Hurrahs for AbaLucy

[1eyedjack]

Incidentally, if a partnership professes no agreement about a particular call, they likely have no agreement about most of the sensible alternative calls. So to ask why they make a particular call out of several alternatives about which they likewise have no agreement seems a pointless exercise.

[Chamaco]

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.

Many issues here:

 

1) Occasional partners and subs

 

You cannot reasonably expect a sub to have detailed agreement, or even nondetailed agrements.

If he makes a bid unagreed with pard, you have no right to know any more than his pard will.

If it's undiscussed, it's undiscussed, the bidder "hopes" pard will understand it, and you should be in the same situation than his partner: in some case, it will be YOU that need to know what it is and have to guess, in other situations, it will be his pard, that's life, once you win, once you lose.

 

 

2) Psyching

 

The guy was of course psyching. The "undiscussed" just means, usually, that the bid will be taken according to the most common meaning, which is in case of 2NT pener, 20-21 balanced.

If I were psyching, I would just have alerted it as "20-21 balanced" but then, you must not complain to the director by saying "he self-alerted 20-21 bal but hand a weak long minor hand".

I have the right to psyche without telling you "Hey, I am psyching" (provided my pard ignore the fact I am gambling)

 

 

3) "Undiscussed"

There are plenty of undiscussed sequences, even for people who play, say once or twice a week.

This is especially true for 2nd and 3rd round sequences, but also not so infrequent for responses to opening bids: try to ask someone playing Multi how they respond if people interfere; or try to ask many people how they respond in the sequence 2C(strong)- (3/4S overcall). For most people, that will be undiscussed.

 

I have found that, in the "undiscussed" cases, many of my opps that ask me explanation, they are only trying to set up a trap:

they want me to explain the hand in such detail that, if the exlanation deviates, they will call the TD because of misalerting.

 

Ever since then ( to protect myself from this kind of players who will scan like a lawyer through our bids and alerts) I have resorted to the frequent use of "undiscussed" eplanation: I am not supposed to explain what I *think* partener has, or *how I believe my partner will interpret my bid*.

If I have no specific agreements, "undiscussed" is pretty much correct, even if of course I am expecting some message to get through to my pard: opponents will have to guess just like my pard, "equal opportunities", that's not unethical IMO

[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?

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.

I'm not sure I'm following you here - are you saying that because you are unsure whether or not you play transfers and decide to bid 2N that if questioned about the meaning of 2N you should answer, "Undiscussed." ?

 

In online bridge, private chat is available. I can disclose to either opponent indepedently of the other without either risking giving unauthorized information.

 

The main point here is why is this an issue to in the first place? Why penalize a sub and the sub's partner by rules that are meant for serious live play?

 

In the main room of play on BBonline my partner and I always have this standing table rule: if you and your partner have not discussed the meaning of a bid, feel free to ask your partner what his bid means. It is silly, IMO, to feel it necessary to get an edge with a pickup partnership (or even a regular partnership for that matter) by taking advantage of these misunderstandings - what use is it? It skews the results and I don't win any big cash prizes for winning the board. It's better to either skip the hand or allow the opponents to bid the hands as intended and see if they reach the right contract and if so see if we can beat it.

 

I would like to see the same concept adopted in casual tournament play - a pick up pard or sub shouldn't be handicapped by not knowing what system is in play - let him ask out loud so everyone knows - and this would also negate the luck/bad luck factor if a sub comes in at one table and has a bidding accident then the regular comes back just in time for the next round.

 

And I'm sorry I don't remember your name right now, but I agree totally with you that it's only a game - and an online game to boot. How serious does this all have to be? Be pleasant. Talk to the opponents if they ask you a question. Rudeness can be dealt with in two fashions - either by the host by regulating it - or by me - by simply disconnecting and going somewhere else to play.

 

Winston

[mila85]

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.

Many issues here:

 

1) Occasional partners and subs

 

You cannot reasonably expect a sub to have detailed agreement, or even nondetailed agrements.

