[glen]

ralph23, on Sep 28 2007, 10:09 AM, said:

But what do you provide if you truly have no agreement (neither express, implied, implicit, or otherwise)?

If there is no expressed, implied, implicit, or otherwise suggested agreement, then "no partnership agreement" is fine. So, for example, if there was no cc set (i.e. the system did not automatically start with a sayc cc), no discussion, and nothing in the user's profiles, then "no partnership agreement" works.

In this particular case, the poster said " my card" - I don't know if this was a cc, or just some notes on the user's profile, though I expect it was just the latter, and the poster expected others to reference it to find an implied agreement.

[uday]

We had this discussion earlier:

http://forums.bridge...topic=19740&hl=

at some point this issue came up:

what if you sat down with 3 strangers , with or without SAYC/FD/etc and without discussion opened 2D. What do you have to explain when an opp queries you about your bid?

a) I intend it as weak. Hope he reads it that way. No agreement.
You know as much as we do. No agreement beyond what our CC says, if anything

Consensus was probably not attained

[blackshoe]

Here are three scenarios:

1. face to face bridge. Everybody can see and hear everybody else. Alerts and explanations are given by bidder's partner, everybody hears them, they are UI to the bidder.

2. face to face bridge behind screens. Each player can see and hear only one player from the other pair. Alerts and explanations are given by both the player making the bid, and his partner, each to his screenmate. UI is minimized, but the possibility of MI is increased.

3. online bridge. Alerts and explanations are given by the bidder to his opponents - his partner isn't aware of them. UI is reduced, the possibility of MI is increased (or so it seems to me) and we have the additional problem of the bidder feeling obligated to explain what's in his hand.

Let me propose a fourth scenario:

4. Each player is isolated (perhaps temporarily) from the other three. His bids are alerted and explained by his partner, to the opponents. He cannot hear them. This would seem to me to eliminate the possibility of UI, reduce the possibility of MI, and avoid the problem of players explaining what's in their hand.

Uday, is this feasible online?

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Sep 28 2007, 09:18 PM, said:

4. Each player is isolated (perhaps temporarily) from the other three. His bids are alerted and explained by his partner, to the opponents. He cannot hear them. This would seem to me to eliminate the possibility of UI, reduce the possibility of MI, and avoid the problem of players explaining what's in their hand.

Uday, is this feasible online?

In theory, one could lower a "cone of silence" arround a specific player at a table, however, I think that this would cause more problems that its worth.

The current software allows a player to send messages to both opponents (but not partner). This existing functionality could be used to implement the usage model that you suggest. The problem is that this flies in the face of established convention.

For better or worse, the notion of the self alert seems to have become established in online bridge. I don't think that you're going to be able to turn back the tide, nor do I think that it is desirable to do so. (I'd rather spend the effort to try to educate people about the futility of expecting disclosure standards appropriate to real games in pickup games on BBO)

I'll note in passing that you are missing a fifth scenario:

5. The partnership loads a Full Disclosure File which automatically alerts / announces the meaning of bids in accordance with the partnership agreement.

[helene_t]

If I overcall their 1NT with 2♣ and I think it means majors while p thinks it means clubs, what information should opps have? Surely not both. They are better off knowing how 2♣ was intended. OTOH if I intend it as majors while p has no clue what it means, the correct explanation would be "no agreement", i.e. what p says.

So ideally we should both explain the meaning and then the software could make sure that if we disagree, the opps hear "no agreement". The problem with this is that the disagreement may be minor, e.g. whether a 1NT opening may contain a 5-card major.

I suppose the current solution is the best one.

[jillybean]

hrothgar, on Sep 28 2007, 11:34 AM, said:

5. The partnership loads a Full Disclosure File which automatically alerts / announces the meaning of bids in accordance with the partnership agreement.

Hi Richard,

I usualy like your ideas but I hate this one. Forcing a convention card on indys or even pickup partners is futile and creates MI. No partnership exists in the real sense of the word.

As Uday says on this one, consensus probably wont be attained

[helene_t]

jillybean2, on Sep 28 2007, 09:18 PM, said:

I usualy like your ideas but I hate this one. Forcing a convention card on indys or even pickup partners is futile and creates MI. No partnership exists in the real sense of the word.

