[uday]

I had a recent (2 months ago) discussion with someone at the ACBL (in memphis) about this.

I contented that in an indy, where the rules stated that everyone had to play SAYC, with Full Disclosure FD cards loaded for all that there would be no need to respond to an opponent's query except with "you know as much as I do"

IIRC, memphis disagreed, and I put the matter aside until I was prepared to fight this battle in earnest (and I'm not yet ready). Memphis' position was along the lines of (and I am paraphrasing wildly from a faulty collection of braincells)

".. you should say something like 'I am hoping he will read my 2D bid as a transfer'.."

This was in the context of an undiscused (or uncoverered-in-FD) auction


I'm hoping to convince Memphis otherwise at some point

[helene_t]

Echognome, on Jun 16 2007, 01:28 AM, said:

cardsharp, on Jun 14 2007, 08:03 AM, said:

It's an assumption not an agreement. Unless playing beginners I would say it is general bridge knowledge and, technically, not alertable. In practice I alert all of my conventional calls anyhow.

Ok. So then I will ask you define the difference between "assumption" and "implicit agreement".

I understand you avoid the distinction in practice by alerting anyway.

An assumption is based on some information. If that information happens to be an (implicit) agreement, you must alert. Otherwise not.

If my partner has the French flag and I make a call that has a different meaning in SEF than in SAYC, hoping my partner will interpret it SEFish, I alert. For example
1♠-2♣
2N*
* "Hopefully 15-17"

Now opps know how I intend my call, they know that I'm not sure if p understands it or not, and from p's explanations of his own calls they may even infer if my p actually understood my call. And next time partner is a Spanyard, and we're playing against two Spanyards. Since I have no clue about what is standard in Spain, they have more info about the meaning of my partner's calls, and how he interprets my calls, than I have. And they are not going to tell me what my partner's calls mean

This already goes pretty far. There's no way I'm going to explain my vanilla SA bids when all four players have similar non-descript profiles.

[jtfanclub]

uday, on Jun 15 2007, 10:51 PM, said:

I had a recent (2 months ago) discussion with someone at the ACBL (in memphis) about this.

I think....

An explicit agreement, such as "We'll play Audrey Grant's Standard American", absolutely needs to be alerted and told in detail.

An implicit agreement, such as the three times partner has X'd in a similar auction it's been for penalty, should be alerted and told in detail.

A tendency, such as knowing that partner uses X as penalty more often than most, but this particular situation hasn't come up, should not be alerted but if asked you should tell about the tendencies.

An assumption, such as girls don't X for penalty much, and my partner is a girl, therefore the X is probably takeout...no, that shouldn't be alerted or explained. This also goes for your partner being from Missouri, or speaks with a Southern accent, or whatever.

The first three are based on your experience with your partner. The last is based on stereotypes. Frankly, not only would I not announce stereotypes, but if I do, I'm probably going to cause more problems than I solve.

[paulg]

Echognome, on Jun 16 2007, 12:28 AM, said:

cardsharp, on Jun 14 2007, 08:03 AM, said:

It's an assumption not an agreement. Unless playing beginners I would say it is general bridge knowledge and, technically, not alertable. In practice I alert all of my conventional calls anyhow.

Ok. So then I will ask you define the difference between "assumption" and "implicit agreement".

I understand you avoid the distinction in practice by alerting anyway.

Essentially the difference is dependent on my opponents (and my partner). If I believe that they are peers (say, profile with advanced or higher) and profess some knowledge of standard methods (SAYC, 2/1, etc) then I think they should have the same general bridge knowledge and I'd go with assumptions that I'd expect they can make.

If intermediates or lower, then I'd assume adv/exp methods constitute an implicit understanding.

In essence, if you profess to be a good player then you are in the same position that I am. If not, then I'm going to help you.

[cherdano]

uday, on Jun 15 2007, 09:51 PM, said:

I had a recent (2 months ago) discussion with someone at the ACBL (in memphis) about this.

I contented that in an indy, where the rules stated that everyone had to play SAYC, with Full Disclosure FD cards loaded for all that there would be no need to respond to an opponent's query except with "you know as much as I do"

IIRC, memphis disagreed, and I put the matter aside until I was prepared to fight this battle in earnest  (and I'm not yet ready).   Memphis' position was along the lines of (and I am paraphrasing wildly from a faulty collection of braincells)

".. you should say something like 'I am hoping he will read my 2D bid as a transfer'.."

This was in the context of an undiscused (or uncoverered-in-FD) auction


I'm hoping to convince Memphis otherwise at some point

It's a tricky issue IMO. "You know as much as I do" is a fair answer if my partner really knows just as much as my opponents do. However, let's say the auction goes 1S (2C) 2H. If my partner happens to be American with "advanced" skill level, I know almost for sure he will take this as forcing, and if my European/Australian/... opponents ask me what it means, the above answer is obviously insufficient.

