opposite me, we have no system discussion, and I open 2♣, with a strong hand of course. My Polish opponent, self-rated beginner, asks me what 2♣ means. Does really anyone think answering "no agreement" is the right way to play this game?

 

Arend

[Winstonm]

You can always come to our table - we have a standing rule when we start a table that opponents can ask out loud at any time what a bid means - the main room is for practice sessions and having opps foul up due to misunderstandings or because they are a new partnership does no one any good. I would encourage one and all to adopt this table rule as it helps unfamiliar players avoid silly contracts that only serve to slow down the game.

 

WinstonM

[coyot]

The laws provide for disclosure of much more. They require disclosure explict agreements, implicit agreements and partnership experience.

That's exactly the point.

 

If you sit down to an indy in BBO and open 2♦ with 6 weak diamonds, you ARE using implicit agreement! You're expecting your partner to understand that bid (why else use it)!

 

And you just HAVE to tell the opponents about this when they ask.

 

I think that it would be good if the TDs of indies prescribed "default" bidding system for the tourney and people would have to openly agree on something else if not wanting to play it.

 

Then you would know that in a SAYC indy any 2♦ bid is weak diamonds unless you noticed the opponents agreeing on some other system.

[scoob]

You can always come to our table - we have a standing rule when we start a table that opponents can ask out loud at any time what a bid means - the main room is for practice sessions and having opps foul up due to misunderstandings or because they are a new partnership does no one any good. I would encourage one and all to adopt this table rule as it helps unfamiliar players avoid silly contracts that only serve to slow down the game.

 

WinstonM

this is a wonderful approach - one that i also follow and wish more people would.

[hrothgar]

The laws provide for disclosure of much more.  They require disclosure explict agreements, implicit agreements and partnership experience.

That's exactly the point.

 

If you sit down to an indy in BBO and open 2♦ with 6 weak diamonds, you ARE using implicit agreement! You're expecting your partner to understand that bid (why else use it)!

 

And you just HAVE to tell the opponents about this when they ask.

 

I think that it would be good if the TDs of indies prescribed "default" bidding system for the tourney and people would have to openly agree on something else if not wanting to play it.

 

Then you would know that in a SAYC indy any 2♦ bid is weak diamonds unless you noticed the opponents agreeing on some other system.

I am also expecting that the opponents have a modicum of competence...

 

I readily admit that I have an issue here. In my experience, their are a large number of opponents who habitually interogate the opponents for comprehensive descriptions of standard sequences and then claim damage if the hand doesn't perfectly match the description provided...

 

I repeat once again: If the opponents have any need to ask about the meaning of a bid, than there is no consensus regarding its meaning and I am entitled to respond "no agreement"...

[kenberg]

It will always be tough in pick-up games to ensure a common understanding of responsibilities. In the case at hand: If an opponent opened 2D and no one said anything, it would not occur to me to ask a question about it. If it turned out to be, say, Flannery and if his partner treated it as Flannery I would ask a few questions after the hand. Or just leave. In practical terms, an undiscussed 2D bid in a pick-up game is weak, whatever its meaning might be in Standard Martian.

 

It seems to me there is a continuum of expectations depending on the setting. Learning social rubber bridge a long time ago, it was not unheard of to have someone follow a bid with the statement "You remember what that means, dear?". At the Reisenger, this is not allowed.

 

I like to play online at what might be called "Tournament Standard" rules. We don't get to tell each other what our bids mean, we do explain to the opponents what we intend if we make a bid that might be ambiguous Eg 1C-P-1H-(2H), where 2H can be explained as "Intended aas natural". It would be nuts to make this bid if you did not have reason to believe that partner will understand it (explicitly discussed or not) so you tell the opponents what you have in mind.

 

It's important to accept the fact that others will see this differently.

 

Ken

[1eyedjack]

The laws provide for disclosure of much more.  They require disclosure explict agreements, implicit agreements and partnership experience.

That's exactly the point.

 

If you sit down to an indy in BBO and open 2♦ with 6 weak diamonds, you ARE using implicit agreement! You're expecting your partner to understand that bid (why else use it)!

You could be making the bid more in the HOPE of his interpreting it than in the EXPECTATION. An expectation should be disclosed. I am less convinced that a hope requires disclosure, where the hope is without foundation.

[mike777]

The laws provide for disclosure of much more.  They require disclosure explict agreements, implicit agreements and partnership experience.

That's exactly the point.

 

If you sit down to an indy in BBO and open 2♦ with 6 weak diamonds, you ARE using implicit agreement! You're expecting your partner to understand that bid (why else use it)!

