[Brandal]

Gerardo, on Mar 17 2005, 05:33 PM, said:

Brandal, playing online (or f2f with screens) is not different to play f2f without screen about how a bid should be explained (just by whom).

So, assume you're playing f2f and your partner is asked about one of your bids. What would your partner answer to that question? That's what you should say, not more, not less.

Well I for one would be very surprised if he
said no agreement,anything but that



he would try his best to tell opps what I am supposed
to have,as I do self alerting online

[cheech]

I think the key issue here is how much information are your opponents entitled to. As much as your partner has, or more. In cases where the partnership is eshtablished, there will be very few situations in which partner is in the dark about how a bid is intended (though I must admit, even with my regular partner there are occaisions where I'm not entirely sure what is meant). With scratch partnerships, however, there will be many situations where partner is at a guess as to the strength (or length) promised by a particular bid, and it seems unfair to me (and clearly to quite a few others) that opponents should get this information when partner does not. It seems to me, in these situations, a person should be able to reply "no agreement", but opps should be able to ask partner how they were taking it, so opps get the benefit of partner's judgement, and any inferences available from the nature of the system played (for instance, playing acol, I might be able to more accurately judge the nature of my partner's bid than a sayc player who was not familiar with acol).

[TimG]

inquiry, on Mar 17 2005, 04:10 PM, said:

The reason is that CONVENTIONAL bids have to be alerted. If I bid JACOBY, my pickup partner might mistakenly pass, but that does not lift my requirement to alert. On the other hand, if I bid 3♣, and I ahve clubs (so it is natural), the only question is how much do I have for this natural bid. I don't have to alert, and if asked, if I have no agreement, that is how I will explain it.

Well then, you should have said "alertable" instead of "conventional".

If you alert your Jacoby and the next player asks for an explanation, do you say: "We have no agreement"? If not, how is this different from when the opponent asks about your non-alertable bid for which you have no agreement?

I would also suggest that you only have to alert partnership agreements. So, if you try a non-discussed Jacoby, and you contend that non-discussed means no agreement and thus no disclosure, then you are technically not supposed to alert it.

[TimG]

Brandal, on Mar 17 2005, 05:22 PM, said:

maybe it's wrong wrong wrong wrong BUT
I just don't hide behind "no agreement".

I think you are to be commended for this.

[the hog]

"I think you are to be commended for this. "

Well, yes, Tim while I agree, there is the issue of when there really is no agreement. Ftf we had this sequence:

1D (2H) 2N (P)
3S

My 2N was Leb and pd is systemically forced to bid 3C. So what is 3S? It never came up before. My rho asked what this means. Well we do have no agreement, so I am hardly "hiding" behind this comment. I can make a bridge judgement call as to what 3S means, but that is based on my bridge knowledge and not on any discussion I have had with partner, and so this is not something I need to share with them.

Yes, the opps were not happy with my "No agreement", particularly when my judgement call proved to be correct., but tough luck.

[cherdano]

The_Hog, on Mar 18 2005, 02:24 AM, said:

"I think you are to be commended for this. "

Well, yes, Tim while I agree, there is the issue of when there really is no agreement. Ftf we had this sequence:

1D (2H) 2N (P)
3S

My 2N was Leb and pd is systemically forced to bid 3C. So what is 3S? It never came up before. My rho asked what this means. Well we do have no agreement, so I am hardly "hiding" behind this comment. I can make a bridge judgement call as to what 3S means, but that is based on my bridge knowledge and not on any discussion I have had with partner, and so this is not something I need to share with them.

Yes, the opps were not happy with my "No agreement", particularly when my judgement call proved to be correct., but tough luck.

You see, this is very borderline. There is a standard meaning of breaking the transfer in Lebensohl situations (strong game-forcing hand). Now you and your partner may both have seen Lebensohl transfers broken before, and since you and your partner more likely have similar bridge experience than you and one of your opponents, you two are more likley to understand each other in this case than opponents.

If I sat down with you at the table, and we would just have agreed "Lebensohl" in this situation, it would never occur to me to answer "no agreement" if an opponent asked about this bid.

Arend

[the hog]

Arend, I should have mentioned that we play a big C system and therefore pd will be limited to 15. That does make a difference, as he could not have a very strong hand - sorry for the omission.

[cherdano]

I think your explanation would be absolutely fine sitting opposite experienced players who are familiar with Lebensohl, and know a bit about your general opening style. Opposite less experienced players, or players coming from a universe without Lebensohl, IMHO the following comes closer to full disclosure (assuming it is right, of course):

Quote

We haven't discussed this particular sequence. Normally, in Lebensohl situations this shows a big game-forcing hand. Since partner is limited to 15hcp, this doesn't make much sense here. Note however that he could still have a 2-suiter with lots of playing strength, which we usually don't upgrade to 1♣. Also, we have agreed that in doubt all bids are natural, so I am pretty sure 3♠ shows spades.