If he makes a bid unagreed with pard, you have no right to know any more than his pard will.

If it's undiscussed, it's undiscussed, the bidder "hopes" pard will understand it, and you should be in the same situation than his partner: in some case, it will be YOU that need to know what it is and have to guess, in other situations, it will be his pard, that's life, once you win, once you lose.

Yes. Bidder HOPES pard will understand it. So there must be an agreement. Without it it would be impossible to understand. (natural is also an agreement)

 

2) Psyching

 

The guy was of course psyching. The "undiscussed"  just means, usually, that the bid will be taken according to the most common meaning, which is in case of 2NT pener, 20-21 balanced.

If I were psyching, I would just have alerted it as "20-21 balanced" but then, you must not complain to the director by saying "he self-alerted 20-21 bal but hand a weak long minor hand".

I have the right to psyche without telling you "Hey, I am psyching" (provided my pard ignore the fact I am gambling)

No, this is not a normal psych. You know that partner is not sure what it means.

Imagine the bidding 2nt-p-3nt-dbl/4c-p-?

a) I have 20BAL, 5 clubs and think that RHO can make tricks in my unstopped suit (dbl was for a lead).

b ) I was psyching.

I think a) is normal. Partner can bid 5♣. But when you play with a sub he will always pass.

 

3) "Undiscussed"

There are plenty of undiscussed sequences, even for people who play, say once or twice a week.

This is especially true for 2nd and 3rd round sequences, but also not so infrequent for responses to opening bids: try to ask someone playing Multi how they respond if people interfere; or try to ask many people how they respond in the sequence 2C(strong)- (3/4S overcall). For most people, that will be undiscussed.

After multi bids can be natural or P/C. This is a big difference. I you deny explain it and partner takes a good action then TD will work...

 

I have found that, in the "undiscussed" cases, many of my opps that ask me explanation, they are only trying to set up a trap:

they want me to explain the hand in such detail that, if the exlanation deviates, they will call the TD because of misalerting.

You can say "It tends to be..." If it's true you must give this information.

 

Ever since then ( to protect myself from this kind of players who will scan like a lawyer through our bids and alerts)  I have resorted to the frequent use of "undiscussed" eplanation: I am not supposed to explain what I *think* partener has, or *how I believe my partner will interpret my bid*.

You can protect yourself very easily. When it's your bid, you know what you have in your hand. When it's parnter's bid you can say "I think it's ... and I will bid so."

In most of the tournaments it's enough.

 

If I have no specific agreements, "undiscussed" is pretty much correct, even if of course I am expecting some message to get through to my pard: opponents will have to guess just like my pard, "equal opportunities", that's not unethical IMO

Opps must guess. Your pard can think about it.

 

--------------

Of course nobody has to say what their actual holding is.

When you play with a sub explenation like "our 3rd board, SA2/1, no other agreements" is enough

With causual partner you should always say what you think it is.

[Chamaco]

 

Yes. Bidder HOPES pard will understand it. So there must be an agreement. Without it it would be impossible to understand. (natural is also an agreement)

 

No.

A hope is not an agreement.

 

No, this is not a normal psych.

 

What is a "normal" psyche ?

there is no "normal" psyche. A psyche is an "abnormal" bid by definition.

 

You know that partner is not sure what it means.

 

Come on, let's be serious: whenever a sub come at my table and I see a unalerted 2NT opening bid, I assume 20-21, even with no agreement, and so will my opps.

And so will 95% of the players on BBO.

It's not an explicit agreement though.

An explicit agreement is just what the word says: it was explicitly agreed.

 

 

Imagine the bidding 2nt-p-3nt-dbl/4c-p-?

a) I have 20BAL, 5 clubs and think that RHO can make tricks in my unstopped suit (dbl was for a lead).

b ) I was psyching.

I think a) is normal. Partner can bid 5♣. But when you play with a sub he will always pass.

 

yes. So what ?

