Chat between partners during bidding allowed?
#1
Posted 2004-August-01, 11:07
I would just like to get some opinions. I recently played in a paid event by bboland, it was a INDY event. Now I have played in many INDY's to pass the time many times, like most I assume- when there is a hand that requires conventions-I read the profile of my p if we started bidding without discussion- and cross my fingers and hope for the best when bidding that we will understand each other.
During this event the opposition during the bidding (two full rounds) and directly before a 4NT bid the Blackwood bidder chatted in open chat the correct responses to blackwood using their system. (non conventional but did appear in profile of chatter.) I felt this is wrong, indy or no to direct the response at this time is unfair. The directors disagreed stating they feel "200%" it is ok and should not be penalized.
My arguement is that if this is OK in an INDY, then if p opens 1S and I typically use splinters 4H to show support and void/sing in H (and in my profile.) It is then ok for me to chat "splinter" so p wont pass as is my fear in indy always and usually find another bid if I dont know my p, makes life easier but I feel unfair.
I would like to hear opinions as I am quite sure I am not the final bridge word.
#2
Posted 2004-August-01, 12:36
The easiest way is to forbid all chat during bidding (unless to opps for explanations). A more pleasant way imo is to allow some chat between pairs, to avoid huge bidding misunderstandings (what's the fun in that anyway?), but not to allow every bid to be explained ofcourse. It would be nice to be able to discuss some stuff like:
- basic system after first bid (sayc, 2/1, acol,...)
- defense vs 1NT (dont, capp, landy,...)
- blackwood stuff (RKC 3041 or 4130, no RKC,...)
- jacoby trf or not
(- 1st/2nd controls, or only 1st)
Splinters however are a bit too much, since you could use FSJ and splinters, depending on what suits you best, and explain it correctly. Same goes for control bidding.
#3
Posted 2004-August-01, 12:49
Or we should all learn and stick to bridge base basic and bridge base advanced. whenever we play with a pick up p?
Perhaps we should run tourneys Bridegbase basic or bridge base advanced only for the indies???????????
#4
Posted 2004-August-01, 13:12
In the main bridge club or teaching rooms, I would allow just chat about anything basic that lets the two opponents from getting confused - i.e. what kind of BW they're playing if somebody bids BW, whether a 2S response to 1NT is transfer, MSS, or natural, etc. If they started chatting about relays, I might squawk under the provision that if they don't know the answer they shouldn't be playing them.
I think most people feel the same way because I've played with hundreds of pickup partners and none of them have complained when the opponents have
asked each other about transfers or Blackwood responses.
In the Main Bridge Club, if someone throws an unusual system bid or convention at you, you should be able to discuss defenses on the fly. The people who use these conventions should want to win because the conventions themselves are superior, not because you get confused over them.
In an individual, everybody is going to be confused and I think that you have to just guess. Letting the opps discuss during the middle of an auction is going to put you at a huge diadvantage to the field where the winners will probably be the players whose opponents get the most fouled up. An exception: You have to give the opps time to say SOMETHING. If you open 1NT before the opps have time to say a word and one of their profiles has CAPP and the other has DONT, I think one of them should be allowed to say 'Your profile, partner."
Here's the contraversial part:
In a pairs tournament, I think that the pairs entering should have had a chance to discuss most NORMAL things that they would encounter, so if they haven't discussed their NT responses, too bad. However, if the opponents do something they shouldn't be expected to cover, I think they should have a chance to say something about it. Ideally it would be the person not about to act that says something.
For example, on the second board, East opens 2H showing 4H, 4S, and a weak hand. Nobody should have to be expected to have a defense for this garbage that they won't see again for another year. At this point, it's South's turn to call. IMO, North should be able to chat, "Double is minors (4+), 2NT is natural, 2S is minors (5+ each)." or something like that. Unfortunately, even this scheme gives an edge to the Jeff Rubens's of the world who can come up with decent defenses instead of the abomination I just came up with.
#5
Posted 2004-August-01, 13:39
#6
Posted 2004-August-01, 15:02
i don't know why the directors ruled as they did, and they've not been helpful in the past (at least to me) in explaining their reasons for rulings... this is just wrong imo
#7
Posted 2004-August-01, 15:37
Quote
Yes, no-one should have a defense.
