[sceptic]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     1♠    2♠    Dbl
 2NT   3♣    Dbl   3NT
 4♥    Pass  Pass  Dbl
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

My 3 club double, opps asked for an alert, I was not sure how my p would take it so I answered no agreement with p

I did not think it was a problem until the opp was asked by my p to explain an bid and she put in the box ?, then my p asked them to explain and the opp got somewhat sarcastic well in my mind she was ( we had a private conversation ) which is probably irrelevant

anyway was my explanation wrong and if so what should I have alerted when asked about the X of 3 clubs?

[inquiry]

If you had no agreement about the meaning of double on this auction, your explaination is 100% correct and accurate.

[jillybean]

sceptic, on Mar 24 2007, 10:09 AM, said:

anyway was my explanation wrong and if so what should I have alerted when asked about the X of 3 clubs?

Do you have no agreement or did you think your partner would forget the agreement?

[fred]

inquiry, on Mar 24 2007, 05:17 PM, said:

If you had no agreement about the meaning of double on this auction, your explaination is 100% correct and accurate.

I have always thought this to be true, but recently I have had some discussions with some of the ACBL's highest-ranking TDs on this subject. These discussions were not specifically about self-alerts in online bridge. Instead we had these discussions in the context of playing behind screens (where each player is responsible for alerting and explaining both his own and his partner's bids).

This situation (or at least half of it) is pretty much analogous to the self-alerts that we use when playing online. So I think it is safe to conclude that the opinions of these TDs can be applied in an online context as well.

The TDs were all of the opinion that even if you have no explicit agreement, if you have a fairly good idea of how your partner will interpret your bid then you should give the opponents this information.

I have always done this anyways, but I had been under the impression that this was purely a matter of good sportsmanship (as opposed to something that is written in the Laws). According to the TDs I spoke to this is actually a legal matter.

When I asked the TDs what constituted a "fairly good idea" they admitted that this was a grey area. Factors like the expertise of the players and how frequently they play as partners come into play when TDs have to make rulings in this area.

The perception that "no agreement" is perfectly acceptable in situations in which no explicit agreement exists is widespread. Personally I was happy to find out that this is not how it is supposed to work (at least according to the TDs I consulted).

This makes bridge a fairer and more enjoyable game in my view.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

I love Fred's post, it's all about using common sense. If you are fairly sure your partner will interpret the bid correctly then I believe the opponents are entitled to that information. Very often when my opponents simply say "no agreement" I feel as though they are hiding something from me.

Something like "we haven't discussed it but I am fairly sure partner will take this double as showing clubs" is good. If partner turns out not to have taken it that way then the opponents have no reason to be upset as you made it clear you were just using your judgement. If they get upset anyway I chalk it up to 'you can't please everyone no matter what you do'.

[Fluffy]

I had same problem without screeens on the bidding:

1♥-1NT
3♥-3♠


I said no agreement

but I actually expected a ♥ honnor and willing to play in 3NT.

Next time I'll say: my partner had A109-Axx-Qxx-Jxxx last time

[hotShot]

I think we can define that grey area a little better.

You have to disclose partnership agreements and partnership experience.
So if you meet a pickup partner at a BBO table you never played with before and you make the usual little to nothing agreement, than it is perfectly correct to say you have no agreement.

Now if you have played with a partner a few times, than you expect him/her to be on the same wavelength with you more often than on different ones. So your disclusure should be something like:
"We do not have an agreement for this auction, but generally we play system on after opps double." (Or short for the alert box, "not agreed, expecting system on").

[bid_em_up]

Well....I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that 2N asks what minor, and the X of 3C says "my minor was clubs". Even though you had no agreement, I think you should have stated this. It would have saved you all the extra grief, if nothing else.

jmoo.

[Winstonm]

Quote

The perception that "no agreement" is perfectly acceptable in situations in which no explicit agreement exists is widespread. Personally I was happy to find out that this is not how it is supposed to work (at least according to the TDs I consulted).

This is good news to me, as well. I've felt as if the "no agreement" approach has been utilized more to keep opponents in the dark than as to a genuine explanation.
Simply because one specific sequence has not been discussed, yet is a logical extension of other similar agreements, does not IMO allow a disavowance of any collectiive understanding of what is intended by a bid. I believe it would be more useful and in keeping with the spirit of full disclosure to at least provide a generalized statement of agreements, i.e., "our doubles are primarily takeout" would be better than "no agreement".

In my mind, this is akin to lawyerly avoidance in that one must not only know but then ask the right question to get a satisfactory answer.

[BillHiggin]

My opinions on "no agreement" (and these are just opinions):
If you really were completely unsure of how your partner would interpret a bid, you would take the prudent course of not actually making that ambiguous bid. The fact that you do choose to make the bid seems to indicate that you feel the odds are at least tilted towards partner interpreting it as you intended. A qualified explanation is usually appropriate "it ought to mean ... , but I am not sure".

Of course, this is not always the way we behave. Some players will double in the mere hope that partner will interpret it in the manner that matches their actual holding, and for them "no agreement" is indeed accurate.