 

After multi bids can be natural or P/C. This is a big difference. I you deny explain it and partner takes a good action then TD will work...

 

There are people, I mean beginner/intermediats, who have no idea: they had not discussed whether a 3M response to Multi after interference was pass/correct or not: if they say "undiscused", it's quite legitimate, they do not havce to tell you what they have, they only have to tell you the explicit agrements they have with pard.

The ame hold true for strong 2C overcalled, and MANY competitive sequences.

If no agreements, "undiscussed" is ok

 

 

I have found that, in the "undiscussed" cases, many of my opps that ask me explanation, they are only trying to set up a trap:

they want me to explain the hand in such detail that, if the exlanation deviates, they will call the TD because of misalerting.

You can say "It tends to be..." If it's true you must give this information.

 

 

I usually do, when it is true that "it tends" to show something.

But when it is indeed undiscussed, I am not obliged to say anything: if my pard must guess, opps can be in the same position.

Take for instance the bidding in the thread "This cost much" by Ron:

 

1D-(p)-p-(2S)

4H-(4S)-5H-?

 

Is pass forcing here ?

If opps ask, I will say "undiscussed", because it was not discussed with partner.

 

 

Opps must guess. Your pard can think about it.

 

No, what you say is not right.

My pard can think about it only if *we have agrements and I do not disclose them*: in this case I would be outright cheating.

But *if pard indeed has no agreement*, he is guessing too, ad he can guess right or wring, just like opps:

- see the above example of forcing pass;

-or, if I open 2NT with, say, 10 hcp and a long minor, and opps buy the contract, my pard could be guessing wrong doubling opps assuming I do have 20 hcp.

So, by making a psyche or an undiscussed bid, one player can win or lose: let's just accept it, sometimes one ca win by gambling or psyching, by making a bid that noone else at the table will understand, but this is not necessarily cheating.

[Finch]

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).

No, this is not right.

The correct explanation is to say:

 

"my pass forces redouble, systemically that is the only bid he can make"

 

If you have additional partnership experience you also reveal it ("but he sometimes forgets, or he sometimes likes to bid his 5-card suit here anyway") or even ("he has never done this before")

 

If you have no additional partnership experience, then you shouldn't explain what you think it is. If you are wrong, you will (not might, will) be ruled against if there was damage.

 

Similarly if playing with screens or online, your partner should only explain his 2S bid as

 

"partner's pass forced me to redouble; systemically I wasn't allowed to do anything else" and leave it at that.

[ochinko]

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.

Sorry, the TD could really had guts but I don't see how that ruling proves that. She ruled against a sub in favor of a (paying?) member. If it has been the reverse, and she had ruled against the member just because that was the right decision, that would've really shown some guts.

 

What you don't seem to understand is that you can't be impartial here because you were personally involved, whereas the posters that answered aren't emotionally attached to the case, and many of them disagree with you. If the player wasn't cheating but just psyching then the ruling, gutsy or not, was not right.

 

Perhaps I'm not quite impartial either. I had a simillar experience in a BBO tourney with a person that I know f2f. I explained my bid when she asked, then further described it, but she still wanted more. Then I said in a personal message: "Look, I told you we were playing together for the first time with my partner, and only agreed upon playing SAYC. You already know more about my hand that partner could possibly know. What more do you expect?" She doesn't speak to me ever since. I always try disclose at least what I think partner should assume, often even more than that, but you've got to draw the line somewhere.

 

Personally, I never make psychic bids. When opps psyche, and it goes in their favor, I don't feel any more displeased than if they had found a good sacrifice. They deserve credit, and no rules were broken (assuming the psyche wasn't from a 1st or 2nd position). We must learn to deal with those situations.

 

Petko

[jillybean]

When opps psyche, and it goes in their favor, I don't feel any more displeased than if they had found a good sacrifice. They deserve credit, and no rules were broken (assuming the psyche wasn't from a 1st or 2nd position). We must learn to deal with those situations.