You could be making the bid more in the HOPE of his interpreting it than in the EXPECTATION. An expectation should be disclosed. I am less convinced that a hope requires disclosure, where the hope is without foundation.

Great now I am at a table where my opp's are making hope bids without any foundation. I ask my opp what bid means and they tell me ask their partner. Why are telling me that with no foundation? Do they make bids and answer my questions with no foundation also? How can one even play bridge with no foundation?

[1eyedjack]

The laws provide for disclosure of much more.  They require disclosure explict agreements, implicit agreements and partnership experience.

That's exactly the point.

 

If you sit down to an indy in BBO and open 2♦ with 6 weak diamonds, you ARE using implicit agreement! You're expecting your partner to understand that bid (why else use it)!

You could be making the bid more in the HOPE of his interpreting it than in the EXPECTATION. An expectation should be disclosed. I am less convinced that a hope requires disclosure, where the hope is without foundation.

Great now I am at a table where my opp's are making hope bids without any foundation. I ask my opp what bid means and they tell me ask their partner. Why are telling me that with no foundation? Do they make bids and answer my questions with no foundation also? How can one even play bridge with no foundation?

I am sorry but I just did not understand this post. Even so, let me elaborate.

 

The point is that worldwide there are in common usage a variety of uses for the 2D opener. Even those with a natural "flavour" vary dramatically in their strength limitations.

 

Given that environment, it is arguably stupid ever to open 2D without having an express agreement (which would of course then require disclosure - no question). A hand suitable for a "strong" 2D will rarely give rise to disaster by opening 1D. A hand suitable for a "weak" 2D opener will rarely give rise to a disaster by passing. The cost of the loss of the preemption would be difficult to evaluate, as you can never be certain how your opponents would have handled it.

 

Nevertheless, suppose you are in a universe where 2D only has 2 possible meanings: Weak or Strong (but in either case natural), with roughly equal popularity. And suppose, however unwisely, you choose to open 2D opposite a partner with whom you have had no discussion nor prior experience either as partner or opposition. Should you then be obliged to tell your opponents which choice YOU have made in opening it, knowing that your partner is in the dark, and in that sense you have nothing more than a hope that he guesses right, and you have no particular foundation for expecting that he will fulfil that hope? I would say not.

[dogsbreath]

hi

there is over-expectation from some players as to what info they should get.

If i have an arrangement (implicit or not) that a 2D opening is 6-10 hcp with 6+ diamonds then i should alert eg: "6+ Diamonds 6-10 HCP, may contain a 2nd suit"

However, i do NOT alert differently on the hands where i do have a 2nd suit, nor tell the opp which 2nd suit is held. (because my p does not have this info, the opps are not entitled to know either).

 

Rgds Dog

[coyot]

You could be making the bid more in the HOPE of his interpreting it than in the EXPECTATION. An expectation should be disclosed. I am less convinced that a hope requires disclosure, where the hope is without foundation.

I don't think this is a valid point. You could then open 2♦ as multi, hoping your partner will get it.

Your hope for this opening bid HAS some foundation. When choosing the bid, you assume something (in this case, you're assuming that your partner will treat it in it's most natural meaning, weak diamonds, because you're playing on an american server with majority of players playing 2♦ natural - and you HOPE that your partner will make the same assumption when seeing your bid.

Therefore your disclosure should be "natural (or natural weak)", not "no agreement" - because when you say "no agreement", you may lead opponents into believing that the bid was made according to your profile or your partner's profile...

 

I know it is not fair to your partner, but the current alerting system protects the opponents and I guess it is better than if it were protecting you and your partner.

[1eyedjack]

You could be making the bid more in the HOPE of his interpreting it than in the EXPECTATION.  An expectation should be disclosed.  I am less convinced that a hope requires disclosure, where the hope is without foundation.

I don't think this is a valid point. You could then open 2♦ as multi, hoping your partner will get it.

Indeed you could. And where is the harm in that (from an ethics viewpoint rather than from a strategy viewpoint)? There is in that case a very high probability that your partner will NOT "get it". Why should the opponents be granted any more lattitude than partner?

Your hope for this opening bid HAS some foundation. When choosing the bid, you assume something (in this case, you're assuming that your partner will treat it in it's most natural meaning, weak diamonds, because you're playing on an american server with majority of players playing 2♦ natural - and you HOPE that your partner will make the same assumption when seeing your bid.