Not necessarily, the default FD file explains everything as 0-13 of each suit, no agreement about forcing character

[cherdano]

jillybean2, on Sep 28 2007, 01:18 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Sep 28 2007, 11:34 AM, said:

5. The partnership loads a Full Disclosure File which automatically alerts / announces the meaning of bids in accordance with the partnership agreement.

Hi Richard,

I usualy like your ideas but I hate this one. Forcing a convention card on indys or even pickup partners is futile and creates MI. No partnership exists in the real sense of the word.

As Uday says on this one, consensus probably wont be attained

There used to be a SAYC-only individual tournament series, I think it was run by McBruce. Basically his rules were that any fielded non-SAYC bid should be treated as a concealed partnership agreement.

When I played in them I found his rules worked really well, I enjoyed them more than any other individual I have played in. I suppose McBruce put in a lot of education effort to make them work.

[uday]

Quote

4. Each player is isolated (perhaps temporarily) from the other three. His bids are alerted and explained by his partner, to the opponents. He cannot hear them. This would seem to me to eliminate the possibility of UI, reduce the possibility of MI, and avoid the problem of players explaining what's in their hand.

I'm sure FG could change the program to do this. I don't know whether he'd want to move away from self alerts, of course

[jillybean]

helene_t, on Sep 28 2007, 12:23 PM, said:

Not necessarily, the default FD file explains everything as 0-13 of each suit, no agreement about forcing character

LOL

[glen]

uday, on Sep 28 2007, 12:58 PM, said:

We had this discussion earlier:

http://forums.bridge...topic=19740&hl=

at some point this issue came up:

what if you sat down with 3 strangers , with or without SAYC/FD/etc and without discussion opened 2D. What do you have to explain when an opp queries you about your bid?

In quickly reading that thread I didn't see the "3 strangers , with or without SAYC/FD/etc and without discussion opened 2D" example - instead I saw a more complex example.

However Fred's post is key:

fred, on Jun 17 2007, 10:25 AM, said:

According to the ACBL TDs I discussed this with, the key factor to consider in deciding when to say something other than "no agreement" is the confidence level you have in your partner figuring out what your bid means: if you have a strong degree of confidence that your partner will understand the intention of your bid, you should let your opponents know. You can (and should) protect yourself by prefacing such an explanation with something like "We have not discussed this but...".

So if one opens 2♦ in an Ind Tourney, and one has a "NO Multi" profile, you have a "strong degree of confidence" that 2♦ will be treated as a weak two in ♦s, so "not discussed, but should be a weak 2".

[Rossoneri]

...Then shouldn't opponents be looking at profiles as well too?

But I definitely agree that the TD was being overboard.

[zielona]

helene_t, on Sep 28 2007, 02:10 PM, said:

If I overcall their 1NT with 2♣ and I think it means majors while p thinks it means clubs, what information should opps have? Surely not both. They are better off knowing how 2♣ was intended. OTOH if I intend it as majors while p has no clue what it means, the correct explanation would be "no agreement", i.e. what p says.

So ideally we should both explain the meaning and then the software could make sure that if we disagree, the opps hear "no agreement".

As much as I like blackshoe's idea of making P explain the calls in individual tournaments, now we are entering dangerous territory. Aren't we all guilty of taking easy advantage of opps misunderstandings? On BBO and F2F equally, it is a fully legal thing. I definitely would not like BBO helping opps to "detect" misunderstanding between me and my partner. And would I be able to see it as well?
I agree Helene that the current solution is the best one.

That is also to avoid further education for thousands of BBO players. I think education is one big problem that we have on BBO. Majority of players are not able to understand what private message is, how to write to tourney chat, etc etc - so let's not add to the list. I can see no more than 5% of players being able to tell who wrote in the alert box and for the fairness' sake, they are entitled to this information.

officeglen, on Sep 28 2007, 05:47 PM, said:

However Fred's post is key:

fred, on Jun 17 2007, 10:25 AM, said:

According to the ACBL TDs I discussed this with, the key factor to consider in deciding when to say something other than "no agreement" is the confidence level you have in your partner figuring out what your bid means: if you have a strong degree of confidence that your partner will understand the intention of your bid, you should let your opponents know. You can (and should) protect yourself by prefacing such an explanation with something like "We have not discussed this but...".

