[tigerboy]

There seems to be an idea among a lot of players that it is quite OK to tell partner what your bids mean, during the auction, such as "4nt" (KCA 3041 comes on screen). Recently one player made a jump shift and was asked if this was weak or strong, and gave the answer. If you play on-line bridge and have no time to discuss system before playing you must take pot luck and avoid bids which are treated differently by various players. The laws of the game are not suspended merely because we are playing on line, and nobody would dream of such a thing if playing face to face so why should it be different on line?
If it happens I always ask for a redeal, and when host I insist on it or remove the offenders from the table.
Tigerboy

[pbleighton]

You can choose how you deal with it. For myself, if it happens in a tourney (it hasn't so far), I would call the director. In the MBC, I ignore it.

Peter

[goobers]

Playing online, I don't care about table talk of this type unless I'm in some sort of tourney.

Having your opps play in the dark with regard to bidding isn't all that fun or sportsmanly in my opinion. But really, the fact is that it's online bridge, and it really doesn't matter.

[jdonn]

Anyone who would complain about opponents doing this in what should just be a friendly online game needs to lighten up. Is it very fun playing against randoms from different countries who would have a misunderstanding every third auction?

Maybe it is entirely the point that online bridge is different from F2F.

[cherdano]

I have no problem clarifying 1430 vs 3041. We often sit down online with a partner without even the minimal 5 minutes of system discussion we would do when playing in real life, and I would rather have my opps clarify that on the way than benefit from all their misunderstandings.

I do have a slight problem with the UI transmitted that the 4N bid is actually RKCB rather than natural or takeout or Blackwood when that's not 100% clear - that's something even experienced partnerships can get wrong, and when I am playing with a pickup I think it is part of the challenge to be on the same wavelength about this kind of stuff (or avoid the bid when a misunderstanding seems too likely).

[Codo]

jdonn, on May 15 2007, 10:09 AM, said:

Anyone who would complain about opponents doing this in what should just be a friendly online game needs to lighten up. Is it very fun playing against randoms from different countries who would have a misunderstanding every third auction?

Maybe it is entirely the point that online bridge is different from F2F.

100 % true
I would prefer opps who discuss during the bidding to opps who play in a lot of silly 3-1 fits or in partscores with 30 HCPs.

But each to his own. If you prefer a different approach, because laws are more important then joy, go ahead, there is place for anybody at bbo.

[han]

Agree with Josh.

[Echognome]

I guess it's all a matter of degree. I wouldn't enjoy two opponents sitting there discussing every bid, but to avoid opponents having silly bidding misunderstandings isn't very enjoyable.

Furthermore, I enjoy playing some more complex methods and it would be unreasonable to expect a pair to agree on a defense for every method I play. I'd much rather save time and encourage them to discuss defenses if and when they come up. We're not trying to gain on our methods by confusion. What fun is that?

[helene_t]

In a tourney the TD decides the rules. If nothing is specified I assume it's not allowed. Many TD's say this explicitly. I've yet to encounter a TD who allowed it.

Playing in an indy, avoiding silly bidding misunderstandings is part of the game. You can assume whatever RKC versions is on partner's profile, or on your own profile, or you can try to live without the 4NT card.

Playing in pairs tourney, I often use FD which gives my partnership an unfair advantage. There's a case for compensating this by condoning some degree of discussion between the opps. The problem is that the level of discussion to condone is subjective. If we've told opps "feel free to discuss" and they then abuse that privilege by switching between NFB and FFB depending on what their hand is most suited for, I wouldn't torture the TD with the issue but still I'd feel somewhat scr....d.

I think the TD should either disallow FD or strongly encourage everybody to load some FD. Then nobody has an unfair advantage (except that some FDs may be more detailed than others).

Playing in the main room, I don't have any problem with opps discussing. But one should never start discussing without the consent of the opps.

[1eyedjack]

There are always grey areas.

In a face to face game I may make a bid in competition hoping to "stir it", which is to say predicting (not always correctly) that my intervention will cause the opponents to have a misunderstanding in the subsequent auction, based on the premise that they are less likely to have discussed that particular competitive sequence than the alternative of my passing.

The bid may be theoretically unsound if employed against opponents who do have (contrary to my hope at the time) a sound partnership understanding of the subsequent options, and when that happens (and I guessed wrong) I may lose.

Perhaps I should always assume perfect partnership harmony in my opponents and never make such bids, but there you have it.

In the online community this practice is effectively stamped out (perhaps for the better of the game?), because the opponents make up and agree on their continuations after the bid. And then, surprisingly, they reject my request for an undo (as I would not have made the bid knowing that the defence is well oiled). Well, perhaps it is an abuse of undo as it was not exactly a misclick, but it seems to me to be an equitable solution.