Under the rules it should be a requirement that east/west have a defense available for their 2h open. If they don't then they can't play it.
#8
Posted 2004-August-01, 15:43
irdoz, on Aug 2 2004, 12:37 AM, said:
Ekrens 2♥ opening is an increasingly common convention across Europe. I find it incomprehensible that a decent pair wouldn't have an agreed defense to assumed fit preempts...
#9
Posted 2004-August-01, 15:50
Quote
The rules are about protecting indecent pairs...
#10
Posted 2004-August-01, 17:17
rofl
You need to play in the Saturday afternoon duplicate here in Oz, Paul.
#11
Posted 2004-August-01, 17:25
I don't understand why people don't play this (or something similar like frelling-two's), and rather like 2♥ opening for a weak opening with ♥s where opps find their ♠ suit without any problems... This ain't garbage, this is the ultimate preempt (even better than Lorenzo two's)!
If you see this opening only once a year, I think you should come out more often and play bridge! More and more people are realizing this is something they've always missed, and you get to deal with it more every week. Not only because of more people playing it, but also because of it's high frequency (double as much as standard weak two's!).
#12
Posted 2004-August-01, 18:30
Quote
In any event, I just made that 2H bid up! Could I have really guessed it was a real convention? I guess it is playable! Maybe there's even already a defense for it! Excuse me while I try to find Lorenzo 2's on the net now...
OK, found 'em, now that's REAL garbage (clickable ROFL to be inserted)
got only ONE hit on Google, it's 2 of any suit shows 0-7 and a four card suit
hey, why not go one step further and play DONT two bids?
2C=4C, 4higher
2D=4D, 4HorS
2H=Ekrens! (learn something new every day )
of course you need some strong opening bid...
But all this wasn't my point. Let's say you come up against something that even YOU would only play against once a year. Don't you think you should be able to at least chat a simple defense against it? Or do you think you should have a predefined defense against all possible sequences and possible meanings?
And... I know most of the posters of this thread are really die-hard serious players with a great work ethic toward the game and destined to be great if not already there, (of course, it's good players who post on the forum ) but let's talk about the vast majority of players that play this game just for fun (horrors!!), the type that really DO go into the main bridge club and partner whatever comes their way (yes, there ARE some of those) and think that bridge should be a pleasant pasttime rather than a doctorate level course (which new medicines all the time!)
I know it's hard for some of you to think like that, but pretend for a minute that you have a life or maybe other time-consuming hobbies or lots of schoolwork or a full time job (here in the US that might mean 60 or 70 hours a week) and want to pop on once in a while to play some bridge - yes, a game! And somebody opens 'Ekrens' against you and your pickup partner in the Main Bridge Club. OK, we're not talking about a decent pair here. But still you deserve to have some clue what their partner is thinking when they make a bid. (I would say even in a tournament, but I probably won't get much support.)
Quote
I won't doubt that, but as I've said on many other threads, maybe the best reason to play this convention is that you get many extra IMPs and matchpoints from your opponent's confusion, lack of familiarity with the bid, and lack of popular defenses against the bid. This seems really close to crossing the ethical line.
#13
Posted 2004-August-02, 00:16
In individual tournaments, I agree the start of each round partners should have a chance to briefly chat, like "2/1, std carding and rkcb 0314 p?" or "your profile but no capp okay?" or the like. I do this as a player, and have no problem with opponents doing it. Opening a convention card is sometimes simpler ("P, I've opened my sayc card, let me know if any problems with it"), and gives p a reference if he/she doesn't know what a bid means.
If you're not prepared to play "sayc standard carding normal Blackwood" (or acol or whatever, depending on where you are/your time zone the "normal" system may vary) you have no business entering an individual. I mean, if you prefer 2/1 or Polish club or precision or something else and can quickly agree, great, but agreeing on what to do in an individual should not take too long. If you want to use Cappaletti and reverse Lavinthal and splinters and negative doubles to 4♠ and...[etc.] then enter a pairs tournament. Or, put all that in your profile, and if you're lucky, when you ask "my profile, p?" you'll get a "yes".
