Hurrahs for AbaLucy

[bglover]

I doubt (and hope anyone would be very hesitant to say) this was cheating.

 

What is disturbing is Winston's glee in getting satisfaction over a clearly suspect ruling and giving kudos to the director for a job well done.

 

Is directing so bad that we must exult for getting (what we think is) a decent ruling? If that's all it takes these days to warrant a post in this forum then something is surely wrong at a deeper level.

 

Happy will be the day that decent rulings are the norm-- not when someone is so surpised to actually get one that he thinks it merits a posting.

[hotShot]

I'm in the lobby and the message apears:

tourney #xxx needs a sub

 

Now i go to the tourney list, read the tourney description and check the condition of contest page. If it is a club tourney i go to the the clubs home page in the internet and read the club rules.

If the tourney is not over yet, i can volunteer to be a sub.

If i get the invitation to sub in, i can only see my future partners profile and not the cc he has posted.

After i join the table i check if my partner posted a cc, read it, discuss some changes and modify it before playing on.

 

Is there anybody here who thinks, anybody has ever acted this correct way or someone ever will?

 

If i see a sub is needed and i'm willing to play, i register as fast as i can and hope i get in. I do not expect to have a cc posted, nor do i expect my opps to have one posted unless the say so. Usually the the time is running out, so i try to finish the board as fast as i can hoping to find time at the end of the round to make some agreements with my partner.

 

In an IMP tourney with a low number of boards, in a vul@imps situation a player with a lousy 12 count, raised his partners weak 2 into 3NT.

Good bridge ? No

Unusual at BBO? No

Successful at an typical BBO tourney? Sometimes you will win big (more often you will loose, but there are people out there you don't care if they are 2nd or 101th, if they can just stand on the number 1 spot once.)

Cheating? No.

 

Opening 2NT with a 7 card♣ and 9 HCP, is one of those baby psyches, most of the time partner will bid some sort of stayman 3♣ that you can pass. Opps will be silent because they expect you to hold something like 20-22 hcp. This is the sort of thing you do, when you whant to gain a lot of IMPs in a few boards. It won't pay of most of the time, but if it does you get big points.

 

A player typped +++++ or something! So what?

I've meet lots of players at BBO who start typing dots or 'test' or something else, if you don't act immediatelly. Are they all exchanging secret signals?

 

Maybe they cheated, maybe there is live on Mars and maybe i remember not to sub into abalucy tourneys.

[Walddk]

I'm in the lobby and the message apears:

tourney #xxx needs a sub

 

Now i go to the tourney list, read the tourney description and check the condition of contest page. If it is a club tourney i go to the the clubs home page in the internet and read the club rules.

If the tourney is not over yet, i can volunteer to be a sub.

If i get the invitation to sub in, i can only see my future partners profile and not the cc he has posted.

After i join the table i check if my partner posted a cc, read it, discuss some changes and modify it before playing on.

 

Is there anybody here who thinks, anybody has ever acted this correct way or someone ever will?

 

If i see a sub is needed and i'm willing to play, i register as fast as i can and hope i get in. I do not expect to have a cc posted, nor do i expect my opps to have one posted unless the say so. Usually the the time is running out, so i try to finish the board as fast as i can hoping to find time at the end of the round to make some agreements with my partner.

 

In an IMP tourney with a low number of boards, in a vul@imps situation a player with a lousy 12 count, raised his partners weak 2 into 3NT.

Good bridge ? No

Unusual at BBO? No

Successful at an typical BBO tourney? Sometimes you will win big (more often you will loose, but there are people out there you don't care if they are 2nd or 101th, if they can just stand on the number 1 spot once.)

Cheating? No.

 

Opening 2NT with a 7 card♣ and 9 HCP, is one of those baby psyches, most of the time partner will bid some sort of stayman 3♣ that you can pass. Opps will be silent because they expect you to hold something like 20-22 hcp. This is the sort of thing you do, when you whant to gain a lot of IMPs in a few boards. It won't pay of most of the time, but if it does you get big points.

 

A player typped +++++ or something! So what?

I've meet lots of players at BBO who start typing dots or 'test' or something else, if you don't act immediatelly. Are they all exchanging secret signals?

 

Maybe they cheated, maybe there is live on Mars and maybe i remember not to sub into abalucy tourneys.

