Do you have to explain your bid?

[asdfg2k]

pork rind,

 

While I appreciate the support, I completely disagree with you. Again, you are stating that it is possible that the opp of Vicki did something which is supported by the rules. It was not. Not even close. This is NOT a matter of someone acknowledging that the rules say one thing and that the "not rude" thing to do is to offer more than what is required. This matter is clearly something that REQUIRED self disclosure (once Vicki made her inquiry) and was not in any way associated with "that is the rules."

 

Also, I completely disagree with you when you state that it is rude to, effectively, hide behind the rules. *IF* it is proven that the actions of Vicki's op were consistent with the rules (an assertion I find laughable), then for Vicki's op to do what he did could NOT be considered rude. Period. Following the rules is NEVER rude.

 

Further, I have never made any suggestion that the behaviour of Vicki's opp was rude. It wasn't. He was, theoretically, anyway, doing what he believed to be proper under the rules. As such, he may have been wrong (in fact, he was dead wrong). But he wasn't rude. Nowhere was there any suggestion that he was rude and I don't want to condone the implication that "hiding behind the rules" is EVER rude, in and of itself.

 

So, I'll apologize to you, like I did to luke, in advance, for jumping all over you when it appears that your intent was to offer support for my position. In fact, you have disagreed with everything I've said. But just like Vicki's opp, probably not intentionally. :angry:

 

George

[asdfg2k]

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.

OK, we'll take them one at a time.

 

I disagree that the yellow could not be faulted. It was clear that Vicki wanted an explanation. At that point, the yellow should have done two things:

 

1) explain the rules to Vicki's opp. That is consistent with your three statements.

 

2) ascertain that the rules required or did not require disclosure.

 

In this case, the "facts" necessary to determine whether disclosure is required are painfully simple. It would take micro-seconds to superimpose the facts upon the rules and state: "You must explain your bid."

 

George

[helene_t]

I agree with Jimmy. When in doubt, I'd rather give too much information away than too little.

 

It's possible that one of the opps is from a country in which weak twos are non-standard. It's possible that they will think you have some implicit agreement with partner (not unreasonable: why would you preempt if partner is likely to interpret it as a strong opening? Then a "pass" would be better).

 

If all four players have empty profiles and haven't announed anything, then probbly p is just as likely to misunderstand your calls as are the opps. But even then, explain that it's weak with diamonds. Just for the sake of the good atmosphere.

[asdfg2k]

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.

This is, indeed, the crux of the matter.

 

I submit that it is impossible to sit down to play bridge without ANY basic underlying system. I will stipulate to the following facts, just to make it clear: two people meet for the very first time, both individuals having absolutely no information on their profiles, each having a country flag that is foreign to the other such that they can not type anything into the computer that the other would understand. In this context, however, there is still the presumption by each that many bids have specific meanings, some more meaningful than others. An opening bid of 2d simply can not be one of those bids which has no specific meaning. To allow such an interpretation flies in the face of a reasonable interpretation of the rules.

 

Now, would an opening bid of 4nt fall into the same category? No, it wouldn't. And I would have very little difficulty with somebody who decided to open 4nt and who also answered an inquiry by an opp with "No agreement." Essentially, the opener has put his/her partner in a position of guessing. If the partner guesses correctly, they will no doubt win the board, if the partner guesses incorrectly they probably won't.

 

But all rules have to be interpreted with some sort of rationality. And to acquiesce to an individual who believes that an opening 2D is the same sort of "gee, let's have everybody at the table guess as to what my opening bid really means" bid is not, IMO anyway, rational.

 

George

[asdfg2k]

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.

WIth respect to the first paragraph, we must assume the facts in evidence and nothing more. They are sufficient to reach a conclusion.

 

The rationale presented in the rest of the above I agree with. I apply the rationale differently than you do and reach a 100% confidence level that there was, indeed, an agreement, either explicit or implicit and therefore reach a solid conclusion where you seem unwilling to do so.

 

No matter, as the basic underlying logic is the same.

 

The yellow could very easily have asked the partner of the opp for an explanation, just to ensure that there was, indeed, a basic underlying system in place. But even if the response was that they hadn't discussed anything, I have zero doubt that an explanation was required.