Anything else puts you in a better position to guess the meaning of 3♠ than opponents.

I think the WBF somewhere has the formulation that you don't need to explain general bridge knowledge, but you MUST disclose any implicit agreement that could be based on experience shared with your partner (which could just be that you both read the same bridge magazines).

The line between general bridge knowledge and (possibly) shared experience with your partner is a fine one, and I think one should be careful not to push it.

[TimG]

The_Hog, on Mar 17 2005, 09:24 PM, said:

"I think you are to be commended for this. "

Well, yes, Tim while I agree, there is the issue of when there really is no agreement. Ftf we had this sequence:

1D (2H)  2N  (P)
3S

My 2N was Leb and pd is systemically forced to bid 3C. So what is 3S? It never came up before. My rho asked what this means. Well we do have no agreement, so I am hardly "hiding" behind this comment. I can make a bridge judgement call as to what 3S means, but that is based on my bridge knowledge and not on any discussion I have had with partner, and so this is not something I need to share with them.

I would contend that the basis for your "guess" is at least in part based upon your agreement to play lebehsohl rather than on any general bridge knowledge. But,

There is a big difference between being asked to explain your partner's call (as is usually the case in FTF bridge) and being asked to explain your own call (which is the norm in online bridge). "We have no agreement" is often appropriate in FTF bridge where you are left to figure out what your partner intends. But, when explaining your own bids, there's never any guess about what you intend. (Well, if the "what do you bid" threads on this forum are any indication, some people actually don't know what they intend! )

Part of the trouble, I believe, is in trying to duplicate the ftf environment where partner answers the questions regarding my calls. I think partner explaining the calls is actually a compromise put in place for FTF play in order to reduce the amount of unauthorized information. In a perfect world, the person who makes the call would also do the explaining since he knows exactly what the intent (presumed agreement) is, but his partner would not hear the explanation in order to avoid the possibility of UI. Online is that perfect world.

[mycroft]

The_Hog, on Mar 18 2005, 05:17 AM, said:

Arend, I should have mentioned that we play a big C system and therefore pd will be limited to 15. That does make a difference, as he could not have a very strong hand - sorry for the omission.

I know from knowing Lebensohl that breaking the (potentially weak with clubs) puppet means "I have a hand too [good|strange] for you to pass 3C. Also, I don't mind you bidding 4D with a bad hand with diamonds as best fit." That usually means "reverse strength" to me.

I know from playing strong Club systems that non 1C reverses are most likely extreme shape hands - 14 HCP 5S-6D and the like.

So I have a pretty good idea what your partner has.

You have all of that information, *and* you also know better than I what reverses show in your partnership, and what it takes for a strong, distributional hand to be upgraded to 1C *in your partnership*.

Your opponents, who may neither play Lebensohl nor have never really understood how a limited opener system works, *don't have that information* - it's not "general bridge knowledge", it's knowledge of the system you play and the convention you play. In particular, they don't necessarily know that a very likely outcome of the normal auction is that you are going to pass 3C opposite a potential void.

"Alert" "We have no explicit agreement about this auction, but I know he doesn't want to play 3C even if I have a bad hand with clubs. In Standard, this would show great strength, but he's still limited to 15 high. I'm not sure what is happening in this case, but our reverses show 5-5 at least and a maximum - say 12+ in the two suits, or 15, with 10 in the suits."

No lies, no "guesses", just information about your system and the convention that you know and your opponents may not.

[luis]

TimG, on Mar 18 2005, 03:24 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Mar 17 2005, 09:24 PM, said:

"I think you are to be commended for this. "

Well, yes, Tim while I agree, there is the issue of when there really is no agreement. Ftf we had this sequence:

1D (2H)  2N  (P)
3S

My 2N was Leb and pd is systemically forced to bid 3C. So what is 3S? It never came up before. My rho asked what this means. Well we do have no agreement, so I am hardly "hiding" behind this comment. I can make a bridge judgement call as to what 3S means, but that is based on my bridge knowledge and not on any discussion I have had with partner, and so this is not something I need to share with them.

