Do you have to explain your bid?

[luke warm]

I have a very simple question.

 

Give me one good, coherent reason why one should not explain any and all bids, whether alertable or not, if an opp asks for it.

a good, coherent reason to disclose all bids? how about possible damage to those pairs at other tables? there's also the fact that the law in question doesn't speak about "bids" but about "agreements"... so change the above word "bids" to "agreements" and you have a case...

 

anytime an oppontent asks, it's a duty to fully disclose all agreements, even going so far as to identify tendencies (though not necessarily logical inferences)... this thread isn't about your voiced concern, imo... the question is, should an opp who has no agreement with his partner tell the opponent what he intended his bid to mean... i say yes, and i would do so, but i also know that the laws don't demand it...

 

The "no agreement" response, although legally and politically correct, is still an avoidance response.

i agree, but we also have to understand that there are more people involved than the 4 at our table... one of the reasons for the law in question is to protect the results of others playing the same board...

 

But, unless the rules have changed drastically over time, the opps are entitled to ask any questions they wish whenever it's their turn to bid (except for the purpose of alerting their partner to something), and the rules don't proscribe answering an opponent's question in a less-than-complete manner.

but only about agreements.. that's where so many keep slipping up, imo... yes, the opps are entitled to ask any questions *about agreements*... self-alerting has made this area more problematic, but i still think it would be very difficult to find someone in the wrong who did nothing contrary to the law

[Brandal]

i agree, but we also have to understand that there are more people involved than the 4 at our table... one of the reasons for the law in question is to protect the results of others playing the same board...

What if by some fluke say 3-4 pairs in each round even in an indy

happen to be partnered together,just for argument's sake,these

3-4 pairs have been playing together as pairs before.......

 

Should they go with the "no agreement" to cater the rest of the field?

 

:)

 

Because if they disclose,it wouldn't be fair either....hehe

 

;)

[luke warm]

no, because they have an agreement of some kind.. it may be implicit, but it's there

[Brandal]

no, because they have an agreement of some kind.. it may be implicit, but it's there

That's not fair :)

 

26 tables gets "no agreement" from opps

4 tables gets disclosure

 

:(

 

;) just pulling your leg

 

I have mentioned in previous threads I break the law

and tell opps what I intend to communicate to partner

even if not having discussed it,so I destroy everyone

elses enjoyment :)

[Double !]

I have a very simple question.

 

Give me one good, coherent reason why one should not explain any and all bids, whether alertable or not, if an opp asks for it.

a good, coherent reason to disclose all bids? how about possible damage to those pairs at other tables? there's also the fact that the law in question doesn't speak about "bids" but about "agreements"... so change the above word "bids" to "agreements" and you have a case...

 

anytime an oppontent asks, it's a duty to fully disclose all agreements, even going so far as to identify tendencies (though not necessarily logical inferences)... this thread isn't about your voiced concern, imo... the question is, should an opp who has no agreement with his partner tell the opponent what he intended his bid to mean... i say yes, and i would do so, but i also know that the laws don't demand it...

 

The "no agreement" response, although legally and politically correct, is still an avoidance response.

i agree, but we also have to understand that there are more people involved than the 4 at our table... one of the reasons for the law in question is to protect the results of others playing the same board...

 

But, unless the rules have changed drastically over time, the opps are entitled to ask any questions they wish whenever it's their turn to bid (except for the purpose of alerting their partner to something), and the rules don't proscribe answering an opponent's question in a less-than-complete manner.

but only about agreements.. that's where so many keep slipping up, imo... yes, the opps are entitled to ask any questions *about agreements*... self-alerting has made this area more problematic, but i still think it would be very difficult to find someone in the wrong who did nothing contrary to the law

Lukewarm:

 

Please reread the question.

 

I asked for one good coherent reason why someone should NOT explain their bids, i.e. asking for any argument against full disclosure. My position is that there are NO good reasons why opps questions about bids or methods should not be answered at any time. We are obligated to exercise full disclosure and active ethics!.

[hrothgar]

We  are obligated to exercise full disclosure and active ethics!.