Part of the fun (really!) of an individual, for me at least, is you have to adjust your bidding for your p, and sometimes can't make the "perfect" bid because you don't know if it will be understood. Or similarly, even if I "should" invite game, but am with an unknown p (with an unhelpful profile) I may just jump to game (especially at MPs) to avoid misunderstandings. It's part of the charm of an individual...
In pairs, I don't mind if at the start of the tournament (1st round) opponents chat about bidding/carding (sometimes they paired up at the partnership desk), though I try to briefly chat with a new p before the tournament starts to agree on basics.
I also don't mind, whether in pairs or individual, if at the end of a hand and start of next, they quickly clarify something they had a problem with the previous board (e.g. "so we're not using Smolen? Okay").
And of course, if someone subs during the bidding, I think he/she should be entitled to know what the person they're subbing for would have known about the bidding (bidding system and e.g. if they'd agreed rkcb 0314 and sub comes in and that info is relevant because p responded 5♣ to 4NT rkcb before sub came in, I think sub should be told). Similarly, as I noted in another post in a different section, I think a sub who comes in during play should also be told what's been played.
In the bridge club (as opposed to a tournament) whatever the person who started the table wants is fine. I normally like chatty tables myself, though some opponents have been nervy enough to tell me not to talk (when it was my table and I was discussing something totally unrelated to the hands, like the weather!).
One last thing about table talk, I just played in one individual (can't remember name, but xx1943 and Frosty were 2 of the directors) where they stated (which I agree with!) that no table talk beyond e.g. "glp", and no announcing "misclick" if that happens (which agrees with what I've been told by directors in other tournaments which don't permit undos, you should say nothing). It was also a free tournament; so I'll certainly play in a tournament with one of them before I pay to enter a bboland tournament...
#14
Posted 2004-August-02, 04:19
epeeist, on Aug 2 2004, 08:16 AM, said:
Hi Epeeist,
Many thanks for the flowers. The tournament must be on of these
1) ** Very Quick and Nice ** 4 rounds 3 boards 6min/board Pairs every day on 6:20am CET = 0:20am EDT
2) ** Not Quick but nice ** Adhoc Indy 4 or 5 boards unclocked with playing TD's. I know playing TD's are undesired but imo in this format it is ok and works very well.
Cheers
Al
♠♥♠ BAD bidding may be succesful due to excellent play, but not vice versa. ♦♣♦
Teaching in the BIL TUE 8:00am CET.
Lessons available. For INFO look here: Play bridge with Al
#15
Posted 2004-August-02, 06:23
Quote
2C=4C, 4higher
2D=4D, 4HorS
2H=Ekrens! (learn something new every day )
of course you need some strong opening bid...
I've been playing something similar for a while:
2♣=weak, 4/5♣ + 4M
2♦=weak, 4/5♦ + 4M
2♥=weak, 4/5♥ + 4/5♠ (Ekrens)
2♠=weak, 5♠ + 4m OR 6♠ single-suited
I have followed Chris Ryall in calling the 2♣ and 2♦ openings "rough 2s".
Who says you need a strong opening bid? I've been surviving without one. On the (very rare) occasions that I get dealt a rockcrusher, i won't always lose out by not having a strong forcing opening available. Sometimes it even works better to open these hands at the 1-level (strong 2C auction could take up too much room)...
of course, this approach does lead to some unusual scores..
#16
Posted 2004-August-02, 07:03
"It is inappropriate to use chat to explain your bids to your partner unless you get permission from the opponents first."
The underlying intention seems clear to me - perhaps directors should notify when they are changing the BBO rules for their own tournaments.
#17
Posted 2004-August-02, 17:28
#18
Posted 2004-August-03, 08:16
Now, if my opponents ask me if they can clarify the meaning of a bid in an individual I would always say yes. I mean, this isn't rocket sciecne or life-or-death. I just want to play bridge and have fun. True I would never ask my opponents for such a privledge so as far as winning/losing I am being a sucker and I am problaby givning my opponents an advantage over the rest of the field whti their hands where such offers are not approved. Still, it is only a game, and in an individual, it is a crapshoot version of the game anyway.
But in principle the director ruling seems wrong to me, unless he announces to entire tourney that such things are expressly allowed in his event, and the original poster has the right to be not too happy about this if it bothers him.
Ben