 

And after getting that information, the yellow would have been in a better position to clarify for Vicki's opp exactly why he was required to explain his own bid.

 

Either:

 

1) they had a specific agreement, verified by the partner of the opp, and the yellow could have made it clear that the opp's failure to answer the question was based on a misconception brought to BBO by somebody probably more familiar with f2f rules. That is, a gentle education.

 

2) they had no specific agreement, not even a basic underlying system, and that in such a case, it is appropriate to self-disclose when an inquiry is made with respect to a 2D opening bid. Looking back in the thread, MickyB got the disclosure right: "we haven't discussed anything so we are probably playing SAYC, in which a 2♦ opener is weak", while mycroft got the disclosure wrong: "we've agreed 2/1. That's the extent of our agreements". The latter explanation is insufficient because *IF* the version of 2/1 being played has a presumed meaning for 2D [which a rational person would expect it to have], it presumes that Vicki is aware of that meaning. A person who asks a question is not required to have an understanding of the system being played by an opp. That is why a disclosure that says: "Michaels" is technically incorrect, while "5/5+ Majors, undefined HCP" is more in keeping with the disclosure requirements.

 

But this does get back to the crux of the matter and perhaps requires a subtle understanding of what it means to have an agreement. I resubmit that an agreement exists with respect to opening bids in a system up through 3S. To assume otherwise is just not rational.

 

George

[the hog]

Quote HeleneT

 

"I agree with Jimmy. When in doubt, I'd rather give too much information away than too little."

 

Why? Why are opponents entitled to more information than partner. I think you all have the cart before the horse. Plaing with a regular partner, this is of course a different story, but with an unknown pd in an undiscussed partnership, I think the response was perfectly acceptable.

[asdfg2k]

Quote HeleneT

 

"I agree with Jimmy. When in doubt, I'd rather give too much information away than too little."

 

Why? Why are opponents entitled to more information than partner. I think you all have the cart before the horse. Plaing with a regular partner, this is of course a different story, but with an unknown pd in an undiscussed partnership, I think the response was perfectly acceptable.

Hey, Hog, ever hear about UI? It is very specifically information that the opps are entitled to but that partner must ignore.

 

Do you now understand why, in certain circumstances, the opps are definitely entitled to more information than partner has? Full disclosure requires you to explain your bids, to the extent they are indicative of specific holdings.

 

Note that this is a bit off-topic from the original op's issue.

 

George

[ochinko]

Quote HeleneT

 

"I agree with Jimmy. When in doubt, I'd rather give too much information away than too little."

 

Why? Why are opponents entitled to more information than partner. I think you all have the cart before the horse. Plaing with a regular partner, this is of course a different story, but with an unknown pd in an undiscussed partnership, I think the response was perfectly acceptable.

Hey, Hog, ever hear about UI? It is very specifically information that the opps are entitled to but that partner must ignore.

 

Do you now understand why, in certain circumstances, the opps are definitely entitled to more information than partner has? Full disclosure requires you to explain your bids, to the extent they are indicative of specific holdings.

 

Note that this is a bit off-topic from the original op's issue.

 

George

Most often I act like helene_t, but I do agree with The_Hog. I make a bid with a not regular partner, a bid that I only _hope_ he'll understand. Assume it's a bid that we didn't agree upon. There is a bit of guessing from all parts. Why should it be easier for opponents, why should they be left without the burden of guessing?

 

I wish I had the courage of explaining with 'bridge', or 'common sense' in cases when I think it's nothing more. But there's the risk of thinking of you as an unethical player, so I end up giving opps more information that partner has regarding the meaning of my bids.

 

I'm all for full disclosure of explicit and implicit agreements, but you've all been witnesses of an absurdities when it's taken too far. I've seen more than once 'misclick' given as an explanation. Should someone warns the opponents that he made a misclick when his partner can't know that?

 

Petko

[hrothgar]

I submit that it is impossible to sit down to play bridge without ANY basic underlying system.

Then you've never played in a BBO indy...