Active ethics has no standing under the laws

 

Many players have severe issues with "Active Ethics" as applied by Bobby Wolff and are very thankful that he typically isn't chairing appeals committees any more.

[asdfg2k]

I will probably be accused of not responding to each and every comment that has been left open in many of the prior posts which responded to posts of mine. To that, I plead guilty in advance.

 

However, in response to the three that appear to disagree most vehemently, I posit the following, to which any of you can tell me I'm wrong at any point:

 

1) Given that the laws of bridge contemplate that there will always be a Sponsoring Organziation, whose roll it is, in part, to facilitate playing amongst its members

 

2) Given that the Sponsoring Organizations are allowed to issue rules ("regulations") which, providing they do not conflict with the laws, are therefore not contrary to the laws of bridge, and must be followed

 

3) Given that BBO is the Sponsoring Organization for play on its site

 

4) Given that BBO has stated, in its Rules of This Site, that: "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 Standard area of the Training Rooms)"

 

5) Given that when an opponent asks about a bid, one does so by asking the individual who made the bid, rather than the partner (known as "self-alerting")

 

6) Given that when an opponent asks about a bid, said opponent does not know and can not reasonably be expected to know, whether you have played before with your current partner and therefore have specific agreements in place

 

7) Therefore, in the case of a bid which is queried, you must answer with the information that you have available to you, if a specific agreement exists, or with the answer that would be generated from having previously agreed to play Bridge Base Standard, if that bid is defined within Bridge Base Standard

 

Couple of points to keep in mind:

 

1) In f2f bridge, it is universal to see an SO requirement that there be at least one, if not two, properly completed cc's which presuppose some sort of system agreements as to basic bidding (for this purpose I will include opening bids from 1c through 3s)

 

2) I submit that if an SO decided that it was acceptable to have an event begin without a pair having any agreements we would find that the laws of bridge would be changed to add the requirement, which heretofore hadn't been needed

 

Basically, folks, what we are dealing with is a situation (online bridge) which, admittedly, isn't completely and properly addressed by existing laws.

 

Given that, there are those amongst you who wish to apply "the complete letter of the law" to online bridge and, finding nothing to your liking which addresses the situation Vicki was presented with, end up believing that "no agreements" is an acceptable response.

 

I, OTOH, find the fact that the SO, BBO, has contemplated the situation where little or no discussion has taken place as dispositive in this area. If you don't want to discuss, that is fine. But presume what you are playing is BBB and go forward, including when an opponent asks you a question.

 

I submit that natural consequences of my position, if explained and applied fairly accross the board, would be to either encourage discussion prior to play, at least as to basic system covering such things as opening bids between 1c and 3s, or to encourage people to provide bids that their partners might understand in the absence of a discussion (BBB). Both of these results I see as positive for the overall game of bridge.

 

OK, so let me pick at my own argumentt, so as to forestall at least one argument that I believe one of you might make:

 

On those same Rules of this Site pages, you will file the following paragraph:

 

"If an opponent asks you for the meaning fo one of your bids, you are expected to answer them politely, even if you think the answer is obvious. An appropriate answer can be "I have never discussed this with my partner." You do not have to tell the opponents how you intend your bid - only what you have agreed with your partner. ....."

 

I submit that this language is similar to what is required in f2f bridge. That is, if the basic system you have decided to play, or the very, very complicated system you have decided to play, does not define a bid and you are "hoping" that partner will work it out, you needn't say anything else other than "I have never discussed this with my partner."

 

OTOH, the above is NOT justification for eliminating the effect of presuming one is playing BBB in the absence of agreement on system.

 

OK, guys and gals, have at me all you want. I'll check back in a few days to see how many have seen the light.

 

George

[asdfg2k]

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.

 

George

I'd like to return to the set of hands that I posted that you believe absolutely require an explanation.

 

As I noted earlier, none of these bids matched their partner's expectations.

Equally significant, none of these bids correspond to the definition set forth in the standard system that you claim everyone has agreed to play...

 

I was curious what justification you have for your assertion that these bids require an explanation...

 

From my perspective, you seem to be starting with a flawed assumption: Players are required to describe their hands to the opponents which has no basis in the Laws. You are now desperately searching for ways to justify this argument.

