[bobade]

Playing in an ACBL Speedball Pairs tournament on BBO against opponents who classify themselves as "expert" and "diamond life master", I held:

♠ QJ92
♥ J7
♦ A64
♣ J732

The auction (RHO dealer):

P - P (me) - P - 1D
P - 1S (me) - 2H - P
P - X (me) - P - 3C

At this point, I was asked (by clicking on my bid) to explain the double. My explanation: "No Conventional Meaning." (Incidentally, we are playing Hardy-style 2/1, with negative, support and responsive doubles.) RHO refused to bid and called the director. Ultimately, time expired before this could be sorted out, and the director gave us an average minus.

For what it's worth, my intentions with the double were flexible; to allow partner to pass if he had strength in their suit (which seemed possible based on the auction, since an immediate double by partner would be a support double), to rebid his diamond suit if it was more than 4 pieces, or to show a club suit. The double was neither specifically for penalty or takeout.

Putting aside the intelligence (or lack therof) of my double, the question is: should I be explaining to the opponents my intended meaning when I doubled, in a situation where we have no partnership understanding about this particular situation? It seemed to be the contention of the opponents and the director that I should be providing additional information, but that position does not seem to be consistent with the only two explanations I can find on the BBO site for alerts:

Under help: "A polite opponent will always make sure he alerts all conventional bids or calls. These conventions should also be explained when asked. Please remember: The NAME of a convention is not an explanation. So 1s-P-2nt should not be explained as 'Jacoby' but should be explained as 'strong spade raise' or any other complete explanation (X number of points, X number of spades). Although you may not be able to understand why the "expert" opponent you are playing against doesn't know what Jacoby 2NT is, trust me, it happens. Explain your conventional bids by what they mean, not by what they're named."

Under Rules of This Site: "The management of BBO is not going to get involved with trying to make rules in this area. It is up to our members to try their best to provide their opponents with information that may be helpful to them. Always remember that it is against the laws and spirit of the game of bridge to conceal information about your partnership agreements from your opponents. The BBO software is designed so that players alert their own bids. This is called "self-alerting" and it is opposite to the approach that is used in live bridge clubs and tournaments. If you have any doubt as to whether one of your bids should be alerted or not, it is appropriate to alert. If an opponent asks you for the meaning of one of your bids, you are expected to answer them politely, even if you think the answer is obvious. An appropriate answer can be "I have never discussed this with my partner". You do not have to tell the opponents how you intend your bid - only what you have agreed with your partner. It is innapropriate to use chat to explain your bids to your partner unless you get permission from the opponents first."

I realize that difference in format between BBO and face-to-face duplicate requires a different alert mechanism. Certainly, we should all do everything possible to make our conventional understandings available to the opponents. However requiring a player to provide information to the opponents about his or her thought process (separate from conventional agreements) seems wrong in many ways (to list a few): 1) It devalues the learning many of us have accomplished through study and play; 2) It provides the opponents with information not available to partner; and 3) It invites "fishing" for additional information, slowing down the game. Hardly appropriate for a speedball.

If this issue has already been thoroughly aired out in this forum - I apologize. Alerts, and provision of information, is an important enough topic to deserve comprehensive treatment on the help pages, if we are expected to do more than load a convention card and inform our opponents about conventional understandings.

[barmar]

You don't need to alert your bid, but you DO need to explain it when asked. It was takeout, right? So enter "takeout" in the explanation box.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2011-November-21, 20:27, said:

You don't need to alert your bid, but you DO need to explain it when asked. It was takeout, right? So enter "takeout" in the explanation box.

I hate "me too" posts, but we cannot upvote yellows, so here it is.

Explanations are not the same as alerts. You must explain a bid when asked whether it is alertable or not.

[barmar]

And the only kind of response you can legally give that doesn't actually explain the meaning is "no agreement", which you can only give if you really have no agreement about the bid. You still have to explain even if you think it's something standard (maybe the opponent is from a country where your "standard" meaning is not so common). "No conventional agreement" is not a good answer.