Excellent post throughout, hotShot. Well done!

 

Roland

[mila85]

I think that "no agreement" is not a good answer even with a sub.

 

In Riccione LHO opened 2♣ - precision. Partner doubled and I bid 2nt. From my point of view it was Lebensohl. Partner thought it was natural and I played 3nt. It was a stupid contract but I played it undoubled and the defence wasn't the best one. It was because my pard explained it as natural - one opponent was misinformed. The result was changed by TD.

Eventhough my pard bid 3nt not 3♣ so it was obviously our misunderstanding not cheating, we should have known what we bid.

 

Ok, BBO tourney isn't Championship but I think players should know what opening bids mean.

If I open open 2nt without disscusion it's probably strong balanced hand. It can happen I don't really know (in my info is 20-22BAL, in partner's info is 5-5 minors). So I would open strong balanced hand via 2♣ and pass minor two suiter. It's not a big disadvantage and I'm afraid of terrible result. If someone in this situation opens 2nt:

I) he thinks that pard will understand it - he should explain it.

II) he's stupid

III) he's using HUM - random openings are not alowed.

 

I think that it can happen that partner will not understand my bidding. But it can't happen that I use a bid and I don't have any idea what it means.

Every my bid should have some reason and meaning and opps should know it - chance of misuderstanding by pard doesn't change it.

[1eyedjack]

I think that "no agreement" is not a good answer even with a sub.

 

In Riccione LHO opened 2♣ - precision. Partner doubled and I bid 2nt. From my point of view it was Lebensohl. Partner thought it was natural and I played 3nt. It was a stupid contract but I played it undoubled and the defence wasn't the best one. It was because my pard explained it as natural - one opponent was misinformed. The result was changed by TD.

Having a misunderstanding is different from not having an agreement.

 

In your case there were three possibilities:

 

Option 1) Your system is to play Lebensohl, and your partner forgot

Option 2) Your system is to play natural, and you forgot

Option 3) You had no system and neither of you had any idea what the bid means.

 

The TD has to decide as a question of fact which of the above applies, compare that decision with the explanation offered and, in the event of a discrepancy, evaluate damage arising.

 

It seems likely from your post that the TD decided as a fact that one or other of options 1 or 3 applied in your case, both of which are inconsistent with the explanation provided (consistent with option 2). It also seems that he decided that damage resulted from that misinformation. We shall never know how he would have ruled had the explanation provided been option 3.

 

I do not understand how this story exemplifies that an explanation of "no agreement" can never be appropriate. It is well established that the explanation may well be a "good answer" if those are the facts, and it is reinforced in the site rules on BBO.

[candybar]

Having a misunderstanding is different from not having an agreement.

 

In your case there were three possibilities:

 

Option 1) Your system is to play Lebensohl, and your partner forgot

Option 2) Your system is to play natural, and you forgot

Option 3) You had no system and neither of you had any idea what the bid means.

 

The TD has to decide as a question of fact which of the above applies, compare that decision with the explanation offered and, in the event of a discrepancy, evaluate damage arising.

 

It seems likely from your post that the TD decided as a fact that one or other of options 1 or 3 applied in your case, both of which are inconsistent with the explanation provided (consistent with option 2).  It also seems that he decided that damage resulted from that misinformation.  We shall never know how he would have ruled had the explanation provided been option 3.

 

I do not understand how this story exemplifies that an explanation of "no agreement" can never be appropriate.  It is well established that the explanation may well be a "good answer" if those are the facts, and it is reinforced in the site rules on BBO.

Extremely well said!

 

Certain things are standard and expected to be understood by both partners and should therefore be explained even if not specifically discussed (for example, the opening 2N mentioned in an earlier post).

 

But any convention (such as Lebensohl) always has the possibility of "No Agreement", and your three options and the following paragraph are an excellent guide for any director to commit to memory.

[awm]

These sorts of things have to be decided by preponderance of evidence. Yes, there's always a possiblity of convicting the innocent, but if you wait for absolute ironclad proof of cheating you will never convict the guilty. I mean, surely it could be that:

 

(1) The 3NT bidder would've always bid 3NT on a 12-count with xx in hearts opposite a weak 2♥. He was just lucky when he caught partner with an (unalerted, not on CC) ACOL two bid.

