[Caitlynne]

The laws of bridge require only that the opponents be informed/aware of your agreements. They are not entitled to know what you hold - especially if partner is not privy to that information.

If they ask, answer with your agreement. If you have no agreement, answer "no agreement." If they are good players, this will do. If they are poor players (and your bid is natural, showing length and/or values), answer "natural."

The point is, let them know about agreements (which you should have self-alerted in the first place). I alert everything I can (e.g., transfers, Michaels) anyway since what is alertable is not consistent world-wide. About the only thing I don't alert is Blackwood and Stayman or natural bids that they would be silly to inquire about.

[helene_t]

I usually alert all artificial bids even if I don't have agreements about them. If asked, I just say "no agreement". This may sound strange but I am concerned that failure to alert could be interpreted as the agreement that the bid is natural.

[barmar]

 silvr bull, on 2016-February-08, 08:43, said:

If you read my comments, you would see that I was asked two different questions. The first asked me if my bid showed the other major and a minor. The second (by clicking my bid) asked me what agreements my partner and I had about my bid.

I still don't understand your reason for giving different answers. Why do you think the opponent who asked a specific question is entitled to know what you hold (instead of just your agreements), but the one who asked a general question is not?

You don't mention the jurisdiction of the tournament, but ACBL has the following in its Alert Procedures:

Quote

• Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate
  the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically.
  
• The proper way to ask for information is "please explain."

Giving a different answer depending on the form of the question is a violation of this procedure.

Other jurisdictions have somewhat different rules, e.g. EBU allows you to give just a yes/no answer if someone asks a question like "Does that show X?". But I don't think any would allow you to give conflicting answers depending on the form of the question. You can't tell LHO that your bid is Michaels, and at the same time tell RHO that you have no agreement about it.

[1eyedjack]

 barmar, on 2016-February-08, 10:33, said:

Other jurisdictions have somewhat different rules, e.g. EBU allows you to give just a yes/no answer if someone asks a question like "Does that show X?"

I am a bit out of touch with EBU rules but last time I was up to speed the question "does that show X" format was strongly discouraged.

(EBU is my local area, but I stopped subscribing when they introduced "pay to play" as I have no club membership so would cost me a bit to keep current).

[PhilG007]

 silvr bull, on 2016-February-06, 14:27, said:

The general question is what information should I provide when an opponent clicks my bid to get more detail Some opponents think that I should say what I intended my bid to mean. I see that interpretation as the equivalent of asking what cards I hold. My view is that I should give the same information about partnership agreements that I would list on a convention card. As a simple example, if partner and I agreed to open 1 NT with 15-17 HCP, and an opp clicks my 1NT bid to ask, I should reply 15-17 HCP because that is the partnership agreement. On some hands, however, I might upgrade a 14 point hand, or downgrade an 18 point hand, and open 1NT despite the partnership agreement. If an opp clicks my 1NT bid when I have 14 or 18 HCP, I will still respond 15-17 because that is the agreement and the same information that partner expects.

This question hit hard a few days ago when I subbed into an individual tournament where there are no partnership agreements and I had no previous experience with my partner. RHO opened 1M and I bid 2M. RHO sent sent me a private message to ask if my que showed the other major and a minor, and I PM back to say yes. After some hesitation, my LHO clicked my 2M que bid and I replied "No agreement, so no information." Then my LHO clicked my bid another fifty times before calling the director. The director soon booted me out of the tournament. That could have been caused by an original player returning to his seat, but there was no communication so I cannot know what the director's reason was.

So, how do you think I should respond when an opp clicks my bid for more information?

I would have to say that if a conventional bid(or one that can be construed as conventional)is not on
a players profile,then it shouldn't be made in the first place.

[btour]

 barmar, on 2016-February-07, 22:46, said:

Clicking the bid is the standard way to ask for an explanation on BBO. He shouldn't have to send a private message, it's not as convenient. And the manner of asking shouldn't affect whether you think the opponent should have the information. Either you think they're entitled to the information or you don't.