 

At the end of the day, you are welcome to follow whatever ethical code you see fit.

Just don't lecture us if we don't follow them same precepts

OK, so I might respond to the open questions after all.

 

Or maybe not.

 

Obviously, this one, yes.

 

Richard,

 

I think the crux of the matter is that in an online environment, we do not have laws that specifically address the circumstances you posited. I'm sure I could find many other circumstances where:

 

1) The bid was consistent with BBB

 

2) The asker didn't know what it was

 

3) The partner of the bidder did

 

4) The resule was a poor one for the opp of the bidder.

 

In essence, I'm ducking the individual questions because they beg the bigger question: what is disclosable in a circumstance where the opps have not pre-arranged a basic system?

 

I submit that it is the SO's requirement to provide something which must be superimposed so as to facilitate something other than random results.

 

We know that people will be banned for doing things like opening 3nt on all hands (I remember the individual on okb that did that and it was not something that amused the good folks at okb). That is, they made a bid that had no correlation to the holding.

 

I don't think that is very far off from making a 3H pre-empt with a game forcing hand.

 

My previous post addressed the circumstance where BBO has indicated a pre-existing system. I would be surprised, although I have no specific knowledge one way or the other, that an individual tournament wouldn't have a similar, more explicit arrangement. If it does, ("Everybody plays 2/1"), so be it. If it doesn't, then the same rules should apply to the individual movement as to the random table you get to from the lobby.

 

Now, I haven't gone back and looked at the individual bids to see whether they have a definition under BBB. I would presume that they are all well documented therein.

 

If not, then I agree that "No discussion" is entirely appropriate.

 

George

[Echognome]

The laws are a funny thing. From my understanding of reading forums on the laws, it is NOT a requirement that players know all the rules of bridge, nor of the sponsoring organization. They are still protected by or subject to the laws regardless of whether they actually know the laws. The reason I mention this is that we now have to figure out if this particular pair actually knew the rule that if no agreement exists, then assume you are playing BBB. Once the players know the rule, then they have an implicit agreement. If they do not know this rule, then we're back to square one in terms of disclosure. (Unless you think you can prove they knew the rule.)

 

Suppose you are called to a table as TD. You hear a problem similar to Vicki's, so you ask privately "What are your agreements?" "We don't have any I just sat down." "So what system are you playing?" "I don't know." "Are you assuming you are playing BBB?" "No. I don't know what system we are playing." "Have you read the site rules?" "No." How are you going to rule? How is this player not giving full disclosure when they say "no agreement"?

 

I certainly would have a *different* implicit agreement if I sat across someone from the UK or if someone had a system listed on their profile. But once we get into the realms of having an implicit agreement, then the player must state what that implicit agreement is. However, you still have a problem because you may be giving MI on your "partnership agreements". As an example suppose I sit across from someone from the UK and we haven't discussed system, should I assume we are playing Acol or BBB? Should I explain my bids with both systems and say it is 50/50 on or the other? No. You'll say that's silly. I just have to assume a system. Do I have to assume it is BBB because of the site rules or can I assume it's Acol because most players from the UK play Acol? Suppose I had further information that the player is a beginner/intermediate/expert, etc. I can think it is more likely that a beginner player from the UK knew only Acol. But if we haven't discussed the system, am I bound to BBB?

[asdfg2k]

Great post, Matt, because I think it highlights the issues nicely. I think you will not be surprised by my personal opinions, however. ;)

 

I agree that the laws contemplate that knowledge of them (or the SO's regulations) are not required. However, what has not been previously discussed in this thread, and you are bringing it up for the first time, are the consequences of one's actions should they result in MI. In online bridge, where there is no director present, at least not one that goes around adjusting results (we know that they are available for consultation - even incorrect consultation :lol: ), the consequences of MI are unclear. Perhaps the unfettered ability for an opp to skip a hand? Then again, who rules on the MI? The partner of the miscreant? I don't know.

 

What I do know is that MI is a concept that doesn't go away just because one is playing online.

 

I believe that this puts enormous pressure on the theoretical miscreant to do things properly. I believe, although I could be mistaken, that MI is presumed whenever information is found to be incorrect. Obviously, in the case of self-alerts, this is even more of a rational position than when the MI is from the miscreant's partner.