 

(2) The ++++ was just a random testing sequence and didn't communicate anything.

 

(3) The 2NT call with 7 clubs was just a psych, trying to win the board. When partner fielded it by pulling the double on a good hand, it was just because the double itself revealed the psych.

 

(4) The individual in question was a recent sub, had never played with his partner before, and had absolutely no agreement (implicit or explicit) about the meaning of 2NT.

 

(5) The individual in question has trouble with english and/or with typing, and just wasn't able to answer the director's questions.

 

Yeah, sure, all these things could be true. But doesn't it seem more likely that something was fishy? You're not going to get much better evidence than this (at least not during a short tourney).

 

Whatever the merits of Abalucy tourneys and directors (I haven't played them myself) I have to agree with Winston that they made a good call on this one. Even if everything here was basically "legit" isn't going into a tournament without bothering to have ANY agreements (even about the meaning of opening bids) and then proceeding to psych frequently of dubious ethics to begin with (smacks of result randomization to me)?

[Winstonm]

The point that the CC might not have been changed is invalid - it was the non-sub who opened an ACOL 2H when the CC said weak. Possibly a forget? Sure. But his sub parnter bid the hand as if his partner had opened an ACOL 2-bid. More good guesses. No doubt that could be.

 

Next hand. "Sub" opens 2N. Partner doubles. I ask for a clarifiction of range of 2N. Silence. I ask again because I'm aware the CC may not be correct. Silence again. I called the TD as this may have been a language barrier but if "sub" did have an understanding I had the right to know what this was.

 

TD arrived and asked, "What is 2N?" No response again. Language problem? Sure, it could have been. TD asked again. "Explain the meaning of 2N."

 

Finally an answer: "I'm a sub."

 

From TD. "Not good enough."

 

Sub: "Undiscussed."

 

That was the end of the conversation.

 

IMO, it takes guts to follow through on the regulations of the site - I would hope that this was not an isolated instance and a spur of the moment decision. This wasn't the Berumuda Bowl or the Spingold - it, in my understanding, is a site for advanced or better to play in a congenial atmosphere, which at times I prefer for a relaxing evening against good opposition. The operator of the site has the right to inforce not only the rules of bridge but the "atmosphere" of the site. No one is forced to play here. If the TD of such a sight determines that someone is not in adherence to the site's policy, I believe it takes fortitude to act - instead of simply paying lip service as so many do.

[1eyedjack]

But doesn't it seem more likely that something was fishy? You're not going to get much better evidence than this (at least not during a short tourney).

Whether it is to be regarded as "fishy" I leave to the individual consciences of those with an interest in the matter. I do not want to play in an environment in which one or two "fishy" occurrences result in a permanent ban from an event and doubtless other stigma attaching. To act (ie to penalise) on one or even two hands requires something blatant rather than mere fishy. And for the record personally I see very little fishy about either hand (what has been published here, anyway)

[1eyedjack]

The point that the CC might not have been changed is invalid - it was the non-sub who opened an ACOL 2H when the CC said weak.

Opener must have known that he was partnering a sub. Should he assume that his (sub) partner has either read or has agreed to play a CC that was posted with another partner in mind? Which hand actually did the opening is entirely irrelevant to the validity of that point. Responder's action is potentially relevant, but again what is not relevant is whether responder is the sub or sub's partner.

 

A natural 3N response with a 12 count opposite a 2H opener is an overbid opposite a weak 2 and an underbid opposite an Acol 2. I am not sure what conclusion to draw from that. It is more of an overbid opposite a weak 2 than an underbid opposite an Acol 2. What would I do with an undiscussed partner? Hmm, well first off I would never open 2H until discussing it (I would pass with a weak 2 and open 1H with a strong 2, unless strong enough to open 2C which I would hope partner would guess to respond to). So having opened 2H the whole thing becomes pretty random. In responder's seat, I would probably guess that it is a weak 2 based on world-wide trends. But if either I or my partner had in profile a UK nationality, it becomes much less obvious. One thing I know for certain: if partner has a strong 2 and I pass, I am getting zero unless the room is bidding a borderline slam that fails. I am not quite so sure I am getting zero if I bid 3N opposite a weak 2, but perhaps that is rose tinted.

