[barmar]

We're talking about pick-up partnerships, right? How much "partnership experience" do they have? Since when do they have "system notes"? And "partnership trust" is not usually a concern, since the partnership is soon going to be history.

This is online bridge we're talking about, where people form partnerships a few minutes or seconds before the tournament starts, play 6-12 boards, and then the partnership dissolves forever. Once in a while they might have a good experience and agree to play together in the future -- then you can reasonably expect them to discuss agreements.

[blackshoe]

All true - and so what? None of it changes how the TD should go about deciding on a ruling. It may, of course, limit the evidence that the TD will be considering.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2011-March-26, 12:37, said:

One of the players MIGHT load a CC that they use with new partners, but it's unlikely that his partner will have had time to read it thoroughly and notice something unusual like Sandwich.

This is one of the reasons that referring to one's own convention card should be explicitly permitted in online bridge. I hope that this will be included if OLB ever gets its own Lawbook.

[blackshoe]

One could make the same argument for f2f bridge, given how rarely anyone (around here anyway) looks at anyone's card.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-09, 14:35, said:

One could make the same argument for f2f bridge, given how rarely anyone (around here anyway) looks at anyone's card.

I don't see the connection.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2011-April-09, 22:45, said:

I don't see the connection.

You walk into the club without a partner. At the last minute, the TD puts you together with someone else in the same boat. "Let's play your card", you say. "Okay," says your partner. About this time your opponents start bugging you to get on with the first board. "Bridge is a timed event", "we don't want to lose a board", etc. etc.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-10, 01:55, said:

You walk into the club without a partner. At the last minute, the TD puts you together with someone else in the same boat. "Let's play your card", you say. "Okay," says your partner. About this time your opponents start bugging you to get on with the first board. "Bridge is a timed event", "we don't want to lose a board", etc. etc.

While that happens, it's not nearly as common as it is in online bridge. If I'm going to a club and don't have a partner, I'll make an effort to get there early enough that we'll have some time to discuss things, or for me to read over their CC.

But people don't take online bridge as seriously, it's used as "quick fix". As a result, dozens of partnerships are formed at the last minute. It's silly not to recognize that people play differently online than f2f.

[blackshoe]

I didn't say it was.

[mycroft]

It certainly is for me, as a "playing director" or "club spare". I frequently sit down with someone for a hand or two (because their partner is late), or for a session (to fill out the movement), at 2 minutes to (2 minutes after?) gametime. It happens.

I am lucky that there is a "Calgary standard 2/1", and much of my agreements can be made with those three "words". I tend to ask four things other:

• preempt style (and possibly what 2x-2NT means)
  
• which blackwood (because it won't come up if I ask, but it will if I don't)
  
• what we play over *their NT*
  
• carding

Of course, if I have time, I'll spend it.

If I come across a "don't know", I either:

• don't make the conventional call, taking the pragmatic, but less effective alternative, or
  
• make the conventional call, and assume partner got it. If they don't, I get to hang myself.

I guess based on what I know about the person.

Online, I have neither of those benefits, and will be in "wild territory" more often. But oh well. There are many more reasons why I avoid playing pickup online than the chance that I might get a bad score from a system misunderstanding.

[shintaro]

Vampyr, on 2011-April-09, 13:15, said:

This is one of the reasons that referring to one's own convention card should be explicitly permitted in online bridge. I hope that this will be included if OLB ever gets its own Lawbook.

heaven forbid there is ever a Seperate Law Book for OLB

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2011-April-11, 16:17, said:

It certainly is for me, as a "playing director" or "club spare". I frequently sit down with someone for a hand or two (because their partner is late), or for a session (to fill out the movement), at 2 minutes to (2 minutes after?) gametime. It happens.

I didn't say it doesn't happen, I said it's not as common as in online bridge. My guess is that at least half the partnerships in a typical online tournament are last minute pickups. While it may happen to YOU frequently, because of your role, that's just one partnership in the room.

It also happens more frequently with novices at club games, since many of them don't have established partnerships yet, and they get paired up with each other (but if there are an odd number, one of them will be lucky and get the playing director). But these players often barely know what they're doing, so it's difficult to expect good disclosure.

[bluejak]

Cascade, on 2011-April-08, 18:48, said:

I don't think this is close to an absolute.

Discussion is not what makes something alertable. Agreement is what makes something alertable? Discussion is one way to come to an agreement. Agreements can be explicit (by discussion) or implicit (through similar experience etc). Whether implicit or explicit an alterable agreement requires an alert.

Absolutely true, but not relevant to an online pickup, which is what this discussion is all about.

blackshoe, on 2011-April-08, 19:38, said:

When both members of a pair tell me that they have no expectation from partnership experience or discussion that the partner of a bidder who made a (foolish, see above) artificial or conventional bid would understand what it meant, and there is no evidence of a special understanding on their system cards, or in their system notes if those are available, and there is no evidence from prior TD calls of such an understanding, it seems to me that the preponderance of the evidence will often lie on the side of "not MI" rather than "MI". It would take some pretty convincing evidence of MI to overcome that.

How much partnership experience do you expect from online pickup partnerships?

[Cascade]

Bbradley62, on 2011-March-25, 09:10, said:

Here is the key term that folks are debating: when is an alert required? If you are making a conventional call that you have not discussed with your partner, hoping that he understands, is that alertable?

bluejak, on 2011-April-08, 17:48, said:

Absolutely not.

