[andych]

Playing precision, I play a style that 1M - 4M could be wide range.
Responder may have a weak hand with just 5 card support.
Responder may also have a descent hand and just decided to simply blast.

Opps more often than not want us to explain if it is premptive or not, point range, etc. Our explanation is 'To play' which the opps usually are not satisfied.

Is 'To play' valid explanation?

BTW there are always opps asking for explation of 3NT bid/5m bid in various sequence which is also simply 'to play'.

Is 'To play' valid explanation generally?

[inquiry]

To play is not a valid explaination, you could have said "non-forcing" or "game forcing" and those would not help.

Describe as "preempt or strong no slam interest", or
"wk to 14 pts, signoff", or similar.

[hrothgar]

I really hate it when the opponents ask these sorts of questions...

There are a thousand and one different hands that responder could concievably hold. No matter how many different hand types you enumerate, there's a damn good chance that partner has one of the ones you missed.

Many jurisdictions have rules that require players to be familiar with a wide variety of different bidding styles. I'd certainly consider a 1M - 4M Precision auction normal enough that players should understand it.

So long as you provide a good disclosure of your 1M opening, I see nothing wrong with describing 4M as "to play"...

[FrancesHinden]

I really hate the answer "to play". It always sounds as if you are just trying to be awkward. Say something like "partner is not expected to bid, could be anything from a pre-empt to a good hand". This means much pretty much exactly the same as "to play" but it comes over as helpful, rather than obstructive.

[hotShot]

1M-4M means the same in almost every at least half way natural system.

It is usually not a invitation to slam. It is non forcing and it shows a limited hand with "minimum opening strength" (or less) , (usually good) trump support and often distributional strength (to compensate the missing HCP).

Playing precision this is even more obvious , because 1M is limited.

This post has been edited by hotShot: 2006-July-22, 10:32

[cherdano]

hotShot, on Jul 21 2006, 11:18 AM, said:

1M-4M means the same in almost every at least half way natural system.

It is usually not a invitation to slam. It is non forcing and it shows a limited hand with minimum opening strength (or less) , (usually good) trump support and often distributional strength (to compensate the missing HCP).

Playing precision this is even more obvious , because 1M is limited.

Huh? 1M-4M certainly means something completely different in Precision than in a standard system.

By the way, the crucial test whether you really have no agreement beyond "to play" comes when opponents bid over 4M. In a standard system, opener may often compete to 5M, because responder has promised a weak shapely hand with typically 5 trumps. In a precision system, opener can almost never compete to 5M (unless with a double if you have good agreements).

Arend

[hotShot]

cherdano, on Jul 21 2006, 11:45 AM, said:

Huh? 1M-4M certainly means something completely different in Precision than in a standard system.

I like your Monty Python attitude, but 4M shows fit and the intention to play 4M in both cases. So please enlighten me where it is completly different.

cherdano, on Jul 21 2006, 11:45 AM, said:

By the way, the crucial test whether you really have no agreement beyond "to play" comes when opponents bid over 4M. In a standard system, opener may often compete to 5M, because responder has promised a weak shapely hand with typically 5 trumps. In a precision system, opener can almost never compete to 5M (unless with a double if you have good agreements).

Arend

[Free]

Quote

1M-4M means the same in almost every at least half way natural system.

Not true: 1M-4M is usually played weak, since with good hands you'll take the slow road.

Quote

It is usually not a invitation to slam.

That is correct.

Quote

It is non forcing and it shows a limited hand with minimum opening strength (or less) , (usually good) trump support and often distributional strength (to compensate the missing HCP).

Not true: with opening strength in natural systems, you shouldn't support to 4-level. What is partner expected to do with a strong hand? Blacky isn't everything you know. That's why many players use 2NT to show inv+ hands with support, so 1M-4M in natural is weak! In precision, it can be a lot stronger!

Quote

Playing precision this is even more obvious , because 1M is limited.

Playing precision, you can do it as a sacrifice with 0HCP. I've done it in the past with success: my LHO had 15HCP, and was V while we were NV. Bidding was at 4S when he had to come in, so he passed. They had 3NT laydown, I went -2 in a 4-4 fit tnx to great distributions and matching hands.


This auction is one of the strengths of precision: it's pressure bidding, without a clear picture of responder's hand. In natural, you don't have this option.

[kenberg]

Here is what I hope for, if opponents are playing precision:

Either they pre-alert, as many do, that they play precision, or, when the auction goes 1M-4M then they alert and explain that since 1M was a limited opening, the bid of 4M is not necessarily the classic hand of five trumps and a stiff.

If you are playing against relatively inexperinced players, the pre-alert of "we play precision" probably does not suffice.

As usual, I am ignorant of the governing laws, but this seems like common sense case of disclosure of methods.

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Jul 20 2006, 11:49 PM, said:

Many jurisdictions have rules that require players to be familiar with a wide variety of different bidding styles. I'd certainly consider a 1M - 4M Precision auction normal enough that players should understand it.

