[gnasher]

pigpenz, on 2012-July-21, 10:57, said:

asked East how they interpted the 2♦call and their answer was "just a bid".

East's answer seems quite sensible to me. If you ask an inappropriate question, you deserve to get a meaningless answer.

[barmar]

TimG, on 2012-July-23, 12:48, said:

"Natural" is an agreement. It might be useful to have a partnership agreement that in the absence of specific agreements, all calls are natural. But, that doesn't seem to be the case here (and is not what I would assume at the table). "Just a bid" says to me that there is no specific agreement or default agreement. "Just a bid" says "I'm going to use general bridge knowledge to try to figure out what is going on".

Maybe that's what you think it means, but not what the speaker meant. He might have meant that it's a natural bid, but just didn't know how to express it properly. People have all different ways of saying things like this, another common answer I've heard is "it's normal". This often comes up when an opponent surprises them with a question about a standard bid, usually because something in their hand makes them suspect it (e.g. a few days ago I opened a normal weak 2♥, and LHO looked at our CC and asked partner for an explanation, because he also had lots of hearts).

[TimG]

barmar, on 2012-July-23, 14:23, said:

Maybe that's what you think it means, but not what the speaker meant.

What did the speaker mean?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-July-23, 10:28, said:

But if you just keep saying "Please clarify", and they don't understand what's missing from their explanation, we'll never get anywhere. Is "Is it natural?" or "How many diamonds is he showing?" really so bad?


Why couldn't it mean "It's just a natural bid"?

I don't just keep saying that. I might say "please tell me everything you know from the auction about your partner's hand" or something similar.

It seems obvious from the various interpretations we've seen here that "just a bid" could mean several different things. In that case, it is clearly not adequate disclosure.

[aguahombre]

TimG, on 2012-July-23, 12:48, said:

"Just a bid" says to me that there is no specific agreement or default agreement. "Just a bid" says "I'm going to use general bridge knowledge to try to figure out what is going on".

If that is true, then the statement itself is UI to partner....telling him that you are going to make a hedge bid to allow for either natural or transfer, in addition to being a total attempt to disclose nothing to the opps.

[pigpenz]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-23, 15:57, said:

I don't just keep saying that. I might say "please tell me everything you know from the auction about your partner's hand" or something similar.

It seems obvious from the various interpretations we've seen here that "just a bid" could mean several different things. In that case, it is clearly not adequate disclosure.

isn't it also appropriate for the 2♦ bidder to alert the opening leader that there was a failure to alert?

[TimG]

TimG, on 2012-July-23, 12:48, said:

"Just a bid" says to me that there is no specific agreement or default agreement. "Just a bid" says "I'm going to use general bridge knowledge to try to figure out what is going on".

aguahombre, on 2012-July-23, 16:42, said:

If that is true, then the statement itself is UI to partner....telling him that you are going to make a hedge bid to allow for either natural or transfer, in addition to being a total attempt to disclose nothing to the opps.

"We have no partnership agreement" is not equivalent to "I'm going to make a hedge bid". "We have no partnership agreement" does mean that there will be reliance upon general bridge knowledge, but that doesn't always lead to a hedge.

But regardless of that, of course an answer to a question when there is no firm partnership understanding can lead to UI. Just like the failure to alert already may have.

[aguahombre]

Hmm, when did the OP change from "just a bid" to "we have no partnership understanding?"

[iviehoff]

StevenG, on 2012-July-23, 09:13, said:

As you say, it is extremely popular among weak players. Does that then not make these sequences GBK rather than CPUs?

There are many mistakes we know that weak players often make. It is GBK that they might make such a mistake. When one relies on the mistake having been made, that becomes an implicit agreement. In bidding, catering for the mistake is called "fielding". Even something done occasionally is disclosable. And consider it from the opponent's point of view too: 2D showing either diamonds or hearts is a tricky thing to bid against, especially if it hasn't been disclosed.

For example, playing once with an occasional partner whose card play is better than his bidding, and I was responder in this unopposed auction:
1N-2D*:2H-3D:pass.
The 4-2 diamond fit did not play well, but worse 4H was on ice.

One might diagnose this as saying that clearly there was no implicit agreement to play this convention, so partner was free to pass if he liked. Well certainly he was free to pass if thereby he got a cold bottom. But what was he doing by passing? He must have been in one of two frames of mind: either he suspected that we were playing the convention (even if only sometimes), or he was trying to cater for my possible misbid. Either way, that is not a permitted way to play bridge.

So this is not a legitimate tactic. I think we should adopt a name for it, something like "undisclosed telepathy", along the lines of the "unauthorised panic" name we have for a common UI offence that is otherwise time-consuming to analyse each time.

[StevenG]

iviehoff, on 2012-July-24, 06:55, said:

For example, playing once with an occasional partner whose card play is better than his bidding, and I was responder in this unopposed auction:
1N-2D*:2H-3D:pass.
The 4-2 diamond fit did not play well, but worse 4H was on ice.