 

Petko

Nice post.

I have seen 'No psyche in 1st or 2nd position' in a few tournament rules does this reflect an actual bridge law (its not in the WBF regulations) or is it something TD's are doing to keep players happy?

 

jb

[Walddk]

I have seen 'No psyche in 1st or 2nd position' in a few tournament rules does this reflect an actual bridge law (its not in the WBF regulations) or is it something TD's are doing to keep players happy?

 

jb

Must be since psyches do not violate any law as long as they are not based upon a partnership understanding. Psyches are part of the game, and as we have said so many times before: TDs who disallow psyches do not follow the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

 

It's as simple as that. Take it (play in those tourneys) or leave it (don't play in those tourneys).

 

Roland

[1eyedjack]

I'm not sure I'm following you here - are you saying that because you are unsure whether or not you play transfers and decide to bid 2N that if questioned about the meaning of 2N you should answer, "Undiscussed." ?

No, that part of my post was addressing only the problem of what bid I personally would make if placed in the undesirable position of choosing between a number of calls in the absence of a partnership agreement. I did not in that part of the post consider at all the quesiton of how I would answer an interrogation about the chosen bid, and of course there is no requirement on others to make the same decision as I would make regarding the bid. But since you ask, for the record I guess I would have to answer "no agreement" to the 2NT raise as I would to any other response in that circumstance. I would simply judge that partner has a better chance of guessing correctly, and a lower likely cost if he guesses incorrectly. And my judgement in that regard may be wholly wrong, of course - he may read it as a minor suit transfer ... has happened.

[mgoetze]

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.

Really? I was quite sure that this is obviously the XYZ convention - weak with diamonds or else some kind of invitational hand. But then again I have only played 2/1 with one partner.

[Blofeld]

A slightly related case:

 

There have been times, playing with a pickup partner, where I may a bid, seeing more than one possible interpretation for a bid, but knowing that my hand fits (or nearly fits) either [or occasionally any of more than two] one. In this case, I really don't feel that I can say anything other than "undiscussed". I can't pick one of the options, because that effectively misinforms the opponents if my partner thinks it's the other option, and to tell my opponents that I have a hand fitting both options is surely giving them far more information than they're entitled to. Or perhaps whenever there's more than one possible meaning for a bid that I've made, and partner and I haven't discussed it, I should say "a hand fitting one or more of ... [option a], [option b], ..." ?

[candybar]

I have seen 'No psyche in 1st or 2nd position' in a few tournament rules does this reflect an actual bridge law (its not in the WBF regulations) or is it something TD's are doing to keep players happy?

It is NOT an actual bridge law. It's something that TDs are doing to make decent players angry.

 

The only people who could possibly be happy about these homegrown 'rules' are (1) TDs who are too lazy to deal with the occasional psyche, and (2) extremely weak players who haven't the slightest idea they've been psyched until it's way too late.

[Al_U_Card]

Everytime I play, I select a pard who shows 2/1 somewhere in his profile, or if desperate, expert. The 2nd thing I type (after "Hi all") is, "I have just posted my 2/1 cc p".

It is mostly generic with all of the treatments and conventions that I like to play. As with this morning, on our 2nd hand played, I open 1S in 4th seat and pard answers 2C. I continue with 2NT(a good hand with stoppers outside). Pard raises to 3NT with Qx,xxx,Kx,QJTxxx. He wasn't asked, nor was I, but the card clearly shows 2-way rev. Drury. I was expecting a limit with 3 card support. Pass or 3C by him would have been improper? btw he never explicitly said "cc looks fine" or other comment implying acceptance of my cc. Needless to say that partnership didn't last too long, but the opps enjoyed its Impish effect while it lasted :blink:

[candybar]

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.

You are praising someone for (1) not understanding the Laws, (2) booting someone for an honest answer, and (3) being gutsy enough to do all this without a qualm of conscience?