 

On the second hand I agree, based on information now available, that silence in the face of questions is not acceptable, and he should have been more forthcoming at the outset that he was a sub and had no agreements. Worthy of a lifetime ban? His subsequent clarification seems OK, however.

[mila85]

Having a misunderstanding is different from not having an agreement.

 

In your case there were three possibilities:

 

Option 1) Your system is to play Lebensohl, and your partner forgot

Option 2) Your system is to play natural, and you forgot

Option 3) You had no system and neither of you had any idea what the bid means.

 

The TD has to decide as a question of fact which of the above applies, compare that decision with the explanation offered and, in the event of a discrepancy, evaluate damage arising.

 

It seems likely from your post that the TD decided as a fact that one or other of options 1 or 3 applied in your case, both of which are inconsistent with the explanation provided (consistent with option 2).  It also seems that he decided that damage resulted from that misinformation.  We shall never know how he would have ruled had the explanation provided been option 3.

 

I do not understand how this story exemplifies that an explanation of "no agreement" can never be appropriate.  It is well established that the explanation may well be a "good answer" if those are the facts, and it is reinforced in the site rules on BBO.

 

We did't have exact agreement but it doesn't mean that we had no agreement. When I use a bid I expect partner will understand it (we played Lebensohl over weak two openings). So I say to opps what I think it means.

If I explained it as 'no agreement', opps would call TD. It's impossible that I don't have any idea about 2nt bid if I want to play Championship.

 

Maybe it was a bad example.

I wanted to say that when I use a call I expect that partner will understand it. I don't use bids I don't know what they mean.

If an opponent explain something as 'no agreement' I will ask him why he bids it. What will his partner do? What it can be? Does they have an agreement about any similar situation. If he answers me 'no agreement, it can be anything' then it's brown sticker.

Explanation of an opening bid should be the same at both sides.

(When you play online only one player explains it - but if he has something different then his partner must bid as he had what he explained)

I don't believe to opps if they don't know what they opening bids mean. It's not championship, you can make mistakes, but to know what the openings mean is necessary.

If someone opens 2nt and has no idea how his partner will take it, he must be crazy or cheating. When they give me no or bad explanation and partner makes good action I call director or leave table.

 

 

btw Sorry for my English...

[bglover]

True story from a few weeks ago, altho it did not take place in a tourney.

 

Some silly person with world class in his profile is sitting at my table as my opponent. He opens 1 spade, I overcall 2 hearts... he clicks on my bid. I refused to answer.

 

Now, as a general rule I alert everything necessary and even overexplain alerted bids that aren't transfers (transfers I just alert).

 

This guy refuses to bid. Asks me what my 2 heart bid is AGAIN. My partner explains "it's a regular 2 heart overcall." The guy clicks for an explanation again. I just told the guy "leave the table."

 

I do think people are entitled to an explanation. But, not EVERYTHING requires one. This 2nt bid everyone is so focused on (when looking at all the hands) was an obvious attempt at a psyche. It got fielded. So, he refused to explain his bid further, knowing it had been fielded. The guy may be a jerk, that I agree, for not answering.

 

However, it hardly falls into the category of 'cheat." And, Winston (and the TD) have now besmirched this person (everyone who knows the name of the player now thinks maybe he cheated and Winston has praised the TD for expelling same).

 

Don't you see how wrong this is? Don't you understand it is a GAME. A game where people pysche, a game where people make silly bids that sometimes work? And you are willingly heaping praise on the director and the club for endorsing this?

 

Am I saying this guy clearly explained his bids? No. Ami saying it's impossible these 2 were comminicating? No. Anything is possible. What I see is plain lousy bridge, a lousier ruling and someone taking the opportunity to boost himself and simultaneously further drag someone's name through the mux because the director apparently agreed with his (highly likely wrong) assessment of the siutation.

 

Sorry, that's sick. Both you and the director deserve a warning, not any praise for this.

[1eyedjack]

Going back to the original post, it is perhaps of passing relevance that the offending South played with one partner for the first 9 hands of the event, then with another partner for the next 6 hands, then with a third partner for the next one hand (that final hand being incompleted and scored A+/-).

 

The picture I get from this is that the loaded CC almost certainly applied to the first partnership, and both the subsequent partners of South were subs.