The earlier comment regarding "Hope" is very apt.

 

I played approximately 35 boards in 4 tournaments yesterday. Three of these were Indy's. I recall ONE occasion in which my partner suggested a bidding system. (For what its worth, my profile say that I'm willing to play MOSCITO, Blue Club, and Polish Club), so, lord knows what my partner's thought that I was playing.

 

I'd like to show some of the choice bids that a variety of players chose to inflict on their partners. (I'm going to ignore the minors cases like showing Aces after the auction 2N - 4N)

 

1. Partner opens 1♣ in second seat.

Holding

 

♠ 876

♥ AKQ943

♦ Q

♣ QJ3

 

you chose the obvious 3♥ jump shift

 

2. Holding

 

♠ T73

♥ AKQ7

♦ A96

♣ 654

 

you decide to open 1♣ and then rebid 2♥ over partner's 1♠ advance.

 

3. You get dealt the oh so lovely

 

♠ T543

♥ QJ3

♦ J87

♣ J62

 

The auction starts

 

(1S) -1N - (X) - and you pass - fine and dandy.

Partner redoubles and youi pass again...

 

4. You hold

 

♠ 842

♥ QT72

♦ JT54

♣ AK

 

RHO opens 1♥ and you decide to double for takeout

 

I have plenty more example... Strong 2♣ openings on

 

♠ A84

♥ AJT96

♦ Void

♣ AKT94

 

or

 

♠ AK64

♥ A

♦ 75

♣ KQT62

[asdfg2k]

There is a bit of guessing from all parts. Why should it be easier for opponents, why should they be left without the burden of guessing?

 

....

 

I'm all for full disclosure of explicit and implicit agreements, but you've all been witnesses of an absurdities when it's taken too far. I've seen more than once 'misclick' given as an explanation. Should someone warns the opponents that he made a misclick when his partner can't know that?

Why? Because the laws of bridge require it, that is why. There simply is no good argument for anything less than full disclosure when an opp asks you about your bid. What you have to disclose is the systemic agreement that the bid represents. The bids which fall into the category of "no prior discussion" are precious few. Certainly, none of the opening bids through 3S get that sort of dispensation. Remember, we are discussing an opening bid of 2D here.

 

If you bid 3S, accidentally, and intended 2S, and if 3S is a spinter while 2S is a long suit, then when the opps ask you for an explanation you say, quite simply: "Splinter". You disclose the bid that you made and what it means. If somebody later wants to accuse you of psyching, wear the badge proudly!

 

George

[asdfg2k]

I submit that it is impossible to sit down to play bridge without ANY basic underlying system.

Then you've never played in a BBO indy...

The earlier comment regarding "Hope" is very apt.

 

I played approximately 35 boards in 4 tournaments yesterday. Three of these were Indy's. I recall ONE occasion in which my partner suggested a bidding system. (For what its worth, my profile say that I'm willing to play MOSCITO, Blue Club, and Polish Club), so, lord knows what my partner's thought that I was playing.

 

I'd like to show some of the choice bids that a variety of players chose to inflict on their partners. (I'm going to ignore the minors cases like showing Aces after the auction 2N - 4N)

 

1. Partner opens 1♣ in second seat.

Holding

 

♠ 876

♥ AKQ943

♦ Q

♣ QJ3

 

you chose the obvious 3♥ jump shift

 

2. Holding

 

♠ T73

♥ AKQ7

♦ A96

♣ 654

 

you decide to open 1♣ and then rebid 2♥ over partner's 1♠ advance.

 

3. You get dealt the oh so lovely

 

♠ T543

♥ QJ3

♦ J87

♣ J62

 

The auction starts

 

(1S) -1N - (X) - and you pass - fine and dandy.

Partner redoubles and youi pass again...