So long as you provide a good disclosure of your 1M opening, I see nothing wrong with describing 4M as "to play"...

On BBO we really don't care that you think 1M-4M is normal enough that players should understand it. Please go back and re-read the rules of the site in the library if you have a problem with the concept that full disclosure of partnership agreement is necessary when asked about a bid.

To repy "to play" or "you should know precision" is not only not helpful, it is antagonist at a time when it is not necessary. It takes less time to give a full desciption of the hand in a short phrase than to create a potential scene.

Look, 1H-4H does not require an alert, but your opponents have a right to know what your agreement is. Playing precision, your agreement is 4H is anything from a preempt to an opening hand with no slam ambitions opposite a limited opening bid. Tell them. "to play" does not come close to full disclosure. On line, using FD, you can add that to your 1M-4M decription.

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Jul 21 2006, 05:34 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 20 2006, 11:49 PM, said:

Many jurisdictions have rules that require players to be familiar with a wide variety of different bidding styles.  I'd certainly consider a 1M - 4M Precision auction normal enough that players should understand it. 

So long as you provide a good disclosure of your 1M opening, I see nothing wrong with describing 4M as "to play"...

On BBO we really don't care that you think 1M-4M is normal enough that players should understand it. Please go back and re-read the rules of the site in the library if you have a problem with the concept that full disclosure of partnership agreement is necessary when asked about a bid.

To repy "to play" or "you should know precision" is not only not helpful, it is antagonist at a time when it is not necessary. It takes less time to give a full desciption of the hand in a short phrase than to create a potential scene.

Look, 1H-4H does not require an alert, but your opponents have a right to know what your agreement is. Playing precision, your agreement is 4H is anything from a preempt to an opening hand with no slam ambitions opposite a limited opening bid. Tell them. "to play" does not come close to full disclosure. On line, using FD, you can add that to your 1M-4M decription.

Funny, I seeing things complete different:

My Full Disclosure Files are quite detailed. That's the glory of FD. I can make a one time investment of time/effort and provide folks with comprehensive description of a bid. For example, my MOSCITO convention card describes the auction 1♥ - (P) - 4♠ as follows:

Signoff Disposition: Spades
3+ Spades
"To Play": Could be a preemptive raise. Could be a balanced game force. If balance you'll probably get to find out which hand type I have.

in a similar fashion

The auction 1♥ - (P) - 3N is describes as

Non-forcing Disposition: Spades / Notrump
"To play": Typically shows values for 3NT. Occasionally a preemptive Spade raise.

In contrast, if I'm playing in a pickup partnership without any kind of FD available, I'm gonna provide a short and succient answer. Anyone with any real experience knows what "To Play" means. If they don't know, they need to learn. Hopefully this experience will drill it into their heads.

Frances is probably right when she suggests that stating "to play" isn't the most social way to describe the methods. However, most regulatory structure don't mandate being a nice person. (There are many regulations that ban players from being impolite or rude, however, this very different that requiring people to be happy friendly outgoing people persons)

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Jul 21 2006, 09:58 AM, said:

However, most regulatory structure don't mandate being a nice person. (There are many regulations that ban players from being impolite or rude, however, this very different that requiring people to be happy friendly outgoing people persons)

Welll there are regulations on BBO. The rules to the site clearly state...

"If an opponent asks you for the meaning of one of your bids, you are expected to answer thenm politely, even if you think the answer if obvious."

It further states:
"It is against laws and spirit o fthe ggame of bridge to conceal information about your partnership agreements from your opponents"

For them to ask, means they don't know your agreements, you do. And on BBO you must comply with the request in a useful and polite manner. No wonder you have trouble with the ACBL with this attitude of you "I don't have to be polite." Guess what, "Be polite" is the main rule on BBO. So in fact, you do, at least on the BBO.

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Jul 21 2006, 06:16 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 21 2006, 09:58 AM, said:

However, most regulatory structure don't mandate being a nice person.  (There are many regulations that ban players from being impolite or rude, however, this very different that requiring people to be happy friendly outgoing people persons)

Welll there are regulations on BBO. The rules to the site clearly state...

"If an opponent asks you for the meaning of one of your bids, you are expected to answer thenm politely, even if you think the answer if obvious."

It further states:
"It is against laws and spirit o fthe ggame of bridge to conceal information about your partnership agreements from your opponents"

For them to ask, means they don't know your agreements, you do. And on BBO you must comply with the request in a useful and polite manner. No wonder you have trouble with the ACBL with this attitude of you "I don't have to be polite." Guess what, "Be polite" is the main rule on BBO. So in fact, you do, at least on the BBO.

I don't consider "To play" to be impolite

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Jul 21 2006, 06:16 PM, said:

For them to ask, means they don't know your agreements, you do. And on BBO you must comply with the request in a useful and polite manner. No wonder you have trouble with the ACBL with this attitude of you "I don't have to be polite."

My issues with the ACBL are related to system regulations, not their zero-teolerance policies or issues related to personal decorum...