[Walddk]

tigerboy, on May 15 2007, 02:09 AM, said:

... and when host I insist on it or remove the offenders from the table.

Even if you are table host, it does not give you the right to remove players from your table. It's a violation of Rules of This Site and one of the reasons why some users are barred from playing for some time.

You can ask the "offenders" to leave after the hand, politely needless to say, but you can't throw him/her/them out.

Each to his own, but when playing in the MBC I will certainly allow anyone to discuss system during the auction. Sometimes I even encourage them to do just that.

Roland

[Fluffy]

I'll often tell them how his partner alerted a specific bid.

There is a difference when I have to reopen 1NT, I will not tell my partner what my bidding means, because that would be unhonest because I could pick the best convention for my use at the time, instead I will just ask my partner what does he want me to play on these position.

[jtfanclub]

Seems to me that we have multiple bridge clubs for this exact reason, no?

I would expect all sorts of discussion at relaxed, no discussion in serious, and in the middle, just discussions on RKC form, systems over 2♣, etc.

I do hate people who tell, and don't ask. Kinda handy to play both intermediate and weak jump shifts depending on what you tell your partner.

[ArcLight]

Not only do I disagree, I will even tell the opponent what his pard alerted, just so they don't have a bidding mixup. If they have a mix up, I'll stop the bidding and ask them if they want an undo.


I look at it this way:
If I get a good score because 2 stangers had a misunderstanding and we set 6X by 3 tricks because opps thought 2NT was Jacoby when it was natural, I am not having a good time. In fact its a waste of my time.


My pet peeve is opps not alerting or being evasive.
I am unfamiliar with Polish Club.
I asked what a DBL meant (I assumed it was Negative but since I was unfamiliar I could be wrong). The response was "Its Natural". What the heck is "Natural"? How about "Negative" or "Penalty" (or whatever).

[jchiu]

Echognome, on May 15 2007, 06:20 AM, said:

Furthermore, I enjoy playing some more complex methods and it would be unreasonable to expect a pair to agree on a defense for every method I play. I'd much rather save time and encourage them to discuss defenses if and when they come up. We're not trying to gain on our methods by confusion. What fun is that?

I thought former-Brits like you played Acol

[peaceman]

This is an interesting thread to me because it addresses the issues of the evolution of bridge rules and customs.

I feel it is a mistake to assume that people will treat the online game the same way they treat the f2f game. The online game has options & handicaps that simply don't exist in the F2F game, so naturally it must have guidelines suitable to its unique structure.

For example, people say things in the online game that they would never dream of trying to get away with in the F2F game, because they r protected by anonymity & the fact an enraged opponent or partner could never hurl a drink at them.

Rude comments & impatience with pard's errors at this site seem to me to be on the rise, altho the culture here is generally far better behaved than at (unspeakable) MSN and some other places. A pet peeve is "experts" who quit the hand immediately when they becom dummy, becuase they r disappointed with pard's bidding or -- just as often -- embarrassed by their own lapse.

What do u do when opps ask you about their partners bids? Do u give them private chat "explanations" or table-chat "explanations"? The former option is not available F2F.

A lot of beginners take it as rude that no one will help them learn what is going on, so i answer their enquiries when the situation seems clear, or suggest to them where they might have gone wrong if an argument appears to be developing.

It never ceases to amaze me when an "expert" parachutes into a game opposite a "beginner" or "advanced" player, then starts to berate them for not understanding actions that r clearly beyond the level of sophistication their pards r advertising in good faith.

It probably would be a good idea for site organizers to establish general rules about what, if anything, can be "announced" to the table, or "asked" of pard.

There r plusses & minuses of both "don't ask, don't tell" and the more relaxed approach to bidding, but surely having no guidelines or restrictive guidelines which r frequently ignored by the players are both pretty useless.

Perhaps the guidelines could be different in the "main" room and the "relaxed" room, to reflect the different style preferences?

[Winstonm]

Quote

evolution of bridge rules and customs.

Uh-oh. You said the "E" word.

[Winstonm]

Quote

There are always grey areas.

Obviously, you need more indoctrination...er re-education - There ist no gray. There ist only vite und black.

Repeat 100 times or watch Cheney video 20 times.

[barmar]

Silly question: why is this discussion about online bridge taking place in the Offline Bridge forum?

[Rossoneri]

barmar, on May 16 2007, 01:21 PM, said:

Silly question: why is this discussion about online bridge taking place in the Offline Bridge forum?

I noticed that as well.