So if one opens 2♦ in an Ind Tourney, and one has a "NO Multi" profile, you have a "strong degree of confidence" that 2♦ will be treated as a weak two in ♦s, so "not discussed, but should be a weak 2".

Hmmm. Well. I am not so convinced. Or is it just that I am not that nice to the opponents? Even if I knew that my partner understood my intention, do I need to assist the opponents?

Back to my sunny morning. I am not sure at what moment of time I first responded with the "no partnership agreement" in the alert box. But the second and 4 subsequent clicks on the 2♦ were after my partner already passed. So what does that tell me? My intermediate partner of no country, with assumed average ability to read my profile, guessed that 2♦ were weak. The expert opponent needed help, even after seeing pass from my partner. Is it up to me to help him?


And now due to overwhelming demand I will provide the exerpt from my chat.

david_c, on Sep 28 2007, 06:46 AM, said:

Also, you don't get chucked out of a tourney just for losing a ruling. I suspect that this player's behaviour was less than perfect.

You are very correct David.... I was not perfect. I have never claimed to be a goody goody two shoes. I am easily provoked to sarcasm and sometimes even worse.

So here it is and please remember that all that happened in a space of seconds. The chat starts after 6 clicks on the 2♦ bid:

RHO: but you know what 2 D is
->zielona: Automated message: Director TD has been requested by zielona
->zielona: Automated message: Director TD is now at the table as requested by zielona
->zielona: Automated message: Director TD has been requested by RHO
RHO: what is 2 D no answer
->TD: hi, RHO insists i tell him what 2d is
TD: i am here how can i help?
TD: you must inform
RHO: yes I want to know what is 2 D
->TD: i have no partnership agreement with my partner
TD: you must sitll inform them
TD: if they assk
zielona: no, this is indiv and i do not have to inform opps about something my partner doesnt know
TD: please inform thenm
RHO: terrible people
zielona: so TD, do you want me to tell opps all 13 cards i have? can I tell my p as well?
LHO: zielona must inform
TD: no just waht the 2 !D means in the alert box please
LHO: zielona musy inform us
P: p pls inform we are loosing time
->zielona: Automated message: You have been replaced, and are no longer playing in this tournament/team game

[blackshoe]

I would have asked the TD "Of what do you wish me to inform them?" If he answered something like "of your partnership agreement" I would reply "I have already done so."

It seems to me like some online TDs are too ready to kick people.

[barmar]

You weren't kicked out because you were ruled against. You were kicked out because you refused to do what the TD said in the ruling. And on top of that you were sarcastic about it, with your "do you want me to tell opps all 13 cards i have?" question.

You knew full well what was expected of you, but refused to go along. If this were a court of law you'd have had contempt of court charges against you. In a BBO tourney, the only punishment they could throw at you was to kick you out (you might also be in that TD's enemy list now).

[mycroft]

They were wrong. The TD was (I believe) wrong.

You were wrong, after the first time you explained that you gave a complete explanation (never played before, no information otherwise - I assume you had no information otherwise, like knowing the person across was the same country as you, and nobody in that country plays anything but weak, for instance). If it's TD error, it's TD error. But after you did what he asked, you stopped doing what he asked, and you were disciplined for it.

Having said that, I hate indys for directing, because this happens way too often. I hate indys for playing because it brings out all the people who can't keep partners.
Michael.

[Codo]

barmar, on Oct 1 2007, 05:45 AM, said:

You weren't kicked out because you were ruled against. You were kicked out because you refused to do what the TD said in the ruling. And on top of that you were sarcastic about it, with your "do you want me to tell opps all 13 cards i have?" question.

You knew full well what was expected of you, but refused to go along. If this were a court of law you'd have had contempt of court charges against you. In a BBO tourney, the only punishment they could throw at you was to kick you out (you might also be in that TD's enemy list now).

?
When I know that the TD is wrong and I fullfilled all my duties, why should any sane TD kick me off?
He was just plain stupid, did not know the rules and had no idea how to handle this situation.

It is just nuts to say that you must allways say what the TD tells you. There is a border line. I agree that you may discuss where the border line is in full disclosure, but this TD was far away- and so had been the other players.

Disclaimer: This statement based only on the facts zielona stated. If the facts are different the statement would obviously change.