[uday]

This happened a few days ago during the final session of the BAM at the ACBL national in San Francisco

P opens 2H, RHO bids 3H, LHO bids 3N.

I ask LHO what 3H shows. "Don't know". Eventually the TD arrives.

RHO is adamant that he has no agreement about 3H, thus that he doesn't have to explain whether the bid shows spades+minor or running-suit-needs-stopper.

The TD sides with him.

So I try another Q of RHO . "How many spades would you expect your partner to hold for his 3N call?" , thinking that his response ( "unknown", "usually less than 3", "almost certainly fewer than 4", whatever ) would clarify his hand type.

He is reluctant to answer, and the TD sorta kinda agrees that he doesn't have to answer.

Is it appropriate to ask questions like this of an opponent when you don't really care about the response except as a mechanism to find out what the opponent intended his own bid to mean?
uday

[cherdano]

I would say it is an appropriate question, but if they have no agreement about 3H, they will not have an agreement about 3N either.
If I were director I would however be quite skeptical if a pair in the finals of the BAM at the nationals claims to not even have an implicit agreement about the 3H cuebid.

[jdonn]

I think it's inappropriate only in the sense that the answer is already known to be no agreement, as how could they have an agreement when they don't have one about 3♥. I really don't like asking overcaller that question, it seems a bit rules-lawyery to me, like saying to yourself "hmm he is not legally required to tell me how he meant his bid, but maybe I can trick him into doing so."

[jonottawa]

What Josh said. You're not entitled to know how RHO intended 3 Hearts if they had no agreement. By your own admission you were attempting to elicit that information with your follow-up question.

Of course, you're putting partner in a difficult position by asking any questions at all. I'm guessing you had a 12 count or so with decent Spades. Am I close?

Edit: Whether or not they should have an agreement on 3 Hearts isn't the issue here. Of course they should. Have I ever played in an event (even a National event) without such an agreement? Absolutely. I don't ask about leaping michaels every time I fill out a CC because it rarely comes up. There probably should be a box for it on the CC.

The question is: Is it appropriate to ask questions to try to elicit how an opponent intended a particular bid for which they had no agreement? The answer is no.

[KiwiBridge]

I agree with cherdano - it's hard to believe that they have never had a weak 2 opened against them, therefore they will have an agreement.

[paulg]

I think it's pretty close to 'totally inappropriate'.

You have established that they had no agreement about 3♥, so how can they have an agreement over responses to it.

At the end of the hand I would expect the TD to examine the hand further and attempt to discover if they do actually have an agreement, the answer to which may result in an adjustment. But that is for the TD to do, not you.

Although I'd expect regular pairs to have discussed this sequence, a couple of experts playing in an irregular partnership could easily have forgotten to discuss this one.

p

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Nov 29 2007, 03:27 PM, said:

I think it's inappropriate only in the sense that the answer is already known to be no agreement, as how could they have an agreement when they don't have one about 3♥. I really don't like asking overcaller that question, it seems a bit rules-lawyery to me, like saying to yourself "hmm he is not legally required to tell me how he meant his bid, but maybe I can trick him into doing so."

agreed

[jikl]

I voted inappropriate. However, before the TD leaves the table I would ask for an appeal form

Sean

[blackshoe]

Some players seem to think "agreement" means only "specifically discussed and agreed". There are also implicit agreements. If this is a regular partnership, it seems likely that this situation has come up before. If the partnership has experience together that suggests a meaning to 3H, then they have an implicit agreement, and "no agreement" is not a true statement.

[helene_t]

What Paul said.

[dburn]

Presumably the auction is now over, so we will shortly discover what RHO thought 3♥ meant. If you want to know what declarer thought it meant when he bid 3NT over it, so that you can make some deductions about declarer's hand, I'm afraid that you are not legally entitled to that information. The question you asked seems not so much inappropriate as completely pointless.

[nige1]

uday, on Nov 29 2007, 03:03 PM, said:

This happened a few days ago during the final session of the BAM at the ACBL national in San Francisco

P opens 2H, RHO bids 3H, LHO bids 3N.

I ask LHO what 3H shows. "Don't know".  Eventually the TD arrives.

RHO is adamant that he has no agreement about 3H, thus that he doesn't have to explain whether the bid shows spades+minor or running-suit-needs-stopper.

The TD sides with him.

So I try another Q of RHO . "How many spades would you expect your partner to hold for his 3N call?"  , thinking that his response ( "unknown", "usually less than 3", "almost certainly fewer than 4", whatever )  would clarify his hand type.

He is reluctant to answer, and the TD sorta kinda agrees that he doesn't have to answer.

Is it appropriate to ask questions like this of an opponent when you don't really care about the response except as a mechanism to find out what the opponent  intended his own bid to mean? 
uday

It seems partner will be on lead to 3N?

Uday presumably means that LHO is adamant that he has no agreement about RHO's 3♥. But thereby hangs a tail ...

In the UK, IMO, it is OK to ask only if you are contemplating a bid or double.

