[hotShot]

Take a short look at BBO - Standard , BBo - Advanced and the sayc booklet BBO-Sandard ans SAYC have no splinter bid , BBO-Advanced has.

So if agreed to play SAYC, you did not make an agreement to the
sequence 1 Major -> 4 minor.

I know people who have a 40+ pages system description, the SAYC booklet has 8 and BBO - Basic has only one screen.
Which of this descriptions do you think covers most cases?

Do you discuss with each of you online partners,
if after 1NT - dbl - 1♦ is transfer or not,
of if 1NT - dbl -2♣ - is still stayman?

Is 1 ♥ - 2 ♥
Any color

A long suit trial bid, a short suit trial bid, a game try or a game forcing ?

I don't think you do at BBO, you have a basic agreement and lots unclear sequences.
Most of the extreme results you see at the travelers are due to missunderstandings.

Even if you know the system perfectly, what makes you sure that the p you get from partnershipdesk or in an indy knows the system perfectly too.

So often you don't have an agreement, and you can say "We have no agreement".
Of cause you know your hand and should be able to describe this to your opps

If you play bridge 4 fun or with novices, you don't need all that Bridge Law stuff. You need it, if you play bridge at competitions. You can expect more than a little basic bridge know how there.

And if like in this case, someone knows enough bridge law to know that he can get an adjustment if opps hand does not fit the description, he should know at least know enough about bridge to know about judgement.

The true problem is, that a lot of TD's at BBO have only basic knowledge of the bridge laws (some have even none), and adjust scores, if players insist hard enough.

[epeeist]

hotShot, on Aug 18 2004, 07:22 PM, said:

Do you discuss with each of you online partners,
if after 1NT - dbl - 1♦ is transfer or not,
of if 1NT - dbl  -2♣ - is still stayman?

[excerpt only quoted]

I'll use one of the examples you gave (I assume you meant 2♦ after 1NT, not 1♦ ) as being the easiest:

Let's say bidding is 1NT - dbl - 2♦ - pass - 2♥ - all pass.

One opponent who has to make opening lead asks what 2♦ bid means, answer, "no agreement". Asks, "does it show ♦?" Answer, "no agreement". Asks other p what 2♥ means, answer "no agreement". Asks again, "does it show ♥?" Answer, "no agreement". Sends private message to both opponents "please explain, was 2♦ bid and 2♥ bid artificial transfer or something else", answer "no agreement". "Please explain bids or I'll have to call director." Answer, "no agreement".

Turns out the 2♦ bidder had 4 HCP but a 6-card ♥ suit (6-3-2-2 doubleton ♦), 1NT opener who rebid 2♥ had only a doubleton ♥.

Now, how believable would a director find it that 2♦ and 2♥ weren't a transfer sequence? "No, really, there was no agreement, I just happened to bid 2♦ with a 6-card ♥ suit and only 2♦ and when p bid 2♥, I just happened to pass it despite having 6-card support; and because I didn't know, with a moral certainty, that p would treat 2♦ as a transfer, nor did I know, with a moral certainty, that 2♥ was a transfer response, I was under no obligation to explain, despite the fact that my passing 2♥ with a 6-card suit suggests I knew it was a transfer response...". Assume also that knowing what the bidding meant would affect opening lead, and that on the hand it actually makes a difference to the result (and that opening leader can't deduce, from his own hand, whether or not 2♦ and 2♥ were natural or artificial).

That's very different from the situation in which one makes a bid which one genuinely _doesn't_ expect one's partner to understand (e.g. 1NT - pass - 6♣), presumably most partnerships the answer as to what 6♣ meant would be "no agreement".

[hotShot]

epeeist, on Aug 19 2004, 02:48 AM, said:

Let's say bidding is 1NT - dbl - 2♦ - pass - 2♥ - all pass.

One opponent who has to make opening lead asks what 2♦ bid means, answer, "no agreement". Asks, "does it show ♦?" Answer, "no agreement". Asks other p what 2♥ means, answer "no agreement". Asks again, "does it show ♥?" Answer, "no agreement". Sends private message to both opponents "please explain, was 2♦ bid and 2♥ bid artificial transfer or something else", answer "no agreement". "Please explain bids or I'll have to call director." Answer, "no agreement".

You made an agreement for a bidding sequence, that is not disturbed by the opponents.