If you want to be talking about personal decorum, we might want to start a discussion whether it is appropriate for BBO Yellows/Forum moderators to pull passive aggressive bullcrap on the forums and deliberately instigate trouble.

I readily admit, that my behaviour is far from perfect. Then again, I don't place myself in the limelight as a representative of the site. Indeed a few years back when you approached me about being a moderator on the forums I turned the opportunity down, stating that I didn't think that I had the right personality to act in such a capacity.

Maybe you might want to consider if you're developing some personal issues...

[Free]

ow boy here we go again

[Rain]

I think "to play" is valid if your opponents accept that explanation. If they ask for further explanation please give more details.

I personally just roll my eyes when people write "to play" as explanation, yet I've been guilty of the same. Mostly because there are people who ask you what every other bid means. And I'm like www.bridgebase.com/forums/rollseye.gif

[kenberg]

The original question was "Is 'to play' acceptable". Imo, it sometimes is, sometimes isn't. I play in ACBL land, and no doubt that affects my views. As I see it, someone who sits down at the bridge table, and not in some section with severe upper limits on masterpoints, is expected to know generally how natural bidding is done. If 1S-pass-2C is played as non-forcing (I once played against a pair who played this) they are expected to know this is different than how the game is usually played. They need to inform the opponents, and probably just "to play" is inadequate. An extreme example, I know. Now to 1M-pass-4M. People who play in the "usual way" do not respond 4M if they have, say, a 14 count and a flat hand. Their hcps are limited, and they have shape. An opponent who understands "usual bridge" expects this unless told otherwise. I realize there are people who might bid 4M on a flat 14 even though their partners may have 19, but this is, at least, odd. Precision players can do it because after 1M they know that their partner does not have 19. They know this, their opponents do not. So you tell them. "To play" doesn't do it.

There are other cases where "To play" seems right. 1C-(1H)-1S-(3H)-3NT. What's 3NT? If you have some specific agreement that's great, and then you disclose it. But in any partnership I have, opener hopes to make 9 tricks in NT and hopes 12 tricks are not available in, say, clubs. Maybe he has running clubs, maybe he has a big hand, who knows. He wants to play 3NT. The key point is that the opponents have as much reason to guess opener's hand as I do. There is nothing to explain.

I have learned to ask after the 1M-4M auction, and to read their card if the answer is not satisfactory. OK, but it wastes time. I usually have very little trouble with squabbles at the table, but if the opponents insist on evasiveness, I can be persistent. Eventually it all come out. It's just unpleasant.

[Flame]

I dont like the "to play" explanation, but if you give it the opponenets still have the right to ask again and you need to explain more. so tell them what you told us, any hand that want to play 4M, it can be weak, or a better hand that want to be in game but doesnt have slam interest. You might think "To play" says it all, true it says it all to you and to me, but to someone who never seen something like that it doesnt. Same as when you bid 2D-P-2S where 2D is multy and 2S is p/c, i think the opponenets have the right to know that u usually have good hearts for this bid, yes its common sense, but its a fact that somoene who never played multy might just not get it and he deserve to know.

[Flame]

hrothgar, on Jul 21 2006, 09:58 AM, said:

Anyone with any real experience knows what "To Play" means.  If they don't know, they need to learn.  Hopefully this experience will drill it into their heads.

This is wrong, you say that if they dont know they need to learn, but the rules of bridge say you need to tell them and dont have the right to punish them for not knowing. You say that ppl with real expirence will know in other words you admite that some ppl without real expirience will not know and this is exactly why you must tell them because unless you do that you playing unfair bridge.

[mgoetze]

kenberg, on Jul 21 2006, 06:13 PM, said:

The original question was "Is 'to play' acceptable". Imo, it sometimes is, sometimes isn't. I play in ACBL land, and no doubt that affects my views. As I see it, someone who sits down at the bridge table, and not in some section with severe upper limits on masterpoints, is expected to know generally how natural bidding is done. If 1S-pass-2C is played as non-forcing (I once played against a pair who played this) they are expected to know this is different than how the game is usually played. They need to inform the opponents, and probably just "to play" is inadequate. An extreme example, I know. Now to 1M-pass-4M. People who play in the "usual way" do not respond 4M if they have, say, a 14 count and a flat hand. Their hcps are limited, and they have shape. An opponent who understands "usual bridge" expects this unless told otherwise.

So you understand "usual bridge". Great. But what gives you the right to assume that your opponents play it? Nothing. If you're too lazy to even find out what basic system your opponents are playing, then you deserve whatever bad result you may get.

Anyway, you shouldn't be asking about the 4M bid. You should be asking to have the auction explained to you. Then you will get something like "1♥ showed 5 or more hearts with 10-15 points, and 4♥ was a signoff.", and if you're still assuming that the 4♥ bidder does this on exactly the same hands you do, playing 1♥ as 12-21 points (or, for that matter, 12-18 points with only 4+ hearts, which is probably "usual bridge" in England), then that is entirely your problem and not the opponents'.