 

This is perhaps of some relevance because the two hands that were the subject of the original post were with different subs. The first of the two (the 4H hand) was with one sub, and the then the psychic 2N was with another sub who came in half way through the round in which Winstonm was playing, so I would expect the latter to be party to any system discussion for the second hand.

 

With the first sub that South played with, I would expect that by the time of the 6th hand played with that partner, South may well have had a reasonable understanding of whether the 2H opener was weak or strong, and both partners were probably playing it as strong and in synch with one another. It remains the case that the CC incorrectly reflected the original partnership, for which South was definitely at fault. But I think that this does cast a more innocent explanation on the whole debacle. I still agree that it would have been courteous for North to have responded promptly to the questions posed, even if he had just sat down, but I remain of the opinion that the TD's remedy appears draconian.

[Guest Jlall]

True story from a few weeks ago, altho it did not take place in a tourney.

 

Some silly person with world class in his profile is sitting at my table as my opponent. He opens 1 spade, I overcall 2 hearts... he clicks on my bid. I refused to answer.

 

Now, as a general rule I alert everything necessary and even overexplain alerted bids that aren't transfers (transfers I just alert).

 

This guy refuses to bid. Asks me what my 2 heart bid is AGAIN. My partner explains "it's a regular 2 heart overcall." The guy clicks for an explanation again. I just told the guy "leave the table."

 

I do think people are entitled to an explanation. But, not EVERYTHING requires one. This 2nt bid everyone is so focused on (when looking at all the hands) was an obvious attempt at a psyche. It got fielded. So, he refused to explain his bid further, knowing it had been fielded. The guy may be a jerk, that I agree, for not answering.

 

However, it hardly falls into the category of 'cheat." And, Winston (and the TD) have now besmirched this person (everyone who knows the name of the player now thinks maybe he cheated and Winston has praised the TD for expelling same).

 

Don't you see how wrong this is? Don't you understand it is a GAME. A game where people pysche, a game where people make silly bids that sometimes work? And you are willingly heaping praise on the director and the club for endorsing this?

 

Am I saying this guy clearly explained his bids? No. Ami saying it's impossible these 2 were comminicating? No. Anything is possible. What I see is plain lousy bridge, a lousier ruling and someone taking the opportunity to boost himself and simultaneously further drag someone's name through the mux because the director apparently agreed with his (highly likely wrong) assessment of the siutation.

 

Sorry, that's sick. Both you and the director deserve a warning, not any praise for this.

an unbiased opinion

[mycroft]

If someone asks me about a standard natural 2H overcall, I tell them. "10+ (usually), 5+H". Wow. Took me longer to add the quotes I forgot to put in than it did to write the answer. And I didn't get upset, nor did the asker.

 

Frankly, I'd probably write "standard" the first time around, and then the above the second. Oops. Oh well, still, mine not to Reason Why with Full Disclosure.

 

Yeah, if I notice that they seem to be using the alert-message-flag system to pass information, they or I are gone. In a tournament, I will report it to the TD (as I did the insane psychic overcall of my strong club one LHO made, with a "no call, just reporting" message) and possibly send the hands to abuse@. But the chance of that - especially as most of my calls are alerted anyway - is a lot smaller than the possibility of "what does this nutcase mean *this time*?". "No worries, eh, mate?" to quote Rincewind.

 

So I suggest don't allow the "WTF" response to trigger, and if they want to be stupid, play right along. You don't get mad, he doesn't get mad; everything gets along better and people get fewer ALL CAPS messages :-).

 

After all - now where's that quote - it is a GAME. If people want to invent obscure ways of cheating, fine. To me, it's just a game. The OP here I think has a point - after failing to fully explain an auction that deliberately violated the posted CC, or even to explain that their CC no longer applies, they fail to *respond* - not explain, respond - to what seems to me to be a very reasonable "Let's just make sure I don't get caught again" query.

 

I think that the sequence of actions (assuming that the bias in the one-sided story is minimal - not accusing the OP of anything, any story is biased by view) demands an explanation by the opponents; if they choose not to explain to the TD, then she was perfectly within her rights to apply whatever sanction is available to her in the Laws, the BBO software, and the Abalucy rules. If that means they're gone, well them's the rules.

 

Michael.

