[jillybean]

Stephen Tu, on Apr 8 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

For tournaments I think people should discuss beforehand, not during, unless it is a tournament being run for purely educational purposes. I don't think anyone else on this thread was talking about it being OK for tournaments, Jilly.

Thats good

[1eyedjack]

In a social setting such as the main club the higher priority tends to be getting the hands moving. If you have a lengthy discussion about systems each time a player is replaced then most players will not put up with it and will move to another table at which the pace is faster, even if that means making up the system as you go. That said, I am never entirely convinced by the "better them at bridge" brigade.

Part of what constitutes good and effective bridge is putting the opponents under stressful situations in the auction. By which I mean creating bidding situations in which the opponents are more likely to fall over. That in itself is skilful excersise deserving of reward when well executed.

To take a simple example, I have on occasion contested the auction over an opponent's Blackwood bid, in the hope (whether justified or not) that the opponents may come unstuck with their continuations. My competitive action may have been a risky choice and, rightly or wrongly, I may have judged that the potential reward justifies the risk. That evaluation may be materially adjusted in favour of an uncontested sequence if, at the time of making my call, I am aware that next hand opponent is going to tell his partner that double shows (eg) no aces. At the very least, if this is going to be permitted at the table it should be made clear at the outset, not when it happens.

To take a more complex case, you could have a contested auction that has gone around the table about 3 times at which point an opponent chooses to double. There may be any number of workable or sensible meanings for the double, and it is quite possible for a regular partnership to foul up the meaning. I would be uncomfortable about an opponent in a pickup partnership gaining an advantage over a regular partnership by discussing this meaning on the fly. Another element of skill is in not deliberately choosing actions that may be misconstrued by partner.

As a guide, I think that the earlier the situation arises in the auction, the more reasonable it is to expect a regular partnership to have an agreement and thence the more reasonable it is to allow a pickup partnership to agree on the fly. The cut-off point is rather vague, however. The more serious the event, the more important it is to stick to the rules. But by contrast, the less serious the event, the less it matters if a partnership has a system foul-up, and the less significant is the benefit of "beating them at bridge". So even though I allow opponents some latitude in this area I try not to take the opportunity myself.

[barmar]

1eyedjack, on Apr 9 2009, 02:55 AM, said:

Part of what constitutes good and effective bridge is putting the opponents under stressful situations in the auction. By which I mean creating bidding situations in which the opponents are more likely to fall over. That in itself is skilful excersise deserving of reward when well executed.

That's fine when playing against a regular partnership. They're expected to work on improving their agreements, and the test of this is how well they deal with the stuff you throw at them.

But no one expects this of a pick-up partnership. They're just trying to have fund for a few hands. There's already much uncertainty over how ostensibly "standard" bids will be interpreted, should they really have to guess whether they're playing regular Blackwood, RKCB 3014, or RKCB 1430?

I don't think anyone is really suggesting that this be allowed to an unlimited extent, though. For instance, I don't think anyone would allow something like "Do we play forcing pass in this auction?" Mostly, there are some common decisions that partnerships often make when filling out a convention card together; this process is often omitted when picking up a partner online, and the decisions deferred to when they first come up.

[peachy]

If at a tourney or indy, asking or telling partner IMO is improper as everyone else is in the same boat = not knowing exactly what the sys is, even if SAYC is the default. Open tables play, I think it is common courtesy to allow opponents to make agreements in the middle of auction. Makes the game faster and more fair. Much of the questions or tells are about what RKC or whether inverted minors etc.