I would contend that the basis for your "guess" is at least in part based upon your agreement to play lebehsohl rather than on any general bridge knowledge. But,

There is a big difference between being asked to explain your partner's call (as is usually the case in FTF bridge) and being asked to explain your own call (which is the norm in online bridge). "We have no agreement" is often appropriate in FTF bridge where you are left to figure out what your partner intends. But, when explaining your own bids, there's never any guess about what you intend. (Well, if the "what do you bid" threads on this forum are any indication, some people actually don't know what they intend! )

Part of the trouble, I believe, is in trying to duplicate the ftf environment where partner answers the questions regarding my calls. I think partner explaining the calls is actually a compromise put in place for FTF play in order to reduce the amount of unauthorized information. In a perfect world, the person who makes the call would also do the explaining since he knows exactly what the intent (presumed agreement) is, but his partner would not hear the explanation in order to avoid the possibility of UI. Online is that perfect world.

Gee, the WBF should publish some kind of booklet about alerting with screens and that is the rule that we have to use when self-alerting online.
I'm too tired to explain that it's unlawful to say what you have.
In fact when a bid is not alerted then there's nothing to ask about since all the bids that carry some meaning either by explicit or implicit agreement must be alerted. That's why I think that 99.99% of the non-alerted bids when asked should answer "no agreement" or "natural" because there's no conventional meaning.

Somehow some players requiere others to explain what they have and somehow some players think they are ethical by telling their opponents what they have I think those players should be punished with procedural penalties as if they were helping or showing their cards inentionally to their opponents.

[TimG]

Quote

I'm too tired to explain that it's unlawful to say what you have.

After you've gotten some rest, please try to explain how it is unlawful to explain what your presumed agreements are or what you intend to show with your call. Make sure to reference the specific Laws, please.

Quote

In fact when a bid is not alerted then there's nothing to ask about since all the bids that carry some meaning either by explicit or implicit agreement must be alerted. That's why I think that 99.99% of the non-alerted bids when asked should answer "no agreement" or "natural" because there's no conventional meaning.

You've got to be kidding. When I open 2♥, I don't alert. Might you be interested in the range or the style? Wouldn't you ask if you were interested? And, wouldn't you be rather annoyed if the answer I gave was: "natural"?

Quote

Somehow some players requiere others to explain what they have

Not what they have, what they've shown (or tried to show). There's a big difference between telling the opponents that your weak two-bids show 3 of the top 5 honors and telling them that you hold KJT. I have never suggested that anyone should tell the opponents their exact holding, let alone that they should be required to give this information.

Quote

and somehow some players think they are ethical by telling their opponents what they have  I think those players should be punished with procedural penalties as if they were helping or showing their cards inentionally to their opponents.

Again, you'll have to reference the specific Law if you're going to convince me that full disclosure, even over-disclosure, is un-Lawful.

Tim

[luis]

Quote

I'm too tired to explain that it's unlawful to say what you have.
After you've gotten some rest, please try to explain how it is unlawful to explain what your presumed agreements are or what you intend to show with your call. Make sure to reference the specific Laws, please.

75-C
When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience.

Quote

In fact when a bid is not alerted then there's nothing to ask about since all the bids that carry some meaning either by explicit or implicit agreement must be alerted. That's why I think that 99.99% of the non-alerted bids when asked should answer "no agreement" or "natural" because there's no conventional meaning.
You've got to be kidding. When I open 2♥, I don't alert. Might you be interested in the range or the style? Wouldn't you ask if you were interested? And, wouldn't you be rather annoyed if the answer I gave was: "natural"?

When you open 2♥ I guess you do have an agreement with pd so you must alert. If I ask about style "natural" is not an answer. I think what I've said was quite clear, if you don't have agreed the meaning of some bid with your pd then there's no alert and there's nothing to explain about the bid.

Quote

nd somehow some players think they are ethical by telling their opponents what they have  I think those players should be punished with procedural penalties as if they were helping or showing their cards inentionally to their opponents.
Again, you'll have to reference the specific Law if you're going to convince me that full disclosure, even over-disclosure, is un-Lawful.

I think this is not over-disclosure it's just showing cards to your opponents, I can't find a specific law saying that you should play to win and not to lose but if you play to lose I think you can be suspended or something. Telling the opponents what you have is playing to lose. Of course for beginers this will only merit a warning and an explanation of the proper procedure.

Full disclosure of agreements is one thing, explaining what you have for each bid is something entirely different. As Ben said you are giving unfair advantage to your oppoents compared to the field so it must be a violation of the conditions of contest.

[TimG]

luis, on Mar 18 2005, 02:22 PM, said:

Quote

Quote

I'm too tired to explain that it's unlawful to say what you have.

After you've gotten some rest, please try to explain how it is unlawful to explain what your presumed agreements are or what you intend to show with your call. Make sure to reference the specific Laws, please.

75-C
When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience.