 

With that said, we find that it is extremely easy, IMO. The possibilities appear to be:

 

1) You know your partner, and the system you are playing is "X". The information you give must be consistent with your agreements.

 

2) You do not know your partner, and the system you are playing is believed to be "x". (Both profiles say: "2/1 only, please"). The information you give must be consistent with your agreements.

 

3) You do not know your partner, the profiles give no reason for you to presume any system in particular. You must presume to be playing BBB and you must answer consistent with that system.

 

Now, what happens when things get bolluxed?

 

1) No problem. You had clear agreements, you disclosed them, and your bid is either consistent with them or it isn't. If your explanation is consistent with your agreements, there is no MI and everybody should be happy. If your explanation was not consistent with your agreements, however, I have no sympathy for you and whatever the SO says should be your punishment is ok with me.

 

2) I don't see any difference between (2) and (1) here. You know there is a system and you should answer predicated on that system.

 

That leaves us with:

 

3) Ah, the problem child. If you assume you are playing BBB and explain accordingly, fine. However, if your bid is inconsistent with BBB and you were just trying to mess things up (a pattern would be necessary to establish this) for your opp, I would think MI would be the charge. But let us take the more difficult case of the poor ignorant soul. First, they try the "no agreements" answer. Then, after being told that such is not acceptable when dealing with that specific bid they are presented with a quandry. What to say? Let's say they don't know BBB, and, flustered, just say "natural, opening hand". Of course, we are talking about a 2D bid here, so just about everyone knows that can't be the case. No matter. They provided MI and that is the way the ball bounced. How do they avoid this? Well, they can do so by describing the meaning of the bid, as they intended. That is, in the absence of a verifiable agreement, when dealing with bids that would normally be defined by a typical and properly filled out cc, the only way they can protect themselves is to disclose the meaning as they intended.

 

I believe there is precedent for this. I believe, when using screens, if there is actually no agreement, a finding of MI cannot be made if the individual explains the intended meaning of the bid. I would be hardpressed to recall the writeup where that took place, but maybe somebody who follows the appeals writeups might be able to do so.

 

I know that others are aghast at my attitude regarding this, but I really don't find it all that complicated, nor do I think it all that problematic for anybody who is interested in playing a fair game.

 

I'm all for using the laws of bridge to one's advantage when the circumstance presents itself (ahh, for the days of penalty cards). Doing so within the confines of the laws is perfectly acceptable. I would never decry a bridge lawyer, if you will, from hoisting me for a hesitation.

 

But disclosure of bids is something I feel pretty strongly about and I do believe that the framework already exists to deal with it fairly.

 

Now, if only the yellows would understand things and if the technical naysayers would change their tune, we could get on to bigger and better, like how to implement it in a fair manner and how best to go about communicating it.

 

Will it be a somewhat slow process to fully implement? Maybe, but most of that is because of the attitudes that people have brought with them from f2f.

 

Welcome home.

 

George

[Brandal]

But disclosure of bids is something I feel pretty strongly about and I do believe that the framework already exists to deal with it fairly.

 

Now, if only the yellows would understand things and if the technical naysayers would change their tune, we could get on to bigger and better, like how to implement it in a fair manner and how best to go about communicating it.

 

Will it be a somewhat slow process to fully implement? Maybe, but most of that is because of the attitudes that people have brought with them from f2f.

 

George

I agree with this,and with self alerting it's just plain

silly to open and then hide behind no agreement.

 

In online bridge,with selfalerts,I really do feel we

should call it disclosure of bids,and not agreements.

 

For me personally,it feels natural to explain my bid

no matter who my pd is,it certainly doesn't occur to

me to bid and then explain with "no agreement",then

I would rather pass than bid.

 

Ofcourse this is my personal opinion only,I know I'm

a minority but as long as I know what my bid means,

I will explain to opps.