 

P.S. I remember somebody getting shirty when my partner was asking "what's an opener" to one pair of opponents. Seems about the same category of stupid as "what's 2H" above, no? Well, he was suffering from too much bridge thought, and not enough clarity. He had been told that opener's partner had a gameforce, and wanted to know how weak they opened, so he could judge what a minimum gameforce would look like should responder become declarer. He just couldn't explain his question unstupidly. Go ahead and answer even the stupid ones - who knows which ones aren't stupid to the asker. mdf

[han]

In Riccione LHO opened 2♣ - precision. Partner doubled and I bid 2nt. From my point of view it was Lebensohl. Partner thought it was natural and I played 3nt. It was a stupid contract but I played it undoubled and the defence wasn't the best one. It was because my pard explained it as natural - one opponent was misinformed. The result was changed by TD.

Eventhough my pard bid 3nt not 3♣ so it was obviously our misunderstanding not cheating, we should have known what we bid.

If you still thought that your agreement was that 2NT was Lebensohl, you should have explained this to the opponents before the lead was made. Failure to do so may lead to score correction.

 

If you forgot that you agreed to play 2NT as natural here, you shouldn't say anything, and the director should definitely not change your score.

 

If this auction was completely undiscussed and your partner has explained 2NT as natural then you should tell the truth (i.e. auction undiscussed) to your opponents before the lead was made, so that they know that 2NT might not be intended as natural.

 

"we should have known what we bid"

 

Sometimes you don't, and you should tell your opponents that you don't have an agreement before the play begins.

[kenberg]

The issue of explaining what you intend versus saying no agreement has been debated and depbated and debated here and elsewhere. I have a suggestion: Perhaps some tpurneys could be run that are open only to partnerships that agree to have gone over a card, and have agreed on many issues, before enterring. No subs. If someone loses his connection he is expected to return promptly. He needs a very strong reason to not do so, or he doesn't play again. Of course there will still be a bidding oops from time to time (it happens at the highest level) but the expectations will be clear.

 

In the usual current format, where you only hope partner knows what you are doing, I will continue to state my intentions. After 1M-2NT I explain that 3C, say, is intended to show shortness. Hopefully 2NT is Jacoby, hopefully partner understands 3C. Maybe yes, maybe no, but it's my expectation or at least my hope he will. So I explain. I really don't care if I am entitled to say "no agreement".

 

But the tourney where everyone is fully expected to have some idea of what their bids mean, at least in common auctions, is really appealing to me.

 

Ken

[Chamaco]

When I use a bid I expect partner will understand it (we played Lebensohl over weak two openings). So I say to opps what I think it means.

 

You are not forced to tell opps that.

Your opponent must know exactly the same as your partner.

 

But one does not have to explain in detail why he makes the bid: "no agreement" is another way to say "I expect pard to take it in the most obvious meaning", but one is not obliged to explain in detail the meaning of the bid if the meaning was not agreed.

 

The main point here is simply that, in order to avoid being victim of cheating, one must be sure that there is indeed no hidden agreement, which in this case would be undisclosed to opps: but this is true for virtually every single call opponents can make.

 

If someone opens 2nt and has no idea how his partner will take it, he must be crazy or cheating.

 

No, saying "undiscussed" means basically the natural bid, but since he was psyching, it would have been even worse to say "20-21 hcp bal" when he held instead an unbalanced hand.

Opp can be psyching and there is nothing wrong in it: if he psyches, he is not a cheater, he is making a bid that neither his pard nor opps will probably understand.

Sure, in this case, you will have a hard time to make an intelligent decision, but the same is true for his partner.

If his psyche wins, and you get a bad result because of it, you must accept it, not cal the director, psyches are part of the game: when he decided to psyche, he took his risks, and this time he got a top, the next time it may backfire.

[candybar]

No, saying "undiscussed" means basically the natural bid, but since he was psyching, it would have been even worse to say "20-21 hcp bal" when he held instead an unbalanced hand.

It is not worse. If you open 2N (which by any agreement or not, partner will expect strong balanced hand), and you are psyching, you MUST explain your AGREEMENT.

 

It is absolutely right to say "20-21 hcp bal" if that is what partner will expect, even if you are psyching. If you say, "No Agreement" or "Undiscussed" in an attempt to protect yourself from the ire of the opponents when they discover the psyche, you are lying about the meaning of your bid. THAT is worse.

