[jocdelevat]

Hi all
I played in a ACBL (BBO) tourney. This is the board.

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     -     Pass
 Pass  1♦    2♣    Dbl
 3♣    4♣    5♣    5♦
 Pass  5♥    Pass  6♥
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

My pard query 4c which was a cue bid and opps reply cue bids not alertable. My pard call td for no explanation of the bid. I think I agree with opps in this case. TD asked opps to explain. Whats your opinion?

[hrothgar]

I think that you are confusing two very separate issues:

First and foremost: Bridge is a game based on the full and complete disclosure of methods. Bridge players have an absolute obligation to explain their partnership agreements to the opposing pair. If they ask, you must explain. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Second: Bridge regulators have create alert/announcement regimes. The alert and announcement systems dictate information that you must provide to the opponents even when they don't ask a question.

The fact that a bid is not alertable (or announcable) has no impact on responding to direct questions.

[FrancesHinden]

What he said.

[pclayton]

Yes and no.

You are obligated to disclose your agreements, but you have no obligation to educate your opponents about what a standard bid means.

This is not the same as saying 'no agreement'.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

just want to add one or two remarks.

If you look at the given auction,
it is unclear, which suit has been agreed,
if at all, most likely it simply means, pick
your mayor, I have both, hence 4C may
not even say anything about the club suit.

Assuming North / South have a clear understanding,
it would be great, if they would tell me, what their
agreement is. 4C is a cue, but what does it mean?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Jan 8 2007, 12:26 AM, said:

Yes and no.

You are obligated to disclose your agreements, but you have no obligation to educate your opponents about what a standard bid means.

This is not the same as saying 'no agreement'.

I don't think that this is the case:

Assume for the moment that you and your regular partner have agreed to play 2/1 Game Force.

You open 1♠ and I ask you about the meaning of the bid.

I would argue that you have an absolute requirement to describe your agreement to me, regardless of the fact that your agreement is (pretty much) the standard one. If you respond "standard", I can require a more complete explanation. For example, you might say something like

"5+ Spades, ~ 11-21 HCP
Denies a balanced hand with 15 - 17 HCP or 20-21 HCP.

The word standard is shorthand, just like "Michaels", "Jacoby", "Texas", or "Transfer". People use these one word expressions to speed things along, but this should not be confused with adequate disclosure.

The only time you don't need to disclose your methods is when you, in fact, have no actual agreement.

[gwnn]

On BBO it can be quite funny when they alert (or not even alert) 1♣-X-p-2♣*

When asked they kindly explain to you "cue bid".

[the hog]

gwnn, on Jan 8 2007, 07:47 AM, said:

On BBO it can be quite funny when they alert (or not even alert) 1♣-X-p-2♣*

When asked they kindly explain to you "cue bid".

Well this explanation is not as silly as it sounds either; it simply means I have better than the rubbish I usually have, please bid a suit. And yes that also is standard.

However I do agree with what Richard says. You do have an obligation to tell me what your bid means if I ask. Having said this, I think excessive asking particularly if there is no real reason for it, should be subject to ZT

[blackshoe]

The ACBL Alert Procedure explicitly states that "explaining" a call by naming it ("Stayman", "Jacoby", "cue bid" or whatever) is not adequate disclosure - you must explain what the call means, not what its name is.

[ArcLight]

>You are obligated to disclose your agreements, but you have no obligation to educate your opponents about what a standard bid means.

What if I don't know your system?
What if my opps are using MOSCITO, which I don't know.
What if I am not familiar with a convention?

Whats wrong with
"in our system this shows an unwillingness to defend clubs and demands pard bids a suit"

Maybe the last pair they played uses the cue bid to show a 4-4-4-1 hand with an odd number of jacks and a prime number of honor cards.

[cherdano]

The_Hog, on Jan 7 2007, 11:56 PM, said:

gwnn, on Jan 8 2007, 07:47 AM, said:

On BBO it can be quite funny when they alert (or not even alert) 1♣-X-p-2♣*

When asked they kindly explain to you "cue bid".

Well this explanation is not as silly as it sounds either; it simply means I have better than the rubbish I usually have, please bid a suit. And yes that also is standard.

Except I doubt there is a standard about how much it promises, or whether it promises a rebid...

[barmar]

Law 75C says:
[blockquote]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.[/blockquote]

Things that I believe are considered "general knowledge" are facts like it takes about 25 points (HCP or compensating distribution) to make game. Thus, if one player opens a 15-17 NT, and his partner makes an invitational bid, it should be adequate to explain that it's invitational -- the opponents can figure out what the point range is by themselves. And if opener then bids game, you don't have to explain that this means he has 17 or a good 16 HCP, this is "just bridge".

An interesting question arises, though. The law says that you don't have to explain inferences from your own general knowledge and experience. This presumes that the opponent has similar general knowledge. What if you're playing against a beginner -- he has very little experience, so he's likely to question many things that are considered standard. Is he out of luck because his experience doesn't match your own? What if you're playing in a Pro-Am event -- would you tend to be more forthcoming because education is one of the goals of a game like this (usually the beginners stay in the novice games, so they don't have to butt heads with the "experts").