[Creeksider]

This is a question of etiquette/expectations/ethics. In a pickup game in the MBC or RBC, it's typical to start playing without more knowledge of partner's bidding than can be gleaned from a quick glance at partner's profile. Then you find yourself in a situation where a gross misunderstanding is possible. For example, 2♦ in response to a 1NT opener: transfer or natural? Or which version of Blackwood are you using? Some players will convey this information in chat to the table so that partner and opponents know what's intended. That makes sense to me: it seems pointless to play impossible contracts merely because new partners haven't taken the time to agree on some fundamentals. On occasions when I've seen people use this practice I've not seen any objections from opponents.

On the other hand, I've seen situations where people seemed to be abusing the practice. For example, someone might be in a situation where it would be convenient to treat a bid as natural even though the bid would normally be conventional -- and solve the problem by making the bid and announcing it as natural.

I'd be interested in comments on what explanations if any should be acceptable in these pickup games. My tentative take is that this mode of communication should be acceptable for any issues that would necessarily be part of a basic partnership agreement, so that people can start playing without the unreasonable delay that would be required to resolve these issues. What do you think?

[Vampyr]

What I do when playing with strangers is load a standard card and insist on playing exactly what is written on it, no more and no less. But I play on OKBridge, so I don't know the situation on BBO -- do the pre-loaded (SAYC, 2/1) cards have enough information to get by on?

[Gerardo]

Suffer it, set record straight from there (yes, I eat my own dogfood).

[Rain]

Quote

What I do when playing with strangers is load a standard card and insist on playing exactly what is written on it, no more and no less. But I play on OKBridge, so I don't know the situation on BBO -- do the pre-loaded (SAYC, 2/1) cards have enough information to get by on?

If they actually preload a card, they are usually more prepared partnerships than the ones described. Pugs never seem to load up any CC.
There are stock convention cards on BBO that we call "full disclosure" convention cards. These auto alert and makes alerts visible to everyone, not just the opponents. There are also stock CC that are not "full disclosure" convention cards. These would be like ordinary CC. I have not observed pugs using either type of CC often.

Creeksider's theoretical situation is not as common as the other 2 main groups I've seen. Most common - don't say a single word type. (Makes me wonder whether they know how to "chat".) 2nd most common - as ethical as pickups can be, does things rightly, alert-wise.

And if I were to meet Creeksider's example players, I wouldn't do anything active. Life is too short. But I'll play even more with robots than I already do. :-s

[diana_eva]

Creeksider, on 2011-February-10, 09:48, said:

This is a question of etiquette/expectations/ethics. In a pickup game in the MBC or RBC, it's typical to start playing without more knowledge of partner's bidding than can be gleaned from a quick glance at partner's profile. Then you find yourself in a situation where a gross misunderstanding is possible. For example, 2♦ in response to a 1NT opener: transfer or natural? Or which version of Blackwood are you using? Some players will convey this information in chat to the table so that partner and opponents know what's intended. That makes sense to me: it seems pointless to play impossible contracts merely because new partners haven't taken the time to agree on some fundamentals. On occasions when I've seen people use this practice I've not seen any objections from opponents.

On the other hand, I've seen situations where people seemed to be abusing the practice. For example, someone might be in a situation where it would be convenient to treat a bid as natural even though the bid would normally be conventional -- and solve the problem by making the bid and announcing it as natural.

I'd be interested in comments on what explanations if any should be acceptable in these pickup games. My tentative take is that this mode of communication should be acceptable for any issues that would necessarily be part of a basic partnership agreement, so that people can start playing without the unreasonable delay that would be required to resolve these issues. What do you think?

I think your approach is very reasonable. In pickup games people often ask about bids on the table and it's generally accepted. A good way to go about it is to try and agree upon the basics when you sit at the table: "sayc basic ok p?" (for example). If no answer, just go with the flow, and maybe stop to ask "transfer, p?" when you're not sure. But if your random partner did not bother to answer your first question, very likely he wont answer the next questions either. Check your partner's profile - sometimes they have useful info there. If you get no answer on chat, assume he plays his own profile.

You are definitely right that it's not normal to play absurd contracts just because you have no agreements. And if your opponents refuse to accept chat about bids, just find another table. Most people realize this is pickup game protocol and have no problem with it.