[jillybean]

No, saying "undiscussed" means basically the natural bid, but since he was psyching, it would have been even worse to say "20-21 hcp bal" when he held instead an unbalanced hand.

It is not worse. If you open 2N (which by any agreement or not, partner will expect strong balanced hand), and you are psyching, you MUST explain your AGREEMENT.

 

It is absolutely right to say "20-21 hcp bal" if that is what partner will expect, even if you are psyching. If you say, "No Agreement" or "Undiscussed" in an attempt to protect yourself from the ire of the opponents when they discover the psyche, you are lying about the meaning of your bid. THAT is worse.

Huh? Are you saying that if you dont have an agreement you should describe your bid as to what you assume your partner will expect?

 

The alert query does not ask you about the meaning of your bid it is asking what agreement you have with your partner, saying "no agreement" is not lying if that is the reality. The opps have just as much information as your partner!

 

jb

 

(oh - I thought this was about a sub in a tournament when there is no time to agree on systems)

Edited August 31, 2005 by jillybean2

[mila85]

The problem is that it's always difficult for opps or TD find what the full agreement is. You have something in your cc, something in your system notes but you also played lots of hands and you have hundreds of agreements which were never said.

 

Imagine a situation:

You have to make a bid and you are not sure if your pard will understand it.

1. You alert it and say that you have no agreement - it can be ... or ... Opps have to know the same what partner so you don't tell them what it is.

Your pard now explain correctly what you have and takes a good action. Td is called - you have to explain that it was just lucky.

2. You alert it, say what you think it means (you have). I your pard takes a bad action. It's your problem that you don't know the system. You will have a bad result and the advantage your opponent had isn't the reason.

 

Another situation:

Partner opened weak nt. RHO doubled and I passed. It forces redouble - it's only bid pard can make. And he bids 2 spades...

I can explain it as no agreement. But I must do something, I must think what it means.

So I explain what I think it is and what I will do (not the exact bid, only idea).

 

3rd situation:

Bidding goes 1♠-2nt/3♦-3♥/4♠.

2nt was inv+, 3♦ and 3♥ some game tries. Both of you think for a long time about playing this not easy game. You imagine every possible hand pard can have.

Opps ask to explain the bidding. You say 'game tries'. They want to know more but you don't want to say them more than your pard knows...

 

When you say 'no agreement' it's always suspicious. You expect some action from your partner. You can always say something - What the other bids mean? How we bid in similar situation? Is it forcing?

Don't be afraid that you give them too much informations. You have always an advatage. They can never know everything. So say what you can.

 

(This is about online brige or game with screens, of course you can't say to your pard what you have)

 

 

If you still thought that your agreement was that 2NT was Lebensohl, you should have explained this to the opponents before the lead was made. Failure to do so may lead to score correction.

I didn't know how it was explained at the other side of the screen.

 

"we should have known what we bid"

Sometimes you don't, and you should tell your opponents that you don't have an agreement before the play begins.

1. I was sure we have the agreement in very similar situation - I didn't think about not having it here. And my pard didn't think that we can have it here. The auction was absolutely boring and normal for both of us:)

2. There are only two possibilities. Lebensohl or Natural. I can say that I'm not sure. But I must say what I think it is.

3. If I explained it as 10-12 nat. bal. and had very weak hand (we can call it bluff) what I had and my pard explained it also as natural, he would be in the same situation, none of the opps will know my hand but the result wouldn't be changed. The only problem was different explanation - you must know your system in this event - because it's impossible find out what the real agreement is.

[mycroft]

I don't know about others, but I'm saying that especially in a world-wide setup, "no agreement" is frequently insufficient disclosure.

 

1) I played FtF last night with someone I'd never played with before. But I've played against him for three years, and have a pretty good idea of his style. We played pickup, so we had 5 minutes to discuss system. Do we have "no agreement" on auctions that go past our discussion? Or, to quote the Laws, no "special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience"? Of course not.

 

2) I agree, with another Canadian I have never met, to play "2/1". That's our entire discussion. The auction goes 1D-1S; 1NT-2C. I know it's NMF, I am bidding 2C in full expectation that it will be taken as NMF, but I get to say "no agreement", because all we discussed was "2/1"? Yeah, right. Okay, I'm banking on "general experience" to know that anyone who plays 2/1 plays a certain set of conventions to fill the holes, and NMF is one of them, but if my opponents are from Bangladesh, *they* don't know that - it isn't "general bridge knowledge" to them.