[Fluffy]

BillHiggin, on Mar 24 2007, 11:15 PM, said:

The fact that you do choose to make the bid seems to indicate that you feel the odds are at least tilted towards partner interpreting it as you intended.

Kinda often I make uunclear biddings because all possible explanations fit my hand so I don't care what partner thinks it is.

There are times when my partner makes a bid that can have 2 interpretations, and I am sure he has both interpretations because he wouldn't risk a missunderstanding otherwise

[mhais]

ur answer is ethical legal & logical fair enough no need for dicussion.

[jillybean]

My 2cents, a pickup partner at the club is very different from a pickup on BBO

When you grab a partner last minute or sub in a BBO tournament who knows how your partner will interpret ‘sayc’
Take sayc, with a number of standard conventions, transfers, stayman, blackwood that if your opps want to know the meaning you probably should give them an answer.
Using more advanced conventions splinters, nmf, 4sf, cue bidding with a pick up partner carries much greater risk and I see no reason why you should provide your opps with more information. I think ‘no agreement’ is fine.

[badderzboy]

The situation here is North has suddenly realised u might have Clubs and was assuming u had Diamonds - the fact your ptr can now work out u have Clubs from his holding is not AI to North.

You HOPE ur double is taken as showing Clubs u haven't agreed it and ptr is entitled o work it out herself.

The opps aren't allowed to know what it means if your ptr doesn't lol!

Its a bit like a discard signal what does the X of Diamonds mean...

The correct answer is if my ptr thinks it is high its a signal for if low a signal for.. its amazing how many say he wants a ... (Oh so u know its high/low....)

Steve

[helene_t]

I agree with Fred that having no explicit agreement is an insuficiant excuse for saying "no agreement". Implicit agreements are agreements as well.

I agree with Justin that if you expect partner to be able to figure out the meaning of your bid resorting to bridge logic, you don't have to explain.

Justin's point of view sometimes causes problems when playing against opps with a very different notion of "bridge logic" than you own. We have some players at my local club who learned rubber bridge from their own grandparents back in 50's and don't seem ever to have read anything about bridge nor listened to younger/better authorities. Some seem to consider it elementary that any NT bid (including a 1NT openig and a 1NT response to 1♠) implies a stopper in each (unbid) suit. One player recently made the remark that he knew that his partner had the jack of hearts. Why? I asked, very surprised. Because he had AKQ and she opened 1NT! He obviously didn't alert that 1NT opening and I think I would have had to interogate him quite extensively to get such information during the auction.

Another example: three years ago, an article in the "intermediate" section of the Dutch BF magzine "Bridge" stated that you don't have to explain the opps that opener's second suit in certain sitiations can be a 3-card, because it's "Bridge logic" that introducing a 3-card minor can be the smallest lie. The example given was a 5332 with 16 points, obviously not the wrong strength for any NT rebid and unsuited for a 1NT openign because of the 5-card spades. This is funny since the most popular beginner's books in the Netherlands dictate a 1NT opening with such a hand. Of course, there may be other hands that would have to introduce a 3-card minor, but which hands is system dependent and needs to be disclosed.

In short, I think Justin is right in principle but you have to be 110% sure that the "bridge logic" you're invoking is universal, not a perculiarity of your own partnership/generation/culture/system.

As for Wayne's case: if you're playing with a completely random BBO partner, you don't know more about his bridge logic than you know about opps so you clearly don't have to disclose anything. But otherwise, I think I'd just give full disclosure of your assumed agreement. I can imagine (correct me if I'm wrong) that many would think that your double showed extra's and/or better clubs, and a few would play it as "action", showing diamonds. And a few opps who never heard about Michaels (or other conventions showing length in an unknown suit) might have dificulty figuring out that your double showed clubs.

[hrothgar]

I think that this thread should viewed as a subset of a much broader discussion. For better or worse, there are a lot of players out there who seem to believe that the regulations surrounding disclosure is based on the cards that one holds in ones hands rather than the set of partnership agreements. This mindset crops up a lot during arguments about "psyches". There are a lot of folks that are horrified that anyone would dare to lie about what cards they hold. It (obviously) crops up again during discussions like this one.

From my own perspective, I think that Kathryn was completely correct when she stated that pickup or irregular partnership playing online is very different that a well established partnership playing in an event with screens. I think that the biggest difference has to do with the existence of so-called "Meta" agreements. I don't believe that any partnership can reasonably be expected to draft specific agreements documenting every possible bidding sequence. An awful lot of a bidding system is encapsulated in a set of general rules than one hopes are sufficient to create enough of an understand that one can muddle through an unfamiliar sequence. For example, one of my favorites examples of a meta agreement is that "Impossible" bids are fit showing. However, there are a number of others. Well established partnerships who have reason beleive that an unfamilar sequence is covered by one of these meta agreement (obviously) have an obligation to disclose their methods to the opponents.

However, if I'm playing in an online tournament with pickup partner - worse yet, I'm playing in an individual - I have no way of knowning what this partner is capable. The only thing that I can be sure about is that if he rates himself as an "Expert" I should be thanking the gods above that the BBO software doesn't permit revokes.