In the USA, IMO, you are entitled to ask about the auction and that means all the bids in the auction. Apparently, there is one unnecessary, daft, and unfair exception - you may not ask just to help partner (although that motive seems impossible to prove without a confession)

Richard Hills suggests an ingenious solution to Uday's frustration.

Ask the director to send the suspected prevaricator away from the table and insist that the bidder explain the systemic meaning of his own call (i.e. the 3♥ bid).

The poor bloke would have to tell you the systemic meaning of his call or confess to making a "random call" (usually illegal).

If the Richard protocol were enabled in the law-book and publicized then it would probably never need to be enforced

It would have a miraculous and immediate curative effect on players' memories

In practice, the Richard Protocol would facilitate disclosure and save time. If it's legal, why don't directors implement it? It works well on-line

[jdonn]

nige1, on Dec 5 2007, 01:06 AM, said:

Richard Hills suggests an ingenious solution to Uday's frustration.

Ask the director to send the suspected prevaricator away from the table and insist that the bidder explain the systemic meaning of his own call (i.e. the 3♥ bid).

The poor bloke would have to tell you the systemic meaning of his call or confess to making a "random call" (usually illegal).

Is this suggestion really serious?? How can he explain the meaning of a call for which they have no agreement! If they haven't discussed it that doesn't mean it is a random bid. Someone might think partner can figure out what it probably is based on their hand, just hope partner can figure it out, be able to control the auction no matter what partner does, maybe they think it's a matter of bridge logic, etc. etc. etc. I really don't like this idea at all, it seems like a waste of time that will get no more information.

[nige1]

cardsharp, on Nov 29 2007, 04:26 PM, said:

I think it's pretty close to 'totally inappropriate'.

You have established that they had no agreement about 3♥, so how can they have an agreement over responses to it.

[SNIP]

An opponent says there is no agreement about his partner's call. Manifestly, in spite of his denial they may have agreed a meaning. He is not necessarily a liar -- He may have simply forgotten. It seems to me perfectly legitimate to ask his partner a related question in the hope that the latter has a better memory. The Law entitles you to know their agreements. If an agreement is not on their card, then the only way you can find out about it is to ask. Harassment is a different matter.

[nige1]

jdonn, on Dec 5 2007, 01:46 AM, said:

How can he explain the meaning of a call for which they have no agreement! If they haven't discussed it that doesn't mean it is a random bid. Someone might think partner can figure out what it probably is based on their hand, just hope partner can figure it out, be able to control the auction no matter what partner does, maybe they think it's a matter of bridge logic, etc. etc. etc. I really don't like this idea at all, it seems like a waste of time that will get no more information.

When we first played Bridge in Edinburgh, there were no convention cards and all we were told was "Blackwood. Strong notrump. No weakness takeouts." The rest (and there was quite a lot) we picked by experience, without discussion".

After a long apprenticeship, working out the ground-rules, I would sometimes try a call knowing I could "control the auction" and hoping that partner would "figure it out" "based on their own hand" by "bridge logic" in exactly the way that Jdonn describes. Usually, luckily, my partners justified my hopes

Of course, a newcomer to the club, who did not share our common background would stand little chance of decrypting such efforts.

A long-runnning controversy is whether such things are "General knowledge and experience" or "Implicit understandings".

IMO the latter.

Furthermore, IMO, phrases like "General Knowledge and Experience" should be expunged from the law book because they encourage players to rationalize prevarication.

Finally, on-line, on BBO, you are meant to alert and explain your own calls. Strangely, "No agreement" has yet to appear as an explanation

[glen]

One question that I believe is appropriate in these cases is to ask "has your partnership ever had this type of auction before". I would qualify it here to say "where the opponents opened a weak two bid, and next hand cuebid that suit".

This often produces interesting information, such as:
"this is the first time we've played together"
"well there was the auction yesterday..."
"umm, well, umm, not that I can, umm, remember"

If I get the last type of response, I ask how long they've played together.

[whereagles]

cherdano, on Nov 29 2007, 08:07 PM, said:

If I were director I would however be quite skeptical if a pair in the finals of the BAM at the nationals claims to not even have an implicit agreement about the 3H cuebid.

I think it's possible that two good players don't have an agreement. But not a seasoned partnership, though.

[jdonn]

nige1, on Dec 5 2007, 04:09 AM, said:

Finally, on-line, on BBO, you are meant to alert and explain your own calls. Strangely, "No agreement" has yet to appear as an explanation

That is not true. Or even close.... people explain bids online that way all the time.

[han]

I agree with jdonn's first reponse as well.

[pclayton]

Uday, I presume you were asking these questions after pard made his face-down lead.

The question is not really appropriate, although I'm a little skeptical that they don't have an agreement about this auction. You don't have the right to pry an opponent in a situation like this. I am amazed how often these pairs that have 'no agreement' land on their feet.

LHO has a obligation to correct RHO's explanation if he thought they did have an agreement.