Since the distinction is hard to tell for the TD, for practical matters I can understand the ACBL policy (even though I agree it's wrong in theory).

This post has been edited by cherdano: 2007-June-17, 00:09

[paulg]

uday, on Jun 16 2007, 04:51 AM, said:

I had a recent (2 months ago) discussion with someone at the ACBL (in memphis) about this.

I contented that in an indy, where the rules stated that everyone had to play SAYC, with Full Disclosure FD cards loaded for all that there would be no need to respond to an opponent's query except with "you know as much as I do"

IIRC, memphis disagreed, and I put the matter aside until I was prepared to fight this battle in earnest (and I'm not yet ready). Memphis' position was along the lines of (and I am paraphrasing wildly from a faulty collection of braincells)

".. you should say something like 'I am hoping he will read my 2D bid as a transfer'.."

This was in the context of an undiscused (or uncoverered-in-FD) auction


I'm hoping to convince Memphis otherwise at some point

It is an interesting situation when you make a call with the hope that partner understands it.

Presumably you have a degree of confidence that he will understand, otherwise you would not make the call. I can see how the ACBL believes that this implies a degree of partnership understanding and should be disclosed.

Of course this can cause trouble when your bid is inconsistent with SAYC. For example, transfers do not apply in response to partner's 1NT overcall but this would catch many people out.

Paul

[uday]

Quote

Presumably you have a degree of confidence that he will understand, otherwise you would not make the call.

This seems to be how Memphis sees it. I disagree, because we don't make any calls unless there is a degree of confidence that it will be understood (if there was no chance partner would understand it, you would surely do something else). This does not seem to me to fall into anything that needs disclosure, particularly since all of you are privy to the actual agreement (SAYC).

Quote

If my partner happens to be American with "advanced" skill level, I know almost for sure he will take this as forcing,

In principle the CC will explain whether this is forcing, etc, but I hear what you say. But P might not be from the USA, flag or no flag, or P might not believe your flag, or P might have "Expert" on his profile for no reason etc etc. So it seems that the only thing to rely on is the CC (of course, P might not be able to read )

[paulg]

I'm not sure SAYC is particularly well defined so the proposal seems to be that the CC will define the system.

Unfortunately this implies that CC, even though it is the opponents', is being used as a memory aid. Although legal is it something we wish to encourage?

Paul

[paulg]

uday, on Jun 17 2007, 02:39 PM, said:

Quote

Presumably you have a degree of confidence that he will understand, otherwise you would not make the call.

This seems to be how Memphis sees it. I disagree, because we don't make any calls unless there is a degree of confidence that it will be understood (if there was no chance partner would understand it, you would surely do something else). This does not seem to me to fall into anything that needs disclosure, particularly since all of you are privy to the actual agreement (SAYC).

I am sure that there are calls, especially in a competitive auction, that I would make with an expert partner that I would not risk with a beginner.

In my opinion, this means that you should be disclosing these calls especially if you are playing with an expert against lesser opponents.

Paul

[fred]

If I was asked for an opinion about this 6 months ago I would have agreed with what I think the (vast) majority position is here: that "no agreement" is the only correct answer when you actually have no agreement.

However, as a result of the interaction with ACBL that Uday refers to, additional discussions I have had with some of ACBL's leading TDs, and considerable reflection on these matters, I have changed my mind. I now believe that the ACBL's position on these matters is exactly right.

Consider this example:

LHO opens 1S, RHO responds 1NT, and you overcall 2C. LHO rebids 2H which is passed around to you. You bid 2NT and are asked to explain this bid.

Being an "expert" you know what this bid is supposed to mean: you are describing a hand in which you want to compete to the 3 level with long clubs and secondary diamonds (typically 4-6 in the minors).

Your partner is also an "expert" so you expect he will interpret the bid as you intend it, even though this convention is not explicitly part of the system you have agreed to play and even though you have never discussed this particular sequence.

So you could say "no agreement" and you would be telling the truth.

However, I now believe this would be wrong because bridge is a fairer and more enjoyable game if you explain how you intend your bid if you think there is a good chance that your partner will understand your bid as you intended it.

If your opponents are less experienced than you are, they might not be familiar with a bid like this. You "know" your partner will work it out so it is only fair (in my view) if you make an effort to ensure the opponents will work it out as well.

According to the ACBL TDs I discussed this with, the key factor to consider in deciding when to say something other than "no agreement" is the confidence level you have in your partner figuring out what your bid means: if you have a strong degree of confidence that your partner will understand the intention of your bid, you should let your opponents know. You can (and should) protect yourself by prefacing such an explanation with something like "We have not discussed this but...".