Nothing in Law 75-C limits what I may disclose; "need not" does not equal "may not". Even if I am not required to disclose what I believe to be general bridge knowledge, nothing in this law bars me from such disclosure. But, we're not even talking about general bridge knowledge, we're talking about implied or presumed agreements and intended meanings.

[Brandal]

luis, on Mar 18 2005, 01:03 PM, said:

TimG, on Mar 18 2005, 03:24 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Mar 17 2005, 09:24 PM, said:

"I think you are to be commended for this. "

Well, yes, Tim while I agree, there is the issue of when there really is no agreement. Ftf we had this sequence:

1D (2H)  2N  (P)
3S

My 2N was Leb and pd is systemically forced to bid 3C. So what is 3S? It never came up before. My rho asked what this means. Well we do have no agreement, so I am hardly "hiding" behind this comment. I can make a bridge judgement call as to what 3S means, but that is based on my bridge knowledge and not on any discussion I have had with partner, and so this is not something I need to share with them.

I would contend that the basis for your "guess" is at least in part based upon your agreement to play lebehsohl rather than on any general bridge knowledge. But,

There is a big difference between being asked to explain your partner's call (as is usually the case in FTF bridge) and being asked to explain your own call (which is the norm in online bridge). "We have no agreement" is often appropriate in FTF bridge where you are left to figure out what your partner intends. But, when explaining your own bids, there's never any guess about what you intend. (Well, if the "what do you bid" threads on this forum are any indication, some people actually don't know what they intend! )

Part of the trouble, I believe, is in trying to duplicate the ftf environment where partner answers the questions regarding my calls. I think partner explaining the calls is actually a compromise put in place for FTF play in order to reduce the amount of unauthorized information. In a perfect world, the person who makes the call would also do the explaining since he knows exactly what the intent (presumed agreement) is, but his partner would not hear the explanation in order to avoid the possibility of UI. Online is that perfect world.

Gee, the WBF should publish some kind of booklet about alerting with screens and that is the rule that we have to use when self-alerting online.
I'm too tired to explain that it's unlawful to say what you have.
In fact when a bid is not alerted then there's nothing to ask about since all the bids that carry some meaning either by explicit or implicit agreement must be alerted. That's why I think that 99.99% of the non-alerted bids when asked should answer "no agreement" or "natural" because there's no conventional meaning.

Somehow some players requiere others to explain what they have and somehow some players think they are ethical by telling their opponents what they have I think those players should be punished with procedural penalties as if they were helping or showing their cards inentionally to their opponents.

You scare me


Is it unlawful to selfalert "6card 6-11hcp" if I open
2H with someone I never met before?

[TimG]

Brandal, on Mar 18 2005, 03:04 PM, said:

Is it unlawful to selfalert "6card 6-11hcp" if I open
2H with someone I never met before?

Not only that, but luis is going to slap you with a procedural penalty!

[luis]

TimG, on Mar 18 2005, 08:20 PM, said:

Brandal, on Mar 18 2005, 03:04 PM, said:

Is it unlawful to selfalert "6card 6-11hcp" if I open
2H with someone I never met before?

Not only that, but luis is going to slap you with a procedural penalty!

Exactly. The example is a clear MI case, you are giving your opponents information that your pd doesn't have. I don't know if you can understand this but you are saying you have an agreement that you don't have so your pd may not be bidding based on what you said you have but something else he imagines you may have. All this can lead to self-inflicted MI.
Alerting 2h as 6-11 because you have 6-11 without agreement IMO deserves a procedural penalty and it's MI and it's also unethical since you are giving unfair advantage to your opponents in turn.

[luke warm]

luis, sometimes i play with pickup partners... if i open a 6 spades, 5 hcp with 2S, should i alert it as 'weak' even if undiscussed?

[Brandal]

luke warm, on Mar 18 2005, 05:09 PM, said:

luis, sometimes i play with pickup partners... if i open a 6 spades, 5 hcp with 2S, should i alert it as 'weak' even if undiscussed?

"no agreement"
"no idea"
"ooooops"
"why shld I tell you??"
"no comment"
"in your dreams"

are all better than "weak 6 card"

unless you wanna look at 3 to 5 in BBO Jail



(For the record,this was mostly a joke)

[Brandal]

luis, on Mar 18 2005, 03:58 PM, said:

I don't know if you can understand this but you are saying you have an agreement that you don't have so your pd may not be bidding based on what you said you have but something else he imagines you may have.

Why does what my partner might or might not do
based on my bid have to do with me selfalerting/explaining
to opps what my bid is?

My pd doesn't know what I alerted with,or if I alerted?

So yes,I understand what you're saying,but I strongly
disagree with you