I've seen this sequence very many times when a strong player plays with a weak one. Invariably the weak player thinks this sequence shows diamonds only, and that the message about having hearts is negated. This is normal bridge to that player and his peer group. You say it is a mistake, I say it is general bridge knowledge as to how weaker players are likely to understand the sequence. I'd also suggest that weaker players are in the majority in real life, so perhaps it is simple snobbery to call the majority approach to a sequence a "mistake".

[bluejak]

pigpenz, on 2012-July-21, 16:48, said:

so the ruling will be dependent upon the result?
I always thought regardless of the other hands there had to be a logical alternative
that a good player would make, say assuming 3♥ could be a cue bid for ♦'s
in most cases I thought 4♦ would still be a logical call for East.

While as others have pointed out it is not really relevant what LAs this player has, you did not say it was a good player - and mistakes over transfers are much more common with weak players. Many weak players do not really think of a bid like 3♥ as showing anything but hearts, so for many players 4♦ would not be a bid worth considering.

blackshoe, on 2012-July-21, 21:52, said:

IMO it is never appropriate to ask a leading question.

I think you often have to once the first [and no doubt appropriate ] question gets an unhelpful answer.

pigpenz, on 2012-July-23, 11:07, said:

Back in the 80's Bobby Wolff had several articles about what he was pushing called "ACTIVE ETHICS".
usually in some cases to situations like this.....partner opens 2♦(weak two) but his partner
responds to Flannery with a major suit call, partner now rebids 3♦.....ok get the drift.
where is the line drawn as to when you can catch...or does it all go back to committee someone always has UI in these cases.

You are referring to Convention Disruption, a pet idea of Bobby Wolff's. He only really meant it for top level play anyway, and the ideas are not accepted nowadays.

[iviehoff]

StevenG, on 2012-July-24, 07:05, said:

I've seen this sequence very many times when a strong player plays with a weak one. Invariably the weak player thinks this sequence shows diamonds only, and that the message about having hearts is negated. This is normal bridge to that player and his peer group. You say it is a mistake, I say it is general bridge knowledge as to how weaker players are likely to understand the sequence. I'd also suggest that weaker players are in the majority in real life, so perhaps it is simple snobbery to call the majority approach to a sequence a "mistake".

You misunderstand what I am calling a mistake. It is a mistake, because if it isn't a bidding mistake, it must be a legal mistake, eg, non-disclosure.

[RMB1]

We still haven't seen West's hand, but for some class of players 4♦ (re-transfer to 4♥) might be a logical alternative - then the auction may not recover.

[blackshoe]

Weak players don't even think about follow ons. When they learn a convention, they learn the first bid and maybe the first response to it. They don't go farther, it's too hard.

When a stronger player's weaker partner turns their agreement into some "two way" thing, I suppose technically the stronger player should alert and explain the two-way nature of his partner's bid. The downside, of course, is that the weaker player will be embarrassed and probably upset.

I would not want to hide behind "it's GBK" when a weaker partner does something like this.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2012-July-23, 20:13, said:

Hmm, when did the OP change from "just a bid" to "we have no partnership understanding?"

When we were forced to guess what "just a bid" means.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-23, 15:57, said:

I don't just keep saying that. I might say "please tell me everything you know from the auction about your partner's hand" or something similar.

That's what I meant by "keep saying" it -- I didn't mean to literally ask the same exact question, my point was that just asking for a general explanation isn't likely to clue this player in to what he's omitting. Someone who would say "just a bid" doesn't seem like he understands the concept of disclosure very well, he needs some prodding in the right direction.

[pigpenz]

ok thanks for all the info guys.
at the game I am the one with the most masterpoints whatever good that is
and used to be the District Recorder for this ACBL district.

Now is it my duty to tell the opponents
that they should warn.....there was a failure to alert?
or just forget about it?

or is it just beating a dead horse cause they probably don't even care anyway.

The TD would be of no help his level of expertise is not very high on both play and
laws....so calling the TD would accomplish nothing

At the table I asked my question and we went on with defending 4♥.

[gnasher]

pigpenz, on 2012-July-24, 10:04, said:

ok thanks for all the info guys.
at the game I am the one with the most masterpoints whatever good that is
and used to be the District Recorder for this ACBL district.

Now is it my duty to tell the opponents
that they should warn.....there was a failure to alert?
or just forget about it?

If you're there as a player, your duty is to play, not to lecture the opponents on the rules.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2012-July-24, 10:51, said:

If you're there as a player, your duty is to play, not to lecture the opponents on the rules.

Absolutely. I remember Jilly's thread which also brought home that point. It is a tough thing to practice at the club level. Some players strongly object, some players are eager to learn. The OP players don't seem to be in the second category, and absent a director with skills it is certainly best to dummy-up and just play.