[luke warm]

as long as I know what my bid means, I will explain to opps.

so will i, but that isn't what i've been talking about... imo

[helene_t]

Allthough I would allways explain the meaning of an opening (not in details, but in general terms such as "natural, preemptive"), there are other situations where I would actually say "no agreement". For example, if I have no idea if we play negative freebids, inverted minors, and wether 1♣-(1♥)-1♠ promises four or five, I would just say "natural, no further agreement".

 

The difference is this: if I have no idea how partner will interpret 2♦, it seems implausible that I would open 2♦ on any hand. I'm not aware of any system in which a 2♦ opening is mandatory with certain hands without any alternative that is at least approximately correct. The same is not true with, e.g. freebids. You will have to make freebids (and 1NT response which may or may not be forcing etc) even if you don't have comprehensive agreements.

[Brandal]

as long as I know what my bid means, I will explain to opps.

so will i, but that isn't what i've been talking about... imo

It's not what I've been talking about either :D

 

(just tired of creme brulee) B)

[Brandal]

Allthough I would allways explain the meaning of an opening (not in details, but in general terms such as "natural, preemptive"), there are other situations where I would actually say "no agreement". For example, if I have no idea if we play negative freebids, inverted minors, and weather 1♣-(1♥)-1♠ promises four or five, I would just say "natural, no further agreement".

 

The difference is this: if I have no idea how partner will interpret 2♦, it seems implausible that I would open 2♦ on any hand. I'm not aware of any system in which a 2♦ opening is mandatory with certain hands without any alternative that is at least approximately correct. The same is not true with, e.g. freebids. You will have to make freebids (and 1NT response which may or may not be forcing etc) even if you don't have comprehensive agreements.

You always make alot of sense B)

 

And don't "we all" assume pd will understand our bids

when we make a bid?

 

Don't we all put aside the fancy conventions in indys?

 

Afterall it is more important that pd understands,than it

is what we disclose to opps?

[hrothgar]

Silly question here...

 

For the moment, I will asume that everything you say holds true and that all players have tacitly agreed that they will

 

1. Learn BBO Basic priory to entering events

2. Assume that BBO Basic applies by default unless there is specific discussion to the contrary

 

[For what its worth, I don't accept either of those points as being true. In particular, I'm quite sure that a significant percentage of the participants in Indy's don't have a clue regarding standard bidding. However, for the moment I will assume that these points hold true]

 

Furthermore, lets assume that the we're all playing at a table.

Play has just started and no one has discussed bidding systems.

I have just opened 2D and you want to know what I hold in my hand.

 

Under this set of assumption, WHY DO YOU NEED TO ASK A QUESTION?

 

If your assumptions hold true, than there is no need for you to ask. In theory, you already know the answer. You "know" what a 2D opening shows in BBO Basic. More importantly, how are you damaged by being told "No Agreement". As others have pointed out, this is (effectively) shorthand for playing BBO Basic, 2D promises XYZ

 

If the assumptions do not hold true, than you are justified in asking for information. However, I am than equally justified in stating "No Agreement".

 

In either case, how are you damaged? (Please recall that Bridge's regulatory structure is based on restoring equity following damage)

[Finch]

I believe there is precedent for this. I believe, when using screens, if there is actually no agreement, a finding of MI cannot be made if the individual explains the intended meaning of the bid. I would be hardpressed to recall the writeup where that took place, but maybe somebody who follows the appeals writeups might be able to do so.

I'm afraid that isn't really true. I cannot quote an appeals case, but I have seen cases at the table. Let me give you two examples, one bidding and one play.

 

a) You open 1NT and pass the tray. Your LHO overcalls 2C and your partner bids 2H. Your screen-mate alerts this, and says "shows hearts and another". You ask about the minimum length in hearts and are told "we haven't discussed whether he's allowed to have four or not". Your agreement with your partner is that if the minimum heart length was 4, 2H is natural; if the minimum length is 5, 2H is conventional; if the opponents aren't certain, 2H is natural. So you pass. Sadly you are playing in a 3-1 fit, because your LHO had told your partner what he intended the bid to mean, i.e. "hearts and another, at least 5 hearts". Ooops.