 

4. You hold

 

♠ 842

♥ QT72

♦ JT54

♣ AK

 

RHO opens 1♥ and you decide to double for takeout

 

I have plenty more example... Strong 2♣ openings on

 

♠ A84

♥ AJT96

♦ Void

♣ AKT94

 

or

 

♠ AK64

♥ A

♦ 75

♣ KQT62

There must be a line, somewhere, that defines the difference between "hope" and "expectation". Let's take all of your examples, one by one, and see what the explanation to the opps should be if they are inclined to ask:

 

1) What is 3h? A: "Natural, game forcing." if you expect partner to bid again. "Preemptive" if you have somehow devalued 78% of your cards and decided that the true value of your hand is a preemptive one. You and I, were we to have bid 3H, would more than likely have a 7-bagger and less than 5 HCP, or, a singleton heart with a darn good club raise, but we didn't make that bid. And when the bid was made, it was made with the expectation that their partner would understand it.

 

2) What does 2H show? A: "Natural with point count of opening hand to just less than a strong 2 opener. That is, I don't play that reverses show extra strength." Surely, you have seen many a player state, somewhat proudly, "I don't play reverses". After we finish giggling at the absurdity, we gently point out that the bid in question was a reverse, and all that is left to do is to define the meaning of said reverse.

 

3) The LHO of my final pass asks me what my pass means. A: "I have shown a hand that prefers 1ntx to the alternatives." My RHO asks partner about the meaning of XX: "Bridge to Captain. Bridge to Captain: Bail! Bail! The ship is going down!!"

 

4) What does your double show? A: "I play that a T/O x shows an opening hand (or close) with no specific implied distribution."

 

5) What is 2c? A: "4 (maybe 5 if I stretch) LTC, unspecified distribution."

 

Are these really that hard? Do you really think that these are the sorts of bids that one can hide behind the "no agreement" caveat? I do NOT. Not even close.

 

I agree with you that it is somewhat silly to play in an INDY w/o a prescribed system and, at the same time, have no discussion with partner before bidding.

 

George

[hrothgar]

Are these really that hard?  Do you really think that these are the sorts of bids that one can hide behind the "no agreement" caveat?  I do NOT.  Not even close.

Yes I do...

 

I know for a fact when the players in question trotted out that set of travesties, their partners didn't have the foggiest idea what was going on. Nearly all of these bids resulted in 8-10 IMP losses when their partners believed that reverses showed strength, takeout doubles showed shape, and 2♣ openers promised good hands...

 

In short, all bids represented bizzare flights of fancy rather than partnership agreement.

[vbcastor]

I appreciate all of you who have expressed an opinion on this topic. I find them all interesting.

 

I guess what I wanted to hear as a ruling was-- when asked, you give what your intent was whether you are holding what you say you have or not. This person made a psyche bid on the next hand giving us a low board but that's what they are designed to do. I used to play duplicate bridge but haven't for years and I don't know what rules have changed. But I thought here at bbo, when asked for an explanation, you should give one. Apparently the correct rule is that if there is not a partnership agreement, then no explanation is necessary. Knowing that now, I wish the ruling would have gone as 'no explanation is required if no agreement but due to courtesy here at bbo, an explanation should of been made.' Due to fairness it is not unlike me to pass on explanation to his/her partner even after they have bid and let them undo so as to have a fair auction. Of course, this is probably not proper either but in the main lounge where most of us are just playing to pass time, I don't think telling what you meant by your bid is wrong. I was asked yesterday what my 1 spade opening was after a fairly simple auction concluded. I was surprised but replied, 'openiing 5+ card'. A beginner should of guessed that but apparently this opponent felt it necessary to ask so I answered.

 

It is difficult to get a game up where both partnerships are regular partners. So you usually get 2 that have never played together. At our table, we have no problem if the partner asks what his partner meant by a bid as there are so many systems out there. It's just a game and I will not lose sleep over it. But I have been fussed at for not putting the meaning of my alert in the new little box since it has appeared. I thought the opps needed to ask if they wanted an explanation but now I always put it in there. I don't have a clue what the rule is but since being scolded, I do it. Then one day I was told I shouldn't tell unless asked by an opponent---so guess I'm wrong again.