BTW, takeout doubles are conventions (they're not natural). I guess what you meant to say was that your conventional agreement is the standard one, or "no unusual agreement".

[paulg]

Although you may not have an explicit agreement, you know that partner cannot double for penalties and that any double by you is almost certainly just "values, competing". I feel that you have an implicit partnership agreement that would be common amongst most tournament ACBL players. It's not alertable but I do not understand why you would fail to disclose this.

I don't really understand why RHO's behaviour either - just get on with the game and ask for an adjustment later. Why lose a board?

[bobade]

Thanks for the concise language, Paul, which addresses the issue of how to explain a complex issue in a small text box under speedball conditions.

But what if my hand also included strength in the opponents suit, and I was hoping that partner elected to leave the double in. Would I need to disclose that, as well?

In this case, once the opponents were informed that the double did not represent convention (or partnership agreement), they must have been asking if it was a penalty double. If my intent must be disclosed to the opponents, shouldn't it also be disclosed to partner?

The bigger, more important issues about disclosing bidding rationale (excluding conventions and partnership agreements):

Does BBO really want a policy in which any such bid requires an explanation, when asked?
If so, shouldn't the information be available to everyone at the table?

[Vampyr]

paulg, on 2011-November-22, 03:16, said:

I don't really understand why RHO's behaviour either - just get on with the game and ask for an adjustment later. Why lose a board?

How can you "get on with the game" when you don't know what the auction to date has meant? What are you supposed to bid?

[aguahombre]

Values to compete, not specific about shape. I really dislike lumping all doubles into "takeout" or "penalty" ---just as much as I dislike other names when used in explanations. Nevertheless, some form of further explanation would have been better than stubbornly sticking to your guns.

[Vampyr]

bobade, on 2011-November-22, 11:42, said:

Does BBO really want a policy in which any such bid requires an explanation, when asked?

Yes, because it is required by the Laws of Bridge.

Quote

If so, shouldn't the information be available to everyone at the table?

No, because it is prohibited by the Laws of Bridge.

[bobade]

This is what is written the in ACBL Laws of Duplicate Bridge, 2008 version:

Section 20.1.F
"1. During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding."

However, the issue I am raising has to do with asking for information which is not a matter of partnership understanding.

Vampyr, do you have any documentation for your assertions?

[paulg]

paulg, on 2011-November-22, 03:16, said:

I don't really understand why RHO's behaviour either - just get on with the game and ask for an adjustment later. Why lose a board?

Vampyr, on 2011-November-22, 11:44, said:

How can you "get on with the game" when you don't know what the auction to date has meant? What are you supposed to bid?

You've been told that there is no partnership agreement about an unalerted call. Time to move on.

[paulg]

bobade, on 2011-November-22, 11:42, said:

Thanks for the concise language, Paul, which addresses the issue of how to explain a complex issue in a small text box under speedball conditions.

But what if my hand also included strength in the opponents suit, and I was hoping that partner elected to leave the double in. Would I need to disclose that, as well?

There is a big difference between 'hoping' and 'expecting'.

"values, competing" is acceptable for 'hoping' he will leave it in; "values, penalty-oriented" is more appropriate when partner is expected to leave the double in.

[barmar]

paulg, on 2011-November-22, 13:26, said:

You've been told that there is no partnership agreement about an unalerted call. Time to move on.

Except that what he was told was not an appropriate response. "No conventional agreement" is not the same as "no agreement".

For instance, if you open 2♦ and don't alert, most players will assume it's a weak 2. But some players may come from places where multi or other artificial 2♦ bids are common, or may be worried that you're from one of those places and forgot to alert, so they'll ask. You should say something like "weak 2", or even be more complete with "6+♦, 5-10 HCP". But it would be improper to say "No special agreement".

[Vampyr]

bobade, on 2011-November-22, 13:15, said:

However, the issue I am raising has to do with asking for information which is not a matter of partnership understanding.