If you think that in this sequence the system is "on", then you have to alert,
if you think the system is "off" you bid your ♥.

[twcho]

If you play with your pick up pd in BBO e.g., after the simple auction such as 1NT-(X)-2D?

Is 2D a transfer? I don't think there is a unique standard. Then shd the responder self alert his bid and explain his hand to the opp his hand while his pd is perfectly in dark? I don't think this treatment is fair either.

The opener has perfect right to pass or correct to 2H depends on his guess of the meaning of 2D bid. Both are perfectly legal bid.

So I am still regarding that the explanation "no agreement" is the most correct answer.

BTW, perhaps playing friendly match in BBO, the best way is the opener to ask publicly what is 2D. It is not fun for both sides if one side just win the bd because of opp's misunderstanding due to unfamiliar partnership.

[hrothgar]

epeeist, on Aug 19 2004, 01:02 AM, said:

Also, here's a link to a post by McBruce on these boards about the principle of coincidence:

http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...=15&#entry21987

To the extent there is any conflict between the laws of bridge and the BBO rules, the BBO rules apply (just like if a particular tournament's rules states "no psyches" that is the rule no matter what the laws of bridge say).

The "Principle of Coincidence" does not exist.

Even the ACBL has given up on this one.

[jtfanclub]

twcho, on Aug 19 2004, 04:15 AM, said:

If you play with your pick up pd in BBO e.g., after the simple auction such as 1NT-(X)-2D?

Is 2D a transfer? I don't think there is a unique standard. Then shd the responder self alert his bid and explain his hand to the opp his hand while his pd is perfectly in dark? I don't think this treatment is fair either.

Had that happen in one of my tournaments today. After thinking about it for at least a second, I agreed with the opponents that the 2D bid needed to be alerted, and allowed them to throw in a 'phantom' lead-directing double. Which actually hurt the doublers, but never mind that.

When you make an alertable bid, and your partner fields it as an alertable bid, how can you possibly show that your partner was guessing? It's like bidding a psyche and your partner fielding it without any evidence that you weren't psyching. Is it possible that you don't have some undisclosed agreement or cheating method? Sure. Are you going to be able to convince me? Hell no.

Think of it in the reverse. Some guy won't alert any of his bids or give info. And they're strange bids, like opening 1♣ with a singleton club and 18 hcp, which sounds suspiciously like a strong club. And his partner mysteriously manages to field these bids. And when the opps call the TD the guy claims that hey, he's just bidding and hoping his partner guesses right, he's never seen the guy before, honest!

If you're going to allow people to not explain bids with the excuse that their partner might not know, you may as well get rid of alerts. After all, how exactly are you going to prove that his partner knew it?

[helene_t]

The rules for ACBL tournaments at BBO put it very clearly: whenever in doubt, alert. This should apply to all online bridge. Of course, a transfer should be alerted if RHO doubled or if p overcalled 1NT. Actually, transfers should probably always be alerted.

But many tournaments at BBO specify that all artificial calls must be alerted. I'm not sure if a t/o double is considered artificial but Stayman certainly is. As is Blackwood.

It's true that you don't have to alert and explain on the basis of your general bridge knowledge. For example, you don't have to explain that a 3rd seat preempt carries less information than a 2nd seat preempt. But if you agreed with p to play, say, 2/1, you must alert all calls that have a different mening in 2/1 than in "standard" (whatever that means). I'm not sure how much an agreement has to diverge from "standard" in order to be alertable (I would, for example, not alert a 1♦-opening that guaranteed a 4-card although in SAYC it can be a 3-card). But still: whenever in doubt, alert.

[luke warm]

twcho, on Aug 18 2004, 04:54 AM, said:

Quote

hotshot, i'm pretty sure you're wrong in your interpretation of the rules... assume online bridge for a moment... if your partner opens 1S and you bid 3S and an op asks you privately what that bid means, what do you say? this is assuming a pick up partner with whom there was no prior agreement ...

As there are different ways to treat the 3S bid, you are using it with your own risk without prior agreement with your pick up pd. So why must you tell your opp what is the meaning of this bid? Your pd is also guessing. So your correct answer should be and definitely should be "no agreement".

do what you think right... as for me, if that situation came up i'd bid 3S, alert it, and explain "preemptive"... you can argue all you want that the opps don't deserve to know, but i believe they do...