 

What caused me to call a 'yellow' person was his statement the he did not have to disclose anything. That I had no right to know exactly what 13 cards he had in his hand. I was under the impression that you had to and have since found out what the true rules are but since I play for fun but play to play well and bid accordingly, I felt he should of disclosed more than 'ask partner' when i knew they did not know each other from the chat box. I was not host and my regular pard is very sweet and wouldn't hurt a fly or say much in case she might hurt someone's feelings, but even she said in the chat box that he should give some info other than 'ask partner'. I've put it up to experience and know that there are a few who like to make 'statements' rather than just be nice in a pick up game.

 

Thanks all.

Vicki

[macaw]

If all you say to an opponent who asks you for an explanation of a bid (especially one like 2♦ which could be virtually anything these days, is that you haven't discussed it with your partner, then aren't you forcing your opponent to guess two things instead of one:

 

1) What does the bid mean?

2) Does their partner know what it means?

 

Since it is a partnership game, isn't the answer to question #2 inferred to be "yes"? Except, of course, if playing Slovenian Chaos, a system whereby you play one system and your partner plays another system, and you don't tell each other what you're playing. (Try it sometime B) )

 

I was taught to self alert conventional bids, without prompting from an opponent, and if somebody asks me I was taught to answer the question. But then I've only played face to face bridge on less than ten occasions. Perhaps it is different out in the real world, but in case somebody didn't notice this is a little different place ;)

[1eyedjack]

Hi Vicki

 

"Individual" events are a bit of a thorny issue, because being categorised as "tourneys" some players appear to give them a more serious edge than they really deserve. But those events aside, anyone sitting in a tourney should be expected to have a very basic system discussed (and indeed CC posted, although no-one seems to pay much attention to that, perhaps depending on the specific tourney).

 

Apart from "Indies" the occasions where you are most frequently going to come up against players who have genuinely no idea what opening bids they are playing are in non-serious games in the main playing area, where players are hopping in and out of seats as though on fire. In such events it seems more trouble than it is worth, either ( a ) to answer "no agreement" where some agreement is expected (despite that it may be what the law requires), or ( b ) to take umbrage when on the receiving end of that explanation. If you feel strongly about it then make a private note to self of that individual's tendency and choose in future to avoid them.

 

There are enough pleasant tables and players out there on BBO that, in the main playing area, you can easily gravitate to the type of game that suits your social preferences. Life is too short to worry about this.

 

Incidentally I don't know how others feel about this, but the "yellow" flag does not I think imply a TD qualification. He could simply be an IT guru administering the functionality of the server etc.

[mikeh]

Many posters take the technical position that it is okay to resrict one's disclosures according to the Laws. That may be technically defensible, but count me out from playing at those tables.

 

The Laws presuppose ftf competition, in which there will usually be convention cards available, and usually, even amongst strangers, some pre-game discussion of methods. BBO, in pickup games, often lacks these aides.

 

My informal rule is that I always tell unfamiliar opps to feel free to discuss bidding in the auction, and I will feel equally free with my partner. My unspoken rule is that I will only ask my partner a question if I feel that the question is something I would have discussed had we met at a ftf bridge event 15-20 minutes before game time. There are always certain sequences I ask about. Opening 2 bids, notrump structure, suit raise structures, how we interfere over their notrump, what we do if they double or overcall our notrump bids etc. So if I encounter a guess about those methods, I ask partner. But not if it is a subtle thing, such as do we play 'last train', or whether we cue bid 1st and 2nd round controls interchangeably. We each have to draw our own line, but I have never seen this approach abused yet.

 

And consider this: given the constraints of BBO, wonderful though it is, is it any wonder that the original poster felt aggrieved? I tell all my opps, on announcing that they can ask about bidding, that this is supposed to be a game of skill, not guessing. I'd rather beat the opps because I play better than they do: not because I am a better guesser about the meaning of undiscussed auctions.

[the hog]

Quote HeleneT

 

"I agree with Jimmy. When in doubt, I'd rather give too much information away than too little."

 

Why? Why are opponents entitled to more information than partner. I think you all have the cart before the horse. Plaing with a regular partner, this is of course a different story, but with an unknown pd in an undiscussed partnership, I think the response was perfectly acceptable.

Hey, Hog, ever hear about UI? It is very specifically information that the opps are entitled to but that partner must ignore.