Vampyr, do you have any documentation for your assertions?

What you quoted will do.

Are you really certain that partner had no basis upon which to interpret your double? That he would have been completely bewildered and have to make a random guess? Were there not, for instance, inferences available from the fact that your partner's double would have been support? (I assume you at least told them that).

[bobade]

One of the many challenges of bridge is figuring out how to describe your hand using the limited bridge vocabulary. As we study and play more we become less bewildered and less dependent on random guess; i.e. we learn how to bid. Partnership understandings are a valuable part of the descriptive process, and should be explained - alerted in fact. I suspect that many of us recreational players encounter situations, particularly in competitive bidding, where a bid needs to be chosen, or an opponents bid needs to be interpreted, outside of specific partnership understandings. The frequency of these competitive situations makes mastery of them critical to success at the table.

When I decide to make a competitive bid (with no partnership understanding), hoping to best convey my hand to partner, I am the only one at the table who knows for sure what my bid represents. In my opinion, the essence of bridge is individuals' and partnerships' skill at interpretation limited to the permissible bridge vocabulary. I do not think that the reasoning process of bid selection should be verbalized until the hand has been completed. However, if BBO wants players to explain their bidding rationale, outside of partnership understandings, then everyone at the table should have equal opportunity to hear the explanation.

[aguahombre]

A big plus for that second paragraph, and the careful wording/thought which went into it. But, I still think the OP situation became a pissing contest which could have been avoided by both sides.

[Free]

Is it really asking too much to just explain the Dbl as "optional", "values", "do something smart partner" or something similar? "No conventional meaning" is no explanation, since Doubles are almost always conventional. What is a standard meaning of Double anyway? Is it penalty? These days nobody knows anymore.

This is pathetic imo, a well deserved AVE-.

[mycroft]

"no conventional meaning." So, it's penalty? That's the "natural" meaning for a double.

No, you meant it as "values", or "do something intelligent, partner", or "takeout". If you would have done it with QJxx Axx Jx Jxxx as well, "values" sounds good, or "maximum pass". You know what you think it means *to your partner*, so explain when asked. Explain what you would explain if partner did it in RL, where "partner explains" is the rule.

"General bridge knowledge" is the "out" for people who think they don't have to explain things to opponents. It doesn't mean what they think it means, especially in a world-wide game.

I happen to think this particular situation is a little odd, because this is (in ACBL general Flight A world) "generally known" to be a values double. But having said that, I have agreements with my partners that "doubles at the 2 level that aren't covered by other agreements are primarily takeout" - and I need to tell the opponents that. You may not, with this person; but if you expected partner to "get it", then you have to tell the opponents what you expect partner to "get". Not what you have in your hand - but what you think you're saying to partner.

[Elianna]

bobade, on 2011-November-22, 20:11, said:

When I decide to make a competitive bid (with no partnership understanding), hoping to best convey my hand to partner, I am the only one at the table who knows for sure what my bid represents. In my opinion, the essence of bridge is individuals' and partnerships' skill at interpretation limited to the permissible bridge vocabulary. I do not think that the reasoning process of bid selection should be verbalized until the hand has been completed. However, if BBO wants players to explain their bidding rationale, outside of partnership understandings, then everyone at the table should have equal opportunity to hear the explanation.

Saying "no conventional meaning", is very different than "undiscussed" (or "no partnership agreement"). I would interpret the first as either "it doesn't have a conventional (usually take-out) meaning" but the second as "I want it to mean something, but haven't discussed it with partner, so he's going to guess as much as you are". I think that the first does not seem to cover the situation you describe, and the second is closer, but it sounds like you might expect that partner knows (and so it is up to you to decide what is ethically valid to state).

I know that it may seem that we're piling up on you, and I'm sorry if I'm adding to that. I just wanted to point out that sometimes it's valid to say that you and your partner have not discussed something (although then some may say that perhaps you shouldn't be bidding it, but that's an argument for a different thread) but that saying "no conventional meaning" does not get that particular point across.