 

If you take this approach to the natural extreme, it means that anyone can do anything they want, as long as they are 'gutsy' about it.

 

Backing up "her own self-imposed zero tolerance policy" does not make the policy correct, legal, or moral -- it merely makes it imposed.

[Al_U_Card]

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

Really? I was quite sure that this is obviously the XYZ convention - weak with diamonds or else some kind of invitational hand. But then again I have only played 2/1 with one partner.

Any votes for natural with clubs and showing 5+ spades and at least invitational strength?

[kense]

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.

You are praising someone for (1) not understanding the Laws, (2) booting someone for an honest answer, and (3) being gutsy enough to do all this without a qualm of conscience?

 

If you take this approach to the natural extreme, it means that anyone can do anything they want, as long as they are 'gutsy' about it.

 

Backing up "her own self-imposed zero tolerance policy" does not make the policy correct, legal, or moral -- it merely makes it imposed.

I have seen many bad rules made in the abalucy bridge club

 

[uday: remainder of rant removed ]

[inquiry]

Let me issue a warning as a system admistrator. Please be sure to keep comments on topic and don't insult people.

 

Ok, so far we have Abalucy directors are great, and abalucy directors don't know the rules of bridge. As long as we are talking factual info like failure to alert in the club results in a two trick penalty, fine and dandy. That is black and white (assuming it is true).

 

But a point of order. The BBO policy is that TD's (and private club) can set their own rules. This includes, for instatnce, that no BLACKWOOD is allowed, or that you can't open 1NT, or that takeout doubles can not be used. Some here say the game is not bridge if you do this (and I would agree), but so what? As long as people know what the rules are they can CHOOSE to play or CHOOSE not to play. We have enough directors and clubs that everyone will have lots and lots of other options. Oh, and abalucy tourneys are still fairly large, They did switch from a free to you have to pay to be a member, that is what caused the reduction of size, when people have to pay, some choose not too.. It really has nothing to do with the quality of the rulings in the event. For the most part, members of abalucy are very happy (like winstonm) is with the way it is run.

[uday]

Thread warning. Another rant (some topics tend to provoke rants) and I will erase the thread.

[Clinch]

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."

 

 

 

I wasn't there, I haven't played in this club. That being said....

 

1. If we don't see the exact hands for the first alleged transgression, nobody can sensibly opine on whether the 3NT bid was a sensible gamble, or a piece of lunacy.

 

2. I don't think it makes any sense for the director to be called following partner's double of 2NT on the second hand. It reads to me as though the person who is calling is trying to find out what his partner's double means.

 

3. Answering a call of mercy to sit in as a substitute, and being lifetime banned within a few minutes of sitting down must be something of a record.

 

4. How can any of this be a cause for a "bravo" to be issued to anyone?

 

Still, it was amusing to read.

 

Peter.

New York, NY.

[1eyedjack]

I wasn't there, I haven't played in this club. That being said....

 

1. If we don't see the exact hands for the first alleged transgression, nobody can sensibly opine on whether the 3NT bid was a sensible gamble, or a piece of lunacy.

Just a small point ...

 

The exact hands are readily available for anybody with the curiosity to do the research.

 

It was lunacy opposite a weak 2H (IMO). Something of an underbid opposite a strong 2H, that worked out OK. But it seems likely they were playing strong 2s by agreement and South had forgotten to change the CC following the introduction of the sub. Not an uncommon occurrence I fear, although whether any damage resulted in this case is not for me to say. I gather from the hand record and partial evidence in this thread that there was no sanction imposed against the 3N bidder. Sub No. 1 was subbed out during that hand, and it was the next sub who was disk-ed, for the subsequent "transgression".

[arrows]

(uday: deleted)

[candybar]

They did switch from a free to you have to pay to be a member, that is what caused the reduction of size, when people have to pay, some choose not too.. It really has nothing to do with the quality of the rulings in the event.

I DID pay, but I won't again, and for the record, it has EVERYTHING to do with the quality of the rulings in the event.