Of course "strong degree of confidence" is not a well-defined notion and, even if it was, deciding whether or not you should have such a degree of confidence involves a subjective decision on your part. The ACBL's best TDs admit that this is a gray area and that TDs sometimes have to use their (subjective) judgment in order to decide whether or not a given player has done the right thing.

No doubt some of you will still disagree with me on the basis of some "letter of the law" argument. If so, there is a good chance you are right - I have very little understanding of the letter of the law.

In my view, however, the "spirit of the law" is at least as important. To me part of this involves engaging in practices that I consider to be "good sportsmanship". Even if "no agreement" was a proper "letter of the law" explanation for an inquiry about the 2NT bid in my example, it would still be wrong in my view. I would have a hard time looking at myself in a mirror after offering such an explanation, especially if I got a good result as a result of my inexperienced opponents getting confused.

I would not want that good result. I do not want to win that way. I would rather do what I think was the right thing, risk getting a bad result (possibly as the result of a ruling from a TD who doesn't get it), and be able to sleep that night.

My opinion is that the (bridge) world would be a better place if more people had the same attitude.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[uday]

I think we're forgetting that the context is online individual tourneys

Highlights

- you have probably never seen your partner's username around
- you have no real idea how strong he is
- any clues you use to gauge his ability are available to the table


Lets use Fred's example under these circumstances

LHO opens 1S, RHO responds 1NT, and you overcall 2C. LHO rebids 2H which is passed around to you. You bid 2NT and are asked to explain this bid.

You know how YOU would interpret this bid. You have no idea how P will interpret this bid. You have no idea how each opp will interpret this bid.

How does it serve the purposes of enjoyment, obeisance to the laws or sportsmanship to pass information to the opps and to leave partner in the dark?

Doing so (explaining that you have 6D and 4C) is not revealing an agreement. It is simply describing the contents of your hand.

The opps could argue that this is equally unsportsmanlike, like getting a free penalty kick. Why, they might say, should they have this advantage? they don't want it, they don't need it. They realize that you are under a handicap (no agreement, uncharted waters) and they don't want an additional advantage on top of that.


The intent of the laws seems clear - explain what you know based on agreement, not your actual hand. When there is no agreement, and not the faintest chance than an explicit or implicit agreement could exist, the laws are clear that you should not describe your hand.


Explaining your bid to the opps under these circumstances feels like we're inventing a new game.

[fred]

In the context of an online individual tournament it would probably be unreasonable to assume with any "strong degree of confidence" that partner would understand the 2NT bid in my example.

So saying "no agreement" for that particular bid in that particular context, would not be unreasonable in my view (though for me personally playing in this context I would choose to "tell the opponents my hand").

But even in an online individual tournament there are bids that, although technically no agreement exists, it is safe to assume your partner will understand.

In my view players should make an honest attempt to recognize these situations and offer something more than "no information" if their judgment suggests that this would be appropriate.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

uday, on Jun 17 2007, 10:52 AM, said:

When there is no agreement, and not the faintest chance than an explicit or implicit agreement could exist,  the laws are clear that you should not describe your hand.

I won't presume to speak for Fred, but as I read his post, I think he would agree with this, Uday. Edit: I see now that he does.

Over on the Bridge Laws Mailing List, there is a long and vociferous controversy on this question. Briefly there are two schools. The deWael School (Herman deWael is a Belgian TD) opines that one should explain what one believes partner (in f2f bridge) has in his hand, rather than the partnership's agreements even if that means lying about the agreements. The Majority School believes that the law requires you to explain agreements, not hand holdings. Herman has about two supporters, and their support is, as I have read it, limited to "Herman's position is legally valid", not going so far as to say "Herman's position is right, the Majority School is wrong". I'm in the Majority School.

Whether an implicit agreement exists is subjective, but there is reference in the laws to "general bridge knowledge" (GBK). I would submit that this describes things most everybody beyond the newcomer level should know. There are, I think, some things (perhaps a lot of things ) that experts generally know that lesser players do not - one example being that a bid in NT in certain circumstances is more likely to be a form of Unusual NT than it is to be natural. You're not required to describe inferences from GBK, but the inference in Fred's example that he has a minor suit oriented hand is not GBK, unless all four players at the table can be expected to know it.

[FrancesHinden]

fred, on Jun 17 2007, 03:25 PM, said:

the truth.

However, I now believe this would be wrong because bridge is a fairer and more enjoyable game if you explain how you intend your bid if you think there is a good chance that your partner will understand your bid as you intended it.

/pedantry on

Acutally, playing online, I think you do better to explain how you expect partner to interpret your bid, not how you intend it.

/pedantry off

(There's usually no diference between the two. But there could be.)