As you are saying, you are making a combination of assumptions and hopes. The question that you have to ask yourself is: do the opponents have available to them the same information from which to make those assumptions? All that the rules seek to achieve is a level playing field on the matter of disclosure of agreements, while at the same time allowing players to capitalise on their skill derived from their knowledge of bridge. That you are playing in an environment in which a particular interpretation of the bid is predominant is arguably a matter of public knowledge, ie general bridge skill. The opponents are (or should be) no less aware of the environment in which you are playing than are you and your partner. I think that if you had fast typing skills and no shortage of time in which to make the disclosure, then you probably could list the prevailing popular methods in your own country and that of your partner (to your knowledge), and that would be the fairest disclosure most in keeping with both the spirit and letter of the law. And of course if you are incapable of complying with that for practical reasons, it is advisable to err on the side of caution and disclose more rather than less, but only because your reputation is more valuable than the result on the hand, not because it is intrinsically fairer on the hand in question. Damage to your reputation may be unjust, but no less real for that.

[asdfg2k]

Hey, Vicki! My first post.

 

Apparently, there are a lot of folks who are going to think my opinion wrong. Well, they are just plain...... ok, I'll stop there.

 

There have been a few posts here which have hinted at the correct resolution, but nobody has come right out and said it: Whoever you talked to (the person you referred to as "yellow") was 180 degrees wrong. Period. Not even close.

 

Anybody agreeing with that person is dead wrong, too. Dead wrong.

 

It really is quite simple. If the individual making the bid believes that there is a specific meaning for the bid and that the specific meaning for the bid is part of the system that they have agreed to play with their partner, either explicitly or implicitly, then they MUST tell you what that meaning is. Period. End of discussion. Strong memo to follow.

 

To have any other interpretation is ludicrous.

 

In your case, it appears that the individual was relying on the fact that there was no specific discussion about system and therefore is not required to explain anything about any bid. This is just not true.

 

The individual you asked was playing SOME system, whether that system was assumed to be sayc or polish club or something else. But it was something.

 

Just because he didn't explicitly agree to that system with his partner before making the bid doesn't mean that he doesn't think there is some system that he and his partner are playing.

 

What should have happened is that the yellow person should have explained to your opponent that you are entitled to the theoretical meaning of the bid in the system that he thinks he is playing with his partner. Perchance the response would have been "weak". Maybe it would have been "strong". Maybe even "multi". (Although "multi" in and of itself isn't a proper answer.)

 

But for it to appropriately be "no agreement" he is saying something akin to this: "The system I believe we are playing leaves this bid as undefined. I'm expecting my partner to have the same question as you have."

 

Does anybody really believe that this was the case?

 

So, my first post and I'm taking the unidentified yellow to task. And completely disagreeing with anybody in this thread who thinks that the indicated yellow person did the right thing, including at least one other yellow.

 

Such is life.

 

George

[luke warm]

i agree with vicki and mike, and i know the law speaks of p'ship agreements or understanding.. however, if i make a bid i meant it to convey some information to my partner... i'll always alert (in a pickup game) 2d, h, or s as 'weak'... if partner takes it as strong, well that's too bad

 

i think there's nothing wrong with bending over backwards to be as ethical as possible.. it would never enter my mind to answer as her opp did.. right or wrong (legally speaking) i'd have said what i intended the bid to mean

 

btw, the yellow wasn't wrong... he/she was correct *from within the framework of the laws*... i just think that, except for more serious bridge (where a pair has at least discussed the more important things), it doesn't hurt to be as forthcoming as possible

[asdfg2k]

luke,

 

That is just it.

 

You are making excuses for somebody doing the wrong thing.

 

I am *not* saying that what was done to Vicki was correct within the framework of the laws. I am specifically saying the opposite. The framework of the laws are absolutely precise (when interpreted by intelligent life <g, d & r>) and they make it clear that Vicki's opp had the DUTY to tell her what the bid meant in the system that he thought he was playing.

 

I give no quarter to anyone or anybody who thinks that the laws make it remotely possible that the response given to Vicki was proper.

 

It was not.

 

And we need to stomp out such behaviour whenever and wherever we find it.

 

George

 

ps I heard your attitude about bending over backwards in favor of full disclosure and of course that is laudable. But it isn't part of the original question posed by Vicki, so it gets mentioned only in this postscript.

 

George

[pork rind]

:P george is 100% right. in a pickup game it simply does not matter what the rules are. it is simple, common and univeral courtesy to explain. if you dont want to explain then dont play. :angry: i think it is extraordinary that anyone can either condone or tolerate rudeness just because "that is the rules"

[1eyedjack]

The law is plain and simple: No agreement requires no disclosure. Agreement requires full disclosure. Agreement need not be expressed in order to exist. If the yellow had limited his ruling to those three sentences he could not be faulted, unless he were also required to give a ruling of fact on whether or not an agreement existed.