Clicking the bid more than twice if an explanation has been made, and tried again with different words, is abusive and wastes time. If more information is needed the software should direct the questions to the partner of the bidder just like in real life. For example take 1nt 2c alerted as asking partner for 4 card major, the box is clicked and so, "I have one or two four card majors and am asking partner if he has one to bid it. wow in fact that wont fit, which is one of the problems. You see Barry? But that info will fit in a private message. The original alert is all that was needed. But some have learned to game the system by repeatedly clicking the alert box and harassing the bidder. Most so called TD's do nothing and trying to explain the situation to them takes a long time and accomplishes little, in fact you often get penalized for slow play after that.

[btour]

Here is another situation for example, in which TD does nothing and blames the person that calls. [this] director [...] has already banned a very good player for questioning them over a dispute concerning alerts. And that player, probably the best player in the club was correct. The alerts had not been made. Here is my example hand: http://tinyurl.com/h2n8dyl

South knows full well that the name of an alert in not a proper alert. But the important thing here is that the alert was not made until after opps pass and her partners response had been made, and when the alert was made it was the name of the convention which was used. I called the director, which was unneeded since s/he had been sitting there witnessing the entire thing. What happened? Nothing. Director asked me if I asked. Asked what? 3!D should be enquired upon before I pass, when 3!D had not been alerted yet? Of course I asked when it was subsequently alerted and before my next turn. I asked by saying the name is not an alert. Director did nothing. South was not even admonished for slow alert AND using the name of the convention.

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2016-February-08, 16:32
Reason for edit: removed names

[Vampyr]

 btour, on 2016-February-08, 15:23, said:

Clicking the bid more than twice if an explanation has been and tried again, in other words explained twice. If more information is needed the software should direct the questions to the partner of the bidder just like in real life. For example take 1nt 2c alerted as asking partner for 4 card major, the box is clicked and so, "I have one or two four card majors and am asking partner if he has one to bid it. wow in fact that wont fit, which is one of the problems. You see Barry? But that info will fit in a private message. The original alert is all that was needed. But some have learned to game the system by repeatedly clicking the alert box and harassing the bidder. Most so called TD's do nothing and trying to explain the situation to them takes a long time and accomplishes little, in fact you often get penalized for slow play after that.

How about "asking partner to bid a 4-card major". Will that fit?

[1eyedjack]

 Vampyr, on 2016-February-08, 15:56, said:

How about "asking partner to bid a 4-card major". Will that fit?

Nearly. The world is roughly divided down the middle between those who promise a 4cM when asking, and those who do not. Personally as a defender I want to know which.

[btour]

 Vampyr, on 2016-February-08, 15:56, said:

How about "asking partner to bid a 4-card major". Will that fit?

Is there a great deal of difference between the 1st explanation and your version? OK say yours is the second one used. The alert box is once again thrown in your face. How do you word it then? And the 3rd time? 4th?

Get the point?

[Vampyr]

 btour, on 2016-February-09, 00:20, said:

Is there a great deal of difference between the 1st explanation and your version? OK say yours is the second one used. The alert box is once again thrown in your face. How do you word it then? And the 3rd time? 4th?

Get the point?

Yes. It sounds like they wish to know whether you are yourself promising a 4-cars major. So tell them.

[barmar]

 1eyedjack, on 2016-February-08, 23:38, said:

Nearly. The world is roughly divided down the middle between those who promise a 4cM when asking, and those who do not. Personally as a defender I want to know which.

In an individual, the partners don't know which camp they're in.

In my experience, non-promisory Stayman is mostly used with 4-way transfers, because 2NT is a transfer rather than an invitation. I would be surprised to see anyone play that in an indy; without discussion, most assume SAYC as the basic system.

[barmar]

 btour, on 2016-February-08, 15:44, said:

South knows full well that the name of an alert in not a proper alert.

Although this is not generally considered an acceptable answer to a request for information, it's very common to use it in the alert box, at least when making the bid initially. The opponent can always request more information if they don't understand.

If you need more details than will fit in that little box, that's the time to switch to a private message, rather than repeatedly clicking the bid. For instance, the player who bids Stayman may not even be aware that there are different styles, so they won't know that you're trying to find out whether they promise at least one 4-card major. If you need to know, ask.

BTW, in the ACBL we don't alert the 2♣ bid based on whether it promises a 4-card major. Instead, we alert when they make a bid that indicates that it's possible they don't. So if it goes 1NT-2♣-2♦-2NT, the 2NT bid gets alerted, with the explanation "He might not have a 4-card major". But if it goes 1NT-2♣-2♦-3NT there's no alert (the way most play it).