Lets assume that I get dealt the following dreck in first seat during an indy

♠ KQ6
♥ 94
♦ 752
♣ KQ532

The auction proceeds

P - (P) - 1♠ - (P)
???

I'm going to take a double shot and respond 2♣. Furthermore, if the opponents ask me what it means, I'm going to say "no agreement". I'm already at enough of a disadvantage because I have no idea how partner is going to interprete this bid. I see no reason why I should compound my problems by letting the opponents in on "the secret".

Maybe I'm not being "sporting" about things. So be it. There is nothing in the law books about being "sporting". From my own perspective, its a major mistake to start dragging outside aesthetics into games like bridge. If something is really important it should be encapsulated into the rules of the game or the conditions of contest for the event. If its not "written in stone" then folks don't have a right to expect that other people will conform to whatever quirky little set of behavioural norms you'r fixating on at this point and time.

[kenberg]

I also like Fred's comments a lot. However, with reference to the double of 3C in an online tourney (at least in most I have played in and I have played in the Tango), I think common sense leads us to "undiscussed" as a completely reasonable answer, especially if you add that it is a pick-up partnership. The opponents should have little trouble believing you that it is undiscussed, so everyone is doing their best in an undiscussed auction, and there is no reason I can see that you need explain to your opponents what you hold.

I believe I set a reasonable standard for myself about disclosure. Playing with a pick-up who opens a weak 2D, if I bid 2S I tell the opponents whether I intend it as forcing. I am assuming, or at least hoping, I have enough of a feeling for partner's views to bid know which meaning partner will assume , although I could be wrong. There is usually some sort of implied understanding and I share it with opponents with the "intended" proviso. But in the case at hand everyone is doing a bit of guessing (although I can't see the "guess" as exactly a tough one) and I favor leaving it at that. This ethics stuff can cut both ways. Opponents should not badger you to provide more information about your bid than it is reasonable to think your partner has.

Ken

[P_Marlowe]

sceptic, on Mar 25 2007, 07:36 AM, said:

Ok, lets assume the following is true. (may be assume" is in  appropriate)

I had not agreed to play michales or UNT, but I alerted that bid as hearts and a minor

I had not agreed to play anything in particular for the 3 club double, but I knew what I wanted it to mean

so why should should my opps not get shitty with me, when I alert a bid that cleary, I had not agreed to play but decided my pard was clever enough to work out what it means (Michaels convention)

(he  or she was advanced, on their profile) and yet, I make another call exactly the same (we had not agreed to play anything particular and the same things, I assumed my p was adavnced and could work it out for him self)

Yet I stated (when asked) no agreement with p, all in the same hand,

I think as far as it goes the general consensous is that I was ok to bid no agreement (because I clearly was with a pick up p and no history of anything like an agreement for these bids), but I stil have an issue I would like to understand if you will bear with me.

1/. does this make me a hypocrite
2/. Would you or might you find my attitude is poor
3/. do you thik that the inconsistancy of what I did annoying if you were my opp on this hand

Hi,

If you bid a Michales Cue, you expect partner to figure it
out: You use a standard convention, which you think belongs
to the standard set played in the given enviroment.
=> You should alert the bid.
The area between no agreement and implicit partneship
agreement is a large gray area, there is a fuzzy line... but you
should go out of your way to give full disclosure.

BBO is different than a club, but you will play quite often in the
same tournament cycle, at the same time, hence after a while
you know, what is commom standard and what not.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenberg]

sceptic, on Mar 25 2007, 07:36 AM, said:

Ok, lets assume the following is true. (may be assume" is in appropriate)

I had not agreed to play michales or UNT, but I alerted that bid as hearts and a minor

I had not agreed to play anything in particular for the 3 club double, but I knew what I wanted it to mean

so why should should my opps not get shitty with me, when I alert a bid that cleary, I had not agreed to play but decided my pard was clever enough to work out what it means (Michaels convention)

(he or she was advanced, on their profile) and yet, I make another call exactly the same (we had not agreed to play anything particular and the same things, I assumed my p was adavnced and could work it out for him self)

Yet I stated (when asked) no agreement with p, all in the same hand,

I think as far as it goes the general consensous is that I was ok to bid no agreement (because I clearly was with a pick up p and no history of anything like an agreement for these bids), but I stil have an issue I would like to understand if you will bear with me.

1/. does this make me a hypocrite
2/. Would you or might you find my attitude is poor
3/. do you thik that the inconsistancy of what I did annoying if you were my opp on this hand

To deal with 3 first, if I were your opponent I would not have asked for the meaning of the double of 3C.

As to 1 and 2, no to 1 and I dunno to 2 since the whole thing wouldn't have happened. I guess in your shoes I would have said it shows clubs (and resisted the urge to add "duh") and let it go at that. Of course then you would have an inquiry about how many points it showed and how good the clubs were and ... You can answer: It shows clubs, beyond that partner and you are both on your own.

I do not believe "it shows clubs" is really needed, but it's also harmless. Your opponents actually already know this, they are just asking because they can.