Cascade, on 2011-April-08, 18:48, said:

I don't think this is close to an absolute.

Discussion is not what makes something alertable. Agreement is what makes something alertable? Discussion is one way to come to an agreement. Agreements can be explicit (by discussion) or implicit (through similar experience etc). Whether implicit or explicit an alterable agreement requires an alert.

bluejak, on 2011-April-19, 08:56, said:

Absolutely true, but not relevant to an online pickup, which is what this discussion is all about.

Disagree.

Even in online play in a pickup partnership it is possible to have an implicit agreement that you have not discussed.

As well as discussion you have information from your partner's (and your) profile - including country, skill level and conventions listed, other players you might have seen this player playing with.

If you or your partner use a convention and you both understand it then most likely you have an agreement. If that agreement has not been explicitly discussed then it is implicit. Even if it is implicit it requires an alert.

The problem is that you have to alert before you are 100% sure you have an agreement. I suggest it is better to alert if you think there is a reasonable chance that you have an agreement (implicit) even if you have had no discussion.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2011-April-19, 08:56, said:

How much partnership experience do you expect from online pickup partnerships?

None, generally speaking.

[mycroft]

My problem with pickups is that if they make a call they expect partner to get, I should be able to get it as well. If they don't, why are they bidding like that?

Locally, that's not a big thing, as there is "general bridge knowledge" in the area; but if two USA players are sitting down against a Polish pickup pair (it goes the other way, too, but I don't know what is US-centric, being in the ACBL and all), then:

• they are going to read something totally different into 1C-1D;2D than the Poles intend;
  
• the Poles fully expect to be on the same page, simply from the flag in their profiles;
  
• and it seems that, because there's no "agreement" or "partnership experience", there's no need to Alert.

That Feels Wrong - and I'm sure it's just as wrong when my pickup from Peoria and I have a 1D-1S; 1NT-2C; 2S-3NT; 4H unAlerted auction. But I don't know where to draw the line (except what I said above, which is what I *do*).

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2011-April-20, 10:06, said:

My problem with pickups is that if they make a call they expect partner to get, I should be able to get it as well. If they don't, why are they bidding like that?

Replace "expect" with "hope" (or "pray").

They're bidding like that because they have to bid something, and it seems like the best hope they have to describe their hand or get the information they need. They've presumably used the convention with other partners, and maybe they think it's "standard".

The simple fact is that the opponents have about the same amount of knowledge about the player's bidding style as the pick-up partner.

[mycroft]

Ah, but the opponents have information partner doesn't have (in the self-alert case; I assume we're on the same page, but it's better to be clear), and that information isn't "we have no agreement", it's "this call isn't Alertable". They are, in fact, being told something, by omission.

And that information is going to make it harder for them to "get it" than partner, who expects no Alert. One could Alert it and explain "we have no agreement about this call", but one wouldn't tend to do that for potentially conventional calls that one is bidding as natural, so in effect, that would be a "no agreement, but I mean it in the standard conventional way, and I'm hoping partner will get it".

I don't know the answer to this, really I don't. But my case 4 - "I bid it as conventional, partner took it as conventional, we didn't Alert it" is in fact a problem, and to me, more of a problem than "I got a bad score because I told the opponents how I meant it and partner didn't guess right".

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2011-April-21, 11:49, said:

Ah, but the opponents have information partner doesn't have (in the self-alert case; I assume we're on the same page, but it's better to be clear), and that information isn't "we have no agreement", it's "this call isn't Alertable". They are, in fact, being told something, by omission.

And that information is going to make it harder for them to "get it" than partner, who expects no Alert.

Since partner never sees your self-alerts, he doesn't know that you didn't alert it. He doesn't know whether you met his expectation. So if anything, the opponents are in a better position than he is.

I'm not sure there's a general solution to this.

Suppose you never even discussed what form of Blackwood you're playing -- one of you has 3014 in your profile, the other has 1430. Then your partner bids 4NT, and you have to respond. You have to pick a flavor, and hope partner guesses the same as you. Do you really think you should have to explain your "agreement"? If the opponents ask, the most truthful answer is "your guess is as good as his."

[matmat]

I'm actually a little amused this thread is still going.

Complaining about and regulating alerts in pickup bridge is like going into a speakeasy and complaining to the cops that the moonshine there tastes a little rank.

It's impossible to legislate. you can't figure out people's intent, you can't make sure they're all on the same page.

You could force a convention card or allow the opps to alert each other to the meanings of the bids (i.e. open convention card).

Pickup bridge is a variant of the game, but, just as with no-psych bridge, stayman/blackwood only bridge, etc. it is not the full package and there ought to be a different standard for it to be held to.

[barmar]

I agree. The less "regular" a partnership is, the more lenient you have to be when trying to apply the laws on disclosure. If they've been playing together weekly for years, throw the book at them when they fail to disclose properly (although this would be more punishment if we had hard-bound versions of the Law book). If they met at the partnership desk of a f2f tournament, and spent 30 minutes filling out a CC, you should expect proper disclosure in most common situations (type of Blackwood, transfers, Drury, inverted minors); mainly the conventions for which there are checkboxes on the CC. But if they just partnered up a couple of minutes before an online tourney, often the extent of their discussion is something like "SAYC 1430 std?", "OK"; they're lucky if they're both on the same page regarding Jacoby 2NT (it's in the SAYC booklet, but many don't realize that).

It's a crapshoot for them, why do you really expect it should be any better for the opponents?