[barmar]

If your partner doesn't understand your call, you're probably headed for a bad board anyway. You might as well assume that partner DOES understand (that's what you're hoping when you make it), and then it makes sense to disclose it to the opponents.

Also, partner may end up upset that you sprung some weird bid on him. Do you really need two MORE people upset as well that you refused to explain to them?

[blackshoe]

"did not volunteer" is not the same thing as "refused".

[geller]

The situation in F2F bridge (except when using screens) is that your partner hears your explanation so there is a substantial danger of transmitting unauthorized information (UI). In online bridge you can be completely honest with the opps, since partner doesn't hear your explanation. You can say, for example, "this is what I meant but pard may not understand it." Also, in online bridge you are alerting and explaining your own bids, which is completely different from F2F bridge.

At some point there presumably will be a new set of official laws of bridge for the on-line game....

-Bob

[nige1]

Some years ago, in Edinburgh Bridge clubs, when you sat down opposite a strange partner, you might ask what methods he preferred. After prolonged cross-examination, if you were lucky, he would vouchsafe "strong notrump, no weakness takeouts, Blackwood, Three-notrump (for take-out) over pre-empts".

Your first few sessions were a painful learning experience but then you started to fill in the gaps. For example, partner opened 1S with four spades and five hearts. Two openers and jump overcalls were strong. Cue overcalls were game-frocing. Doubles were mostly penalty, In reply to your 16-18 no-trump opener, partner would often reply in a four card minor but a major would normally be at least five cards. Nevertheless, you would learn that the underlying philosophy was more Acol than Culbertson; for example there were lots of limit and non-forcing bids.

Contrast that with the implicit understandings on BBO. After a few days experence on BBO you learn that most players treat a completely different set of agreements as "Just Bridge". Weak jump overcalls and weak twos in three suits; Stayman and and transfers; most doubles are for take-out; most bids are forcing; cue-overcalls are Michaels; The underkying philosophy is Standard American.

I dare say if you played Bridge in Poland, say, locals would regard yet another set of assumptions as "Just bridge".

In any such environment, if a stranger asks the mennig of a call, then a sadistic member of the inner circle may feel justified in replying "General knowledge and experience" or "Just Bridge". Often a player invents system on the fly. He tries some completely new call, hoping that partner will be able to deduce iits meaning by analogy with similar calls in previously encountered contexts. If anybody asks about such a call, the reply is almost certain to be "undiscussed", although, partner seems able to guess the meaning most of the time.

IMO, you should assume that opponents are strangers to your Bridge environment and disclose all implicit understandings. "General knowledge and experience" should be expunged from the Law-book as a device for rationalizing prevarication. If you don't know the meaning of a call, you should hazard a guess (but make clear that it is a guess).

[cherdano]

uday, on Jun 17 2007, 09:52 AM, said:

I think we're forgetting that the context is online individual tourneys

Highlights

- you have probably never seen your partner's username around
- you have no real idea how strong he is
- any clues you use to gauge his ability are available to the table


Lets use Fred's example under these circumstances

LHO opens 1S, RHO responds 1NT, and you overcall 2C. LHO rebids 2H which is passed around to you. You bid 2NT and are asked to explain this bid.

You know how YOU would interpret this bid. You have no idea how P will interpret this bid. You have no idea how each opp will interpret this bid.

If I had no idea how my partner interprets this bid, I would never make it. Nevertheless, I could very well imagining making this bid in an individual tourney. There are so many clues in even short profiles about how strong partner is; and they completely change the odds I am willing to take that partner will understand my bid. (And I am sure those who play individuals often get very good at reading these clues.) Two extreme examples:
(A) My partner has "expert" and "2C strong, 2N = 20-22" in his profile.
( My partner's profile says "advanced, 2/1, udca, BWS if you like"
I think you know opposite which I would make Fred's takeout 2N bid, and then I would explain the bid as "partner will take it as minors, longer clubs than diamonds". You also know opposite which I would describe 1C 1H 1N 4N as quantitative, and opposite which I would describe it as "no agreement".
I don't think this is "bridge logic", this is an implicit partnership agreement based on shared experience, that we both don't know about, but can guess with reasonable confidence.

[helene_t]

cherdano, on Jun 18 2007, 06:32 AM, said:

If I had no idea how my partner interprets this bid, I would never make it.

Well, I would never apply xclusion blackwood if I had no clue if p would take it as such. But I would make responses to overcall no matter if I had a clue as to whether p would take them as forcing. I might even respond to p's 1NT overcall even if opps' guess as to whether we play transfers or not would be as good as mine.

Now if I alert my transfer and p passes it, opps know that we have a misunderstanding while p does not know. Is that fair? I don't think so. So I will alert my transfer as "no special agreement".