[the hog]

luis, on Mar 19 2005, 06:58 AM, said:

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.

I totally agree with Luis here.

Example - my pd also plays in the Seniors with someone who believes in dsiclosing everything. One two occasions they have run into director calls when the actual hand was not exactly what was described. "We play sound weak 2 bids, always 6 cards etc etc". Well on this occassion at this vul this was not the held hand.

[the hog]

mycroft, on Mar 19 2005, 03:55 AM, said:

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.

Do you really have a good idea of what he has, Mike?
For the record he held
Axxx void AQxxx AJxx
Happy to play at a high level in a minor.

Furthermore sure Leb may not be general bridge knowledge, but neither are the rules of 10 & 12, Casino count, or even for that matter squeeze plays. Should I also inform the opponents of these?

[Brandal]

The_Hog, on Mar 18 2005, 06:35 PM, said:

Example - my pd also plays in the Seniors with someone who believes in dsiclosing everything. One two occasions they have run into director calls when the actual hand was not exactly what was described. "We play sound weak 2 bids, always 6 cards etc etc". Well on this occassion at this vul this was not the held hand.

But this was a partners explanation,not selfalert?

No difference,you mean?

And isn't the hand not being as pd describes,something
else alltogether?

[the hog]

My comments have all related to ftf bridge. Luis' comments re on line bridge are also absolutely correct.

To make what Luis is saying clearer -
You are playing on line with someone for the first time, and have agreed to "Weak 2 bids"

Ok you are nv vs vul and decide to open 2H on x KJxxx xxxx xxx. You CANNOT alert this as 5+H any 4-10. Why?
You have no idea what your partner conceives a weak 2 bid to be; he may be brought up in an environment where even at this vul Kx KQJTxxx xxxx x is a weak 2. When pd bids 2NT enquiry, what is he expecting? The ONLY correct answer to the opponents if they ask about style is "We have no agreement".

[Brandal]

The_Hog, on Mar 18 2005, 06:52 PM, said:

My comments have all related to ftf bridge. Luis' comments re on line bridge are also absolutely correct.

Ofcourse they are,what was I thinking

If I ever play tournament on BBO again
I will try to get with the program and not
disclose anything without having an agreement

I will be very uncomfortable not knowing what
my bid means,I can tell you that....

Time for me to stop here,thx all for your patience

[luke warm]

probably it's just better, whether f2f or online, to alert then explain "in theory this shows whatever"

so your partner opens 2H, weak, you alert and say "in theory this is <11 hcp with 6+ pcs"... i think that's allowed, and it also tells the opps exactly what your p'ship methods are

if an opp asks "you mean he can bid 2H with zero points?" you can say, "he can, but i've never seen him do so at this vulnerability" or "he has done so on occasion" etc

[the hog]

Brandal and Luke,
On the assumption you are still reading this thread, here is an example from real life that my partner told me about.

This was a Seniors final, ftf.
On a relay auction dummy had shown a 1534 shape, s/t S. The final contract was 3NT. When opps enquired about the auction before the lead, they were given the meaning of all bids and the comment was made, "There are additional inferences, as I have shown a s/t S you can assume partner has a good S suit". I know this guy, and the comment was made with the best intentions of active ethics.

Well, leader with a choice of Axxxx in S or QJTx in D, chose a D lead allowing the contract to make - a S lead would have set it as declarer had KJx. All hell broke loose. The director allowed the result to stand; it went to appeal, which lost, but my pd and his teammate on this occasion were warned to not "add gratuitous comments to explanations, but stick to an exact explanation of the auction only". So there you have it....

[luke warm]

ok, i understand that... it makes sense.. so in my example, if an opp asks "can he have zero points for that bid?" just answer "yes" or "no" and that's that... thx ron

[TimG]

The_Hog, on Mar 18 2005, 06:35 PM, said:

Example - my pd also plays in the Seniors with someone who believes in dsiclosing everything. One two occasions they have run into director calls when the actual hand was not exactly what was described. "We play sound weak 2 bids, always 6 cards etc etc". Well on this occassion at this vul this was not the held hand.

I don't understand what this is supposed to show. What it tells me is that the player made an incorrect explanation. The solution is not to be intentionally vague withyour explanations, but rather to be accurate.

Again, this is not an issue in online bridge. The bidder, who is the one who explains his calls, will always get the explanation correct.

[TimG]

The_Hog, on Mar 19 2005, 03:34 AM, said:

The director allowed the result to stand; it went to appeal, which lost, but my pd and his teammate on this occasion were warned to not "add gratuitous comments to explanations, but stick to an exact explanation of the auction only". So there you have it....

