[waubrey]

I am not sure where this goes so I will put it here. The bids that have to be explained and those that do not seem arbitrary to me. One example: You have to explain whether a two-bid is weak or strong when asked but if someone opens 4 Hearts they can get away with "to play" as an explanation. That just doesn't seem right. I have seen people open 4 of a major with 20 HCP and I have seen people do it with 6 HCP. Why is this bid exempt from explanation?

[TylerE]

Alerts are a matter for the sponsoring organization to decide. In general, Weak 2s are *not* alertable, but Strong 2's are in many jurisdications. You should clarify if opponents ask. If a 4♥ opening is truly 'to play', with a pass by partner being the only possiblity, then that is a sufficient alert. You are only entitled to their agreements, not the contents of their hand. If in doubt, ask!

[jdonn]

waubrey, on Oct 5 2008, 10:17 PM, said:

I am not sure where this goes so I will put it here. The bids that have to be explained and those that do not seem arbitrary to me. One example: You have to explain whether a two-bid is weak or strong when asked but if someone opens 4 Hearts they can get away with "to play" as an explanation. That just doesn't seem right. I have seen people open 4 of a major with 20 HCP and I have seen people do it with 6 HCP. Why is this bid exempt from explanation?

The difference is the same player will open 4 on weak and strong hands. Opening 2 is only done on one or the other.

[blackshoe]

The laws require full disclosure of the meaning of your auction. Alerts are a suggestion that you might want to ask questions. Alerted or not, when asked, you are supposed to give a complete explanation of the meaning of the auction according to your partnership agreements.

A player who says, referring to his partner's 4 ♥ opening, "to play". is not doing that. Ask for more information. If none is forthcoming, call the director. If the director lets him get away with it, well, it depends now where you're playing. In a tournament, ask for the DIC or appeal the TD's ruling. In a club game, your only recourse is to vote with your feet. In online games, basically the same as clubs.

[kenberg]

I suspect part of the problem is the sometimes extreme lack of agreement and even respect that occurs online. I cannot imagine that any experienced pair has an agreement that a first or second position 4H opening could be more or less anything, maybe requiring little more than an outside ace for slam or maybe an eight or seven (or six) trick hand. But online you see this sort of thing. If the player really does open 4H whenever he feels like it then he is telling you the truth. I would say that there is room to be skeptical of this claim however. As Blackshoe suggests, voting with your feet, if it is not a tourney or some environment where you are committed to stay, is a fine option.

In decently run tourneys, I haven't found this sort of nonsense to be rampant, but it does occur. I usually just stay calm.

What we can control is what we do. If we all treat our alert responsibilities seriously that will become a part of the cultural expectation of online bridge. Virtually all good players do this.

[SoTired]

You are only required to explain your partnership understandings, not your hand. Although it may not be good bridge, you should never be punished for "bidding what you think you can make." Opening 4H or 4S is the primary culprit in this case. Some people just do not trust their partner or decide that the hand is too powerful for a 1-bid, but not good enuf for a 2C bid (for whatever reason) and decide to open 4.

Another auction often abused is 1H - 4H.

[paulg]

In fairness, it can be hard to provide a detailed description of a 4♥ or 4♠ opening bid as it does vary quite a lot. However for all of them partner to only expected to move towards slam with very good controls.

For example, most would open xx AQJxxxxx xx x at the 4-level. But some, including me at the right vulnerability, would open x AKxxxx x Txxxx too.

So to say "to play" may be shorthand for "he's a lunatic who will open 4♥ with the slightest excuse, but it may be a single-suited hand or an extreme 2-suiter that is not appropriate for opening at a lower level".

About all you can do is ask about style and other options that may have been available (namyats, 3N).

Paul

[ArtK78]

cardsharp, on Oct 6 2008, 09:48 AM, said:

But some, including me at the right vulnerability, would open x AKxxxx x Txxxx too.

So to say "to play" may be shorthand for "he's a lunatic who will open 4♥ with the slightest excuse, ..."

Yes, I would say that would be a lunatic call. It might be right if you were white against red and you removed all the double cards from your opponents' bidding boxes.

You might have to gag them as well so they can't say "Double."

[waubrey]

It justs eems to me that a partnership has to have an understanduing of what 4H means. If it can mean anything from 6-21 HCP how can your partner know whether to pursue slam? So I guess I would say I am skeptical when people say they have no agreement on what the bid means. But that has happened twice recently at BB and the director accepted the "to play" explanation.

My partner and I play Karosel and I am often asked what my reply to 2D means. I guess I could just say "to play." But I always tell them how many points my bid shows and what shape it shows.

If I open 4H then it's weak and my partner knows that.

[jdonn]

waubrey, on Oct 6 2008, 01:21 PM, said:

It justs eems to me that a partnership has to have an understanduing of what 4H means. If it can mean anything from 6-21 HCP how can your partner know whether to pursue slam? So I guess I would say I am skeptical when people say they have no agreement on what the bid means.

It's not that they have no agreement. It's that the agreement is very wide ranging. If that's what they want to play (and it certainly has its advantages) that's their business as long as they explain it correctly.

[ArtK78]

There are many times when the proper description of a bid is "to play." For example, in my regular partnership, when we open a 10-12 1NT, a response of 2♥ or 2♠ is "to play." I know what I expect from the bid - at least 5 of the bid suit with 0-11 HCP - in other words, my partner believes that 2 of the major would be the best spot for us to play the hand given that I have a 10-12 1NT opener. But if my partner has something outside of what I expect him to have, that doesn't change the meaning of the bid. He bid 2♥ or 2♠ to play, and I am not to disturb it.

To describe a 4♥ opening bid as "to play" is ingenuous. It tells the opponents nothing. Now, if the explanation is "we have no special agreement as to the meaning of 4♥," that would be an adequate explanation. No one is required to teach their opponents as to the normal meaning of an opening 4 bid in a major. But if it turns out that the partnership does have some special agreement as to what the 4♥ bid means (for example, they play NAMYATS, so a 4♥ opening could not include any hand that fits their definition of a NAMYATS opener), then there has been a failure to properly explain the meaning of the bid.

If a partnership routinely opens 4 of a major on hands that the opponents would not expect (say, 9 playing tricks and 0-16 HCP), then that should be explained (in fact, the bid should be alerted, as it is quite unusual). Whether this is a playable method or not is not my concern. But the opponents should be informed that the partnership will open 4♥ on some very weak hands as well as some very strong hands.