 

Whilst the law may be plain, the facts of an individual case often are not. We are advised by the OP that the yellow agreed with oppo's statement "he did not have to tell me anything since they did not have a partnership agreement". That agreement with the opponent goes beyond a mere statement of the law ... it accepts as a statement of fact that there was no partnership agreement. That judgement may possibly be faulted, but I do not see how it is possible for anyone participating in this thread to draw any conclusion on that matter.

 

Unfortunately, what we have here are facts presented by a single aggrieved party, without any opportunity for rebuttal by other interested parties.

 

In one respect certainly the OP is correct and his opponent is wrong: The opponent's invitation to ask his partner, while providing a solution with superficial elegance, is inappropriate. If there is an agreement then both players are party to it and each, on request, has a duty to disclose it, which duty does not absolve the other partner of his independent duty. On BBO the initial and primary duty rests with the bidder to explain, via self-alerts if appropriate. The only reason that such a rule does not apply in F2F bridge is because of the risk of UI, which risk does not arise in private chat online. Indeed when playing with screens in F2F bridge some of the bids are self-explained when a request is submitted.

 

Some here suggest that an expression of "no agreement" constitutes rudeness that should not be tolerated, and that suggestion should be challenged. The player may genuinely think that the rule applies to a particular case. He may be wrong, but if his opinion is genuine, and the law certainly allows for that possibility, then there is absolutely nothing rude in his attempting to rely upon it.

 

The only way to conclude, on the facts given, that the opponent was wrong to stick to "no agreement" is if you take the view that it is not possible for there to be "no agreement" in this situation. I would certainly agree that it is less likely to be an appropriate explanation than after a more complex bidding sequence, but I would be hesitant to go as far as saying it is impossible.

 

A recent poster has suggested that it must have been impossible for there to be no agreement on this matter because they must be playing some basic system, and at the very least there will be a definition of the bid within the basic system. Well, that may be the case, and here I think the yellow MAY have erred. By extending his ruling beyond a statement of law, to an interpretation of facts and applying the law to those facts, the yellow has assumed a responsibility to identify the facts. Simply to accept without any cross examination an opponent's statement that they have no agreement is perhaps a dereliction of duty. He might, for example, have gone on to ask if they were playing any basic system, the answer to which would help to support or refute the stand taken by the opponent. If the answer to more searching questions is that this was the first hand that they have ever played together, whether as a partnership or as opponents, without any CC, without any discussion, then the "no agreement" explanation may well have been correct, and certainly would not have been rude.

[coyot]

Your hope for this opening bid HAS some foundation. When choosing the bid, you assume something (in this case, you're assuming that your partner will treat it in it's most natural meaning, weak diamonds, because you're playing on an american server with majority of players playing 2♦ natural - and you HOPE that your partner will make the same assumption when seeing your bid.

As you are saying, you are making a combination of assumptions and hopes. The question that you have to ask yourself is: do the opponents have available to them the same information from which to make those assumptions? All that the rules seek to achieve is a level playing field on the matter of disclosure of agreements, while at the same time allowing players to capitalise on their skill derived from their knowledge of bridge. That you are playing in an environment in which a particular interpretation of the bid is predominant is arguably a matter of public knowledge, ie general bridge skill. The opponents are (or should be) no less aware of the environment in which you are playing than are you and your partner. I think that if you had fast typing skills and no shortage of time in which to make the disclosure, then you probably could list the prevailing popular methods in your own country and that of your partner (to your knowledge), and that would be the fairest disclosure most in keeping with both the spirit and letter of the law. And of course if you are incapable of complying with that for practical reasons, it is advisable to err on the side of caution and disclose more rather than less, but only because your reputation is more valuable than the result on the hand, not because it is intrinsically fairer on the hand in question. Damage to your reputation may be unjust, but no less real for that.

Pardon me, but a matter of public knowledge in certain part of Earth does NOT equal general bridge skill. What for you is a matter of public knowledge might be different to anyone who spends most of his time in a different "public".

 

There is no need to disclose popular methods in any country. If you are from a country where most people play Wilkosz and your partner is from US, when you bid 2♦, you HAVE made a decision about implicit agreement. You might decide to stick to US customs or BBO customs (which happen to be the same).

 

In any case, you SHOULD in this case tell opponents what is the meaning of your bid.

 

It is slightly complicated by the fact that 2♦ in that case was a natural bid...

 

But imagine this particular situation:

Your profile says nothing, partner's profile says he plays 2♦ multi. You made no agreement. Now, if you open 2♦ with a 6card in major, you could according to your logic tell your opponents "no agreement" when you made purely artificial bid :angry:.

 

Anyway, I think that for the sake of avoiding those problems, we need Indys to have a prescribed system...