 

3) I start playing, with no discussion at all, with my partner's other regular partner - and I know that my partner is resistant to new ideas. No agreement? Not likely - even though I have only ever been at this person's table as a director.

 

"NA but we agreed 2/1" - fine. If someone doesn't know what 2NT in "Generic 2/1" is, they can ask.

 

The Laws require explanation of agreements, explicit *and* implicit. That means even if you don't discuss them, if you expect partner to get it, and have a reason why, NA is not sufficient.

 

Michael.

[Winstonm]

If an opponent explain something as 'no agreement' I will ask him why he bids it.

 

Thanks, Mila. That is an excellent point that I never considered - if you know your partner will not understand the bid, why make it?

 

And I understood your point perfectly - language was not a barrier.

 

Winston

[1eyedjack]

If an opponent explain something as 'no agreement' I will ask him why he bids it.

 

Thanks, Mila. That is an excellent point that I never considered - if you know your partner will not understand the bid, why make it?

I guess, because there may be no alternative. Making an alternative call that you expect partner to understand but which grossly (and unintentionally) misdescribes your hand is likely to result in a worse score than making a call about which you have no understanding but which at least stands a chance of being interpreted correctly. And not making a call at all is not an option either. To say that partner will not understand it overstates the implication of no agreement. He may understand it, you just do not know.

 

A skilful player with no agreements will take into consideration all available calls, both with regard to how accurately it describes his hand AND the likelihood of its being misinterpreted by partner. Case in point, if I have a 5332 hand with a 5 card major and do not know if we are playing transfers I may decide to raise partner's NT without investigating, or perhaps use stayman to find the 5-4 fit. On the other hand I *might* judge that the best chance of a result is if I assume that partner will guess correctly whether transfers are on or off (at the obvious possible cost of a disaster if he guesses wrong). However it is an exercise of judgement which route you go down, and there should be no aspersions cast on someone who makes a particular choice, in the absence of additional evidence of course.

[Winstonm]

True story from a few weeks ago, altho it did not take place in a tourney.

 

Some silly person with world class in his profile is sitting at my table as my opponent. He opens 1 spade, I overcall 2 hearts... he clicks on my bid. I refused to answer.

 

Now, as a general rule I alert everything necessary and even overexplain alerted bids that aren't transfers (transfers I just alert).

 

This guy refuses to bid. Asks me what my 2 heart bid is AGAIN. My partner explains "it's a regular 2 heart overcall." The guy clicks for an explanation again. I just told the guy "leave the table."

 

I do think people are entitled to an explanation. But, not EVERYTHING requires one. This 2nt bid everyone is so focused on (when looking at all the hands) was an obvious attempt at a psyche. It got fielded. So, he refused to explain his bid further, knowing it had been fielded. The guy may be a jerk, that I agree, for not answering.

 

However, it hardly falls into the category of 'cheat." And, Winston (and the TD) have now besmirched this person (everyone who knows the name of the player now thinks maybe he cheated and Winston has praised the TD for expelling same).

 

Don't you see how wrong this is? Don't you understand it is a GAME. A game where people pysche, a game where people make silly bids that sometimes work? And you are willingly heaping praise on the director and the club for endorsing this?

 

Am I saying this guy clearly explained his bids? No. Ami saying it's impossible these 2 were comminicating? No. Anything is possible. What I see is plain lousy bridge, a lousier ruling and someone taking the opportunity to boost himself and simultaneously further drag someone's name through the mux because the director apparently agreed with his (highly likely wrong) assessment of the siutation.

 

Sorry, that's sick. Both you and the director deserve a warning, not any praise for this.

You obviously did not read my earlier post - the praise I give the director has nothing to do with legalities or bridge rules or laws but for having the guts to stand up for her convictions. Her site is designed to be a pleasant place to play without having to be placed in these kinds of awkward situations - it was the party who refused to adhere to her stipulations that instigated the awkward situation and that party was given ample opportunity to rectify yet refused to cooperate.

 

I give her praise for not a ruling, but for having the guts to enforce her own self-imposed zero tolerance policy. To me, it takes guts to mean what you say and back it up with action.

 

Winston