Note, however, that they were also warned to stick to the "exact explanation of the auction". They were not advised to be as vague as possible under the Laws so as to minimize the risk of giving the opponents more information than partner has available to him.

Sounds to me like the committee got it right, except for the part about lecturing the players.

[Brandal]

The_Hog, on Mar 18 2005, 06:52 PM, said:

My comments have all related to ftf bridge. Luis' comments re on line bridge are also absolutely correct.

To make what Luis is saying clearer -
You are playing on line with someone for the first time, and have agreed to "Weak 2 bids"

Ok you are nv vs vul and decide to open 2H on x KJxxx xxxx xxx. You CANNOT alert this as 5+H any 4-10. Why?
You have no idea what your partner conceives a weak 2 bid to be; he may be brought up in an environment where even at this vul Kx KQJTxxx xxxx x is a weak 2. When pd bids 2NT enquiry, what is he expecting? The ONLY correct answer to the opponents if they ask about style is "We have no agreement".

So even if we HAVE agreed weak 2 we can't explain
what they're supposed to be,because we don't know
the style?

Man,this just doesn't sound right

[luke warm]

no brandal, that isn't correct.. you're my opp and i open 2H and alert "weak"... my alert only tells you how our p'ship plays a 2H bid... now if you ask me for further info, i can say "our agreement is <11 hcp and 6+ cards"

whether or not i actually *have* that hand is irrelevant... you are only entitled to know our understandings... you can ask further questions, of course... f2f you can ask my partner if i could have fewer than 6 cards... he answers (but as ron's post shows, he has to be careful of saying anything that could later bite him in the ass) 'according to our agreements, 2H shows 6+ pcs and <11 hcp'... "can he have more than 11 hcp?" ... "according to our agreements, the bid shows <11 hcp"

say i show up with 12 hcp and 5 hearts... my partner has not given misleading info and the opps are not harmed

[luke warm]

TimG, on Mar 19 2005, 08:35 AM, said:

I don't understand what this is supposed to show. What it tells me is that the player made an incorrect explanation. The solution is not to be intentionally vague withyour explanations, but rather to be accurate.

Again, this is not an issue in online bridge. The bidder, who is the one who explains his calls, will always get the explanation correct.

i think ron is showing that, in an effort to be as ethical as possible, a player was punished... he wasn't trying to mislead the opps, he was trying to help

as for online bridge, the bidder can't tell the opps what he has... he can only tell them what his partner *expects* him to have... to do anything else would be unfair to others playing the same board

[TimG]

Quote

(but as ron's post shows, he has to be careful of saying anything that could later bite him in the ass)

If he accurately describes the agreement, there is no danger of the explanation coming back to bite him in the ass. What must not happen is players intentionally not disclosing their complete agreement for fear of committee or director reprisal. I know that my partner never opens 2♥ when holding four spades, but no one is likely to be able to prove that it's part of our agreements, so it's ok to say "we don't have any agreement". I know from experience that partner is unlikely to do X, but we have no explicit agreement to this effect, so I can be vague and no one will be the wiser.

Quote

you can ask further questions, of course... f2f you can ask my partner if i could have fewer than 6 cards

The opponents shouldn't need to grill you to get a complete description. Yes, when you open 2♠ it's fine to describe it as a weak two-bid. But, if an opponents asks for more information, you should be totally forthcoming rather than waiting for them to ask about specific aspects of your agreements. A side four-card majoris a perfect example. How would you like it if, in a ftf game, your opponent asked about the possibility of a side four-card major, your side ended up defending and questioner's partner leads the unbid major?

Quote

'according to our agreements

There's no need to qualify each explanation with "according to our agreements" -- every explanation is according to agreement.

Tim

[luke warm]

Quote

I know that my partner never opens 2♥ when holding four spades, but no one is likely to be able to prove that it's part of our agreements, so it's ok to say "we don't have any agreement".

ok, now what if your partner actually did open 2H one hand when holding 4 spades, maybe 4 to the 10 or 9? and you alert 2H as 'weak, can't have 4 spades'... have you given misinformation? it's far better to say what the bid means and, if questioned, reply that you've never known him to hold a side 4 card major in related auctions

Quote

The opponents shouldn't need to grill you to get a complete description. Yes, when you open 2♠ it's fine to describe it as a weak two-bid. But, if an opponents asks for more information, you should be totally forthcoming rather than waiting for them to ask about specific aspects of your agreements.

i agree with this, i haven't said anything that implies i don't

Quote

A side four-card majoris a perfect example. How would you like it if, in a ftf game, your opponent asked about the possibility of a side four-card major, your side ended up defending and questioner's partner leads the unbid major?