 

B) Your RHO opens some form of Polish 1C. Your LHO, who is your screenmate, responds 1H which he explains to you as he intends it, namely 4+ hearts, 6+ HCP. Your partner looks on the CC and find it shows 5+ hearts. They then bid to 3NT. Your partner chooses his opening lead on the basis that responder has 5+ hearts. You defend the contract on the basis that partner chose his opening lead knowing that responder has 4+ hearts. This makes at least one trick difference (it really does). Responder only has 4 hearts, but if you had known the system says five you would have defended differently.

 

[This didn't quite happen like this: in fact the CC said 4+ but your partner thought he knew their system and thought he knew it was 5+ cards & didn't bother to check the CC. So we damaged ourselves. But it makes sense as a theoretical case.]

 

These two cases aren't a precendent for the case being discussed here, because they both hinge on you and your partner having different information. But I'm trying to show that the analogy is flawed.

[hrothgar]

In essence, I'm ducking the individual questions because they beg the bigger question: what is disclosable in a circumstance where the opps have not pre-arranged a basic system?

 

I submit that it is the SO's requirement to provide something which must be superimposed so as to facilitate something other than random results.

Two comments:

 

First and foremost, BBO is not a sponsoring organization. When tournaments are held on BBO they are sponsored by the ACBL or BBO Italia or Abalucy or ... In theory, BBO could become a sponsoring organization. Personally, I think that it would be more trouble than its worth.

 

Equally significant, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. In this case, the sponsoring organization can pass all the laws it wants that players must learn BBO Basic, however, this doesn't mean that players will do so.

 

Ultimately, your arguments collapse into a belief that players should be compelled to describe their hand type and there is no provision for this in the Laws...

[LH2650]

Active ethics has no standing under the laws

Active Ethics has four components:

 

Principle of Full Disclosure - Law 40B

Social Behavior - Law 74

Slow Play - Law 90

Statement on Conventions - generally leads to misinformation, Laws 21 and 47.

[the hog]

Active ethics has NO components as it is not specifically mentioned in the rules.

[hrothgar]

Active ethics has no standing under the laws

Active Ethics has four components:

 

Principle of Full Disclosure - Law 40B

Social Behavior - Law 74

Slow Play - Law 90

Statement on Conventions - generally leads to misinformation, Laws 21 and 47.

I prefer Bobby Wolff's definition

 

>We are dealing with players, at the expert level, who have diverse talents, morals,

>motivations and reasons for playing. Consequently, to create a level playing field we

>MUST eliminate the following insidious trio of i's:

 

1. intimidation

2. intentional convention disruption

3. inactive ethics.

 

>Primarily because of this, bridge justice at the very high levels has to be handled in a

>different way than natural justice. We need to roll up our sleeves and fight the i's the

>only way we might have a chance in order to stop them or at least slow them down.

>We cannot wait for 100% evidence of violations, but must rather act with harsh

>punishment for apparent disrespect of the game itself. Yes, at times it will be

>subjective, but as long as solid people are in control, it will work. And at the very least,

>under threat of bad scores (plus some embarrassment) the players will be aware of

>the horrors of not conforming.

 

...

 

>To accomplish this goal we must put pressure on everyone to conform and must >either write or interpret the laws to that effect.

 

Active ethics is an atrocity.

 

My BIG problem with the ACBL has always been the "activist" nature of the the regulatory who seek to twist and pervert the laws in order to impose their own subjective notions of regaridng how the game "ought" to be played...

 

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

[asdfg2k]

Silly question here...

 

For the moment, I will asume that everything you say holds true and that all players have tacitly agreed that they will

 

1. Learn BBO Basic priory to entering events

2. Assume that BBO Basic applies by default unless there is specific discussion to the contrary

 

[For what its worth, I don't accept either of those points as being true. In particular, I'm quite sure that a significant percentage of the participants in Indy's don't have a clue regarding standard bidding. However, for the moment I will assume that these points hold true]

 

Furthermore, lets assume that the we're all playing at a table.

Play has just started and no one has discussed bidding systems.

I have just opened 2D and you want to know what I hold in my hand.

 

Under this set of assumption, WHY DO YOU NEED TO ASK A QUESTION?