 

Do you now understand why, in certain circumstances, the opps are definitely entitled to more information than partner has? Full disclosure requires you to explain your bids, to the extent they are indicative of specific holdings.

 

Note that this is a bit off-topic from the original op's issue.

 

George

This is an absolute non sequiter and has nothing to do with the case in question whatsoever. I see no reason for your having posted this except as an attempt at obfuscation.

[luke warm]

luke,

 

That is just it.

 

You are making excuses for somebody doing the wrong thing.

i don't know what the hell you're talking about... i made no excuses for anyone...

 

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.

 

if that's true, "no agreement" is an illegal explanation.. either there is or there isn't an agreement, and the law speaks to those only... i specifically said that if i make a bid i intend it to mean something.. if the bid deserves an alert, i explain my intention

 

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.

 

vicki stated that her opp said "we have no agreement" or something like that... if that's what he said, the laws do back him up, regardless of the quarter you give... as far as this law goes, you aren't asked to give anything... now i happen to agree that her opp seemed boorish, and i've already stated that i'd alert and explain what i intended the bid to mean.. but we seem to be talking about 2 different things

 

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.

 

alerting and explaining my intent might or might not be laudable, but it isn't what the laws require... i do it because it seems the right thing to do, just as many who are posting are opposed to that... and btw, the whole point of her post concerned disclosure

[asdfg2k]

luke,

 

That is just it.

 

You are making excuses for somebody doing the wrong thing.

i don't know what the hell you're talking about... i made no excuses for anyone...

 

Well, then let's review the bidding:

 

You said:

 

"btw, the yellow wasn't wrong... he/she was correct *from within the framework of the laws*."

 

That is where I believe you to be absolutely wrong. I have said it before and I'll say it again: one can't hide behind the "no agreement" facade for opening bids up through and including 3S. It simply isn't contemplated within the framework of the laws. You are excusing the yellow for something where the yellow was absolutely wrong.

 

This thread has nothing to do with what others do at the table. Many people have mentioned, yada, yada, yada that they do this or that. <Yawn> Wake me up when the self-congratulating is done. Yeah, I do it, too. Ask Vicki, we've played together and as opps. But it has nothing to do with whether the yellow was right or wrong on this occassion and that is what Vicki wants to hear discussed.

 

vicki stated that her opp said "we have no agreement" or something like that... if that's what he said, the laws do back him up, regardless of the quarter you give...

 

Well, we can at least agree to disagree here. The laws do not give people the right to have their basic opening bid structure hidden from the opps. Any opening bid up through and including 3S must have a specific meaning. And when asked, one must fess up to it.

 

That is what full disclosure is all about.

[the hog]

"That is where I believe you to be absolutely wrong. I have said it before and I'll say it again: one can't hide behind the "no agreement" facade for opening bids up through and including 3S. It simply isn't contemplated within the framework of the laws. You are excusing the yellow for something where the yellow was absolutely wrong."

 

The yellow was 100% correct in his/her interpretation.

[Echognome]

I don't know of any laws that say full disclosure is any different with opening bids than with any other bids.

[asdfg2k]

Sorry, Matt, but you aren't going to convince me.

 

Let's take a different, more technical tack.

 

Let's say that what you pre-suppose is in fact the case. That is, that opening bids haven't been discussed and therefore there are no agreements between partners. Personally, I find this to be offensive and not possible, but for now I will acquiesce.

 

The "Rules of this Site" section in the Bridge Library appears to address this issue. It states:

 

"If you have not been able to discuss bidding methods with your partner, assume you are using Bridge Base Basic (described in the Bridge Base Stanadard area of the Traning Rooms)."

 

So, shouldn't the yellow have instructed the individual to answer with the contemplation of using Bridge Base Basic if the individual was uncomfortable with any other course of action?

 

I still submit that the yellow should have asked the partner of this individual whether there was, in fact, a system in place to see whether there had been any discussion. If none, then the yellow could have gently educated this individual that hiding behind the facade of no partnership understandings was just not acceptable.

 

George

[asdfg2k]

More down the technical path.