i don't understand the question... if you mean after my pard opens a weak 2 and the opps ask about a side 4 card major, they would have recourse if i stated "he never has a 4 card major when opening with a weak 2"... never say never... tell tendencies, yes... tell past experiences, yes

Quote

There's no need to qualify each explanation with "according to our agreements" -- every explanation is according to agreement.

perhaps there *shouldn't* be a need for such qualification, but many times i've seen world class players alert using the words "in theory this means ____" larry cohen is a good example... did he need to qualify his remarks? he thought so

[TimG]

luke warm, on Mar 19 2005, 01:12 PM, said:

Quote

A side four-card majoris a perfect example. How would you like it if, in a ftf game, your opponent asked about the possibility of a side four-card major, your side ended up defending and questioner's partner leads the unbid major?

i don't understand the question... if you mean after my pard opens a weak 2 and the opps ask about a side 4 card major, they would have recourse if i stated "he never has a 4 card major when opening with a weak 2"... never say never... tell tendencies, yes... tell past experiences, yes

Suppose the auction goes:

2♠-P-3N-All pass

After the 2♠ opening bid, the next players asked: "does 2♠ deny four hearts?" Would you be at all suspicious if opening leader produces a heart?

[luke warm]

no, why? are you saying that the asking of the question said to partner "lead a heart?"

[TimG]

luke warm, on Mar 19 2005, 05:03 PM, said:

no, why? are you saying that the asking of the question said to partner "lead a heart?"

Let's just say it put a focus on hearts.

One of my favorite related stories:

I frequently play four-card majors (which is unusual around here). Many years ago my partner opened 1♠, the next player glanced at our convention card and then asked if we played four-card majors. I became declarer in 3N after a non-competitive auction. My LHO led her (singleton) spade, dummy came down with ♠T9xxx, and RHO duly cashed her ♠AKQJ before getting out with her fifth spade. The spade trick was my 9th, one I wasn't likely to get anywhere else.

[Brandal]

luke warm, on Mar 19 2005, 10:30 AM, said:

no brandal, that isn't correct.. you're my opp and i open 2H and alert "weak"... my alert only tells you how our p'ship plays a 2H bid... now if you ask me for further info, i can say "our agreement is <11 hcp and 6+ cards"

whether or not i actually *have* that hand is irrelevant... you are only entitled to know our understandings... you can ask further questions, of course... f2f you can ask my partner if i could have fewer than 6 cards... he answers (but as ron's post shows, he has to be careful of saying anything that could later bite him in the ass) 'according to our agreements, 2H shows 6+ pcs and <11 hcp'... "can he have more than 11 hcp?" ... "according to our agreements, the bid shows <11 hcp"

say i show up with 12 hcp and 5 hearts... my partner has not given misleading info and the opps are not harmed

In my (humble or not) opinion F2F and online where
we self alert just isn't "the same thing".

When someone else(my pd) has to explain my bid
obviously he has to refer to agreement nad be careful
saying much more.

What I react the most on,is luis saying it's unlawful
and that I am unethical to just about everyone on BBO.

He may be correct,but I find it alot more unethical
not to inform opps about my bid/style,I'm not the
only one at the table and bridge is a social event.



Yesterday in a tourney I opened 1C and when asked
to explain I wrote "4+ cl 12-19" (we open 4 card)
Opps were in 1nt and went down 1 since declarer didn't
know how to count clubs,my pd had 1 and dummy 2
and me and declarer had 5,he then proceeded to inform
me 1c should be alerted (apparently since I had 5 clubs)

Even that made me feel bad,imagine how I will feel at
the table saying "no agreement"

[luke warm]

your opp was just flat wrong, 1C (unless artificial) isn't alertable anyway... he asked and you answered honestly...

declarer is supposed to plan a line of play based on certain distributions... he went down not because you had 5 clubs, and not because you misinformed him, but because the contract was not makable or he misplayed it

Quote

What I react the most on,is luis saying it's unlawful
and that I am unethical to just about everyone on BBO.

imagine you and your partner sit n/s... your e/w opps are not playing against you, they're playing against all other e/w pairs... if you give information to them that is unavailable to the other e/w pairs, and if the giving of this info is counter to the laws of bridge, and if the possession of this info results in your e/w receiving a higher score than other e/w, you have (albeit inadvertantly and with the purest of motives) harmed others... do you see?

you can't think only about the e/w pair sitting at your table... you have a responsibility to: your partner; your opps; all other n/s pairs; all other e/w pairs; the game of bridge..

that's what luis was speaking about, imo, and he's right