 

If your assumptions hold true, than there is no need for you to ask. In theory, you already know the answer. You "know" what a 2D opening shows in BBO Basic. More importantly, how are you damaged by being told "No Agreement". As others have pointed out, this is (effectively) shorthand for playing BBO Basic, 2D promises XYZ

 

If the assumptions do not hold true, than you are justified in asking for information. However, I am than equally justified in stating "No Agreement".

 

In either case, how are you damaged? (Please recall that Bridge's regulatory structure is based on restoring equity following damage)

There are no silly questions, except those unasked.

 

You don't "need" to ask. One never "needs" to ask. However, the laws give you the right to ask and if you do, you are entitled to an answer, even one that you are 99% sure is the same as what you would have thought had you not asked the question.

 

As stated earlier, just because your ops come to the table with blank profiles it does not mean that they don't know each other and have agreed to play reverse-MOSCITO (OTICSOM?).

 

So, you are entitled to ask and you are entitled to an answer.

 

So, the assumption as to what the opps are playing does not hold true. What about the situation you posit where your assumption that they don't know each other and have blank profiles is, in fact, true.

 

Now we split the baby so to speak.

 

Let's now assume that the reason you asked is because you are, in fact, ignorant of the requirement to use BBB. In fact, you always discuss with your partner before you commence, at least, the basic system you will use. The laws don't require you to know anything in order to be protected by them (I think it was somebody else who made this argument earlier in this thread, but I agree with it).

 

Hence, you are entitled to ask and you are entitled to an answer.

 

Life is so simple.

 

George

[asdfg2k]

In essence, I'm ducking the individual questions because they beg the bigger question: what is disclosable in a circumstance where the opps have not pre-arranged a basic system?

 

I submit that it is the SO's requirement to provide something which must be superimposed so as to facilitate something other than random results.

Two comments:

 

First and foremost, BBO is not a sponsoring organization. When tournaments are held on BBO they are sponsored by the ACBL or BBO Italia or Abalucy or ... In theory, BBO could become a sponsoring organization. Personally, I think that it would be more trouble than its worth.

 

Equally significant, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. In this case, the sponsoring organization can pass all the laws it wants that players must learn BBO Basic, however, this doesn't mean that players will do so.

 

Ultimately, your arguments collapse into a belief that players should be compelled to describe their hand type and there is no provision for this in the Laws...

Whether it meets your definition of an SO or not is not particularly relevant. To me, it meets the definition. Which, to you, I'm sure, isn't particularly relevant.

 

So, how do we decide who is correct?

 

We don't.

 

We await real laws intended for online play.

 

Until then we are each supposing that the laws for f2f apply to the extent practical and that things that are not logical are somehow modified logically. Your definition of modified logically is: "there shall be no modifications - live with the f2f laws because they are all we have.". I am saying that the game must not be allowed to become a mockery.

 

To some extent, I therefore grant you that I am operating from the belief that the existing structure PLAINLY calls for my interpretation as the only fair way to play the game. You, of course, are arguing the opposite.

 

Such is life.

 

BTW, just because BBO cedes SO authority to various organizations who are effectively leasing its tables does not mean that it gives up SO when playing at tables where SO authority has not been ceded. Nice try, though.

 

George

[asdfg2k]

These two cases aren't a precendent for the case being discussed here, because they both hinge on you and your partner having different information. But I'm trying to show that the analogy is flawed.

Quite right. Unfortunately all that leads me to conclude is that in the absence of agreement, you MUST understand the default system and quote it accurately or else potential for MI exists.

 

I can live with that.

 

George

[hrothgar]

Whether it meets your definition of an SO or not is not particularly relevant. To me, it meets the definition. Which, to you, I'm sure, isn't particularly relevant.

 

So, how do we decide who is correct?

 

We don't.

 

We await real laws intended for online play.

 

Until then we are each supposing that the laws for f2f apply to the extent practical and that things that are not logical are somehow modified logically. Your definition of modified logically is: "there shall be no modifications - live with the f2f laws because they are all we have.". I am saying that the game must not be allowed to become a mockery.

For what its worth, the WBF has had a set of laws for Online Bridge on the books for several years now.

 

You can find these posted at http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/laws_..._laws/law40.asp

 

In this example, the Online Laws and the F2F Laws are identical...