 

What other laws are being violated by the attempt to sit down at a table, without discussing system and hide behind that to deny access to information? Well, what about this one:

 

"A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game."

 

Does anybody thing that Vicki was not annoyed? Does anybody think that being saddled with a player that believes it is acceptable to have no agreements with partner for the purpose of avoiding answering questions about bidding might interfere with their enjoyment of the game?

 

But let's get back to full disclosure, which is required by:

 

"When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience."

 

Once we superimpose the BBO site requirement to use Bridge Base Basic as the assumed system if none other has been discussed, does anybody really think that answering the inquiry with "We have no agreements." is acceptable?

 

George

[1eyedjack]

Well, you have made some reasonable points in the past, but one never improves one's case by overstating it.

"A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game."

 

Does anybody thing that Vicki was not annoyed?

Sure, she was annoyed, but the above quote requires a causal link between the action of the opponent and her annoyance. If she was annoyed because she was labouring under a misunderstanding of the laws and thought that they applied differently, then the causal link is broken. I very much doubt that this law is intended to take precedence over other expressed laws. Many players are annoyed by opponents psyching. Psyching is legal and proper. Anyone who sought to invoke this law to prevent an opponent psyching would be laughed out of court.

Does anybody think that being saddled with a player that believes it is acceptable to have no agreements with partner for the purpose of avoiding answering questions about bidding might interfere with their enjoyment of the game?

This is the first occasion in this thread where it has been attempted to establish a purposive link between a positive decision to have no agreement expressly in order to avoid answering a question about it. It would be strategic suicide, which is not in itself illegal, but even so such an action would I have no doubt breach some law or propriety. There is no such suggestion or slur in the OP.

"When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience."

 

Once we superimpose the BBO site requirement to use Bridge Base Basic as the assumed system if none other has been discussed, does anybody really think that answering the inquiry with "We have no agreements." is acceptable?

This quote is a two-edged sword. Somewhere in the BBO rules there will be (and if there is not there ought to be, and it should be implied if not expressed) a requirement that those playing at BBO familiarise themselves with BBO rules. It is fair to assume that opponents are complying with the laws including site rules, until evidence to the contrary. As such a "BBO standard" is a matter of "general knowledge and experience" of those playing at BBO. "No agreement" is simply an abbreviation for "your guess is as good as mine". "Your guess" may reasonably be based on BBO standard.

[luke warm]

You said:

 

"btw, the yellow wasn't wrong... he/she was correct *from within the framework of the laws*."

guilty, i said that very thing.. but for you to mold that into me making excuses for anyone is nonsensical.. i just made a statement of fact... if you disagree with it, i think you should quote the relevant passages of duplicate laws upon which you base your disagreement

 

That is where I believe you to be absolutely wrong.  I have said it before and I'll say it again: one can't hide behind the "no agreement" facade for opening bids up through and including 3S.  It simply isn't contemplated within the framework of the laws.  You are excusing the yellow for something where the yellow was absolutely wrong.

believing me to be wrong and proving me wrong are not the same thing... i *believe* i'm a handsome, charming fellow... but it's just my opinion and isn't shared by everyone... you've done nothing but voice an opinion... if there is no agreement, a "we have no agreement" is very nearly mandated by the laws... don't confuse whether or not one should have agreements with the fact that the law in question speaks *specifically* of partnership agreements

 

This thread has nothing to do with what others do at the table.  Many people have mentioned, yada, yada, yada that they do this or that.  <Yawn>  Wake me up when the self-congratulating is done.

this thread has everything to do with what the people replying interpret as topical, not what you so interpret for them... in the future, maybe all responses can be checked by you to determine whether they stay below your boredom radar... btw, you seem to have spent a lot of time on posts that make you drowsy

 

Any opening bid up through and including 3S must have a specific meaning.  And when asked, one must fess up to it.

i don't know if this is true or not, i couldn't find anything on it.. i do know that if i open 1H and someone asks, i can say "natural" and that's a perfectly legitimate way of "fessing up"

 

all i'm saying is, if i open 2h and i'm asked, i'll say "we have no agreement but i intend it to be taken as preemptive"... that last part isn't legally necessary