[Fluffy]

We are playing and opponents make an overcall with a highly unnusual meaning, leaving us in a non specific agreements situations.

Partner makes a call (without screens), and for me, 2 of our meta-rules might apply.

Should I:

-Explain the meta-rule I think applies and nothing else.
-Explain both meta-rules but don't say wich one I think applies.
-Explain both meta-rules and explain wich one of them I am gonna take right now.

For example:

1♠-(2♦!)-2♥

2♦ showing 5+ ♦ and exactly 4 hearts.

Now we play negative free bids at the 2 level if I should take 2♥ as natural, and we have cuebids showing invitational raise in spades.

RHO asks me what it means, and will later insist on me asking me if 2♥ is forcing or not.



bonus question: Does it change if instead of a stablished partnership, we are a casual one, and we face a situation such as (1♣)-1NT-(pass)-2♥, where 2♥ has a 40-60% of being nat or transfer where I live?


bonus question2: Does it make any sense to ask partner to leave the table to avoid UI when I tell the opponents wich of the options I am taking as the right one right now?

[pran]

If anybody should leave the table it is you while your partner explains his call to your opponents.

[campboy]

I would say something like "We don't have any agreement about this, but if 2♦ had been natural then 2♥ would be natural NF and if 2♦ had been a transfer then 2♥ would be a good raise of spades." I guess this is your option 2. Option 1 would be MI because it gives the impression you have clear agreements when you don't. Option 3 is more information than your opponents are entitled to (and gives UI). You don't have the right to get your partner to leave the table.

[Fluffy]

but can RHO force me to tell him if I am taking the bid as forcing or not?

Also, when should alert?

-If both options are natural
-If 1 option is natural and the other not
-If 1 option is natural, the other not, but I will take now the natural one as the good one.
-If the 2 options are artificial but I don´t know wich one it is.

[wyman]

 Fluffy, on 2011-November-14, 08:05, said:

but can RHO force me to tell him if I am taking the bid as forcing or not?

afaik, opps never have the right to know how you're "taking" a call. They only have the right to know your agreements, both implicit and explicit.

[blackshoe]

If the opponents, having heard that "if it's one thing it's forcing, if it's the other it's not forcing" insist on harassing you about whether it's forcing, call the TD. If you want to use Sven's "leave the table and let partner explain" option, you're going to have to get the TD involved anyway. And wyman is correct, they don't get to know how you're taking it. As to when you should alert, that depends on your jurisdiction's alert regulations, but in general if one of the possibilities requires an alert, you should alert, even if the other one doesn't.

[mycroft]

What they said. I'd phrase it as "we have no agreement about this auction over this call, but there are two agreements that may apply. We play negative free bids, so over a straight natural 2♦, 2♥ would be natural and non-forcing. We also play that cuebids of known suits are good raises. As far as I can remember, we have no agreement as to which overrides when both apply."

"well, what are you taking it as?"

"I'm going to look at my hand and the auction, and guess. I hope I guess right."

"but which way are you going?"

"you have our full agreements as I believe it; you are not entitled to the contents of my hand."

Any further questions will be replied to by a call to the TD to get the right solution. I have the same attitude to "so, is the 6 high or low?" (although I have been known to reply passive-aggressively to that with "don't know. Depends on what you hold in that suit.")

[wyman]

 mycroft, on 2011-November-14, 14:15, said:

I have the same attitude to "so, is the 6 high or low?" (although I have been known to reply passive-aggressively to that with "don't know. Depends on what you hold in that suit.")

"That's for both of us to figure out," is my honest reply when asked that.

[pran]

 campboy, on 2011-November-14, 07:57, said:

I would say something like "We don't have any agreement about this, but if 2♦ had been natural then 2♥ would be natural NF and if 2♦ had been a transfer then 2♥ would be a good raise of spades." I guess this is your option 2. Option 1 would be MI because it gives the impression you have clear agreements when you don't. Option 3 is more information than your opponents are entitled to (and gives UI). You don't have the right to get your partner to leave the table.

You certainly do not have, but the Director has. And IMHO he should in a situation like this order the player who is unable to give a full explanation away from the table while his partner explains what he thinks is the partnership understanding.

[campboy]

 pran, on 2011-November-14, 18:09, said:

You certainly do not have, but the Director has. And IMHO he should in a situation like this order the player who is unable to give a full explanation away from the table while his partner explains what he thinks is the partnership understanding.

That still wouldn't be getting partner to leave the table, that would be getting *you* to leave the table. Not that it applies here anyway, since you can give a full explanation of relevant partnership agreements.

[barmar]

 campboy, on 2011-November-14, 19:37, said:

That still wouldn't be getting partner to leave the table, that would be getting *you* to leave the table. Not that it applies here anyway, since you can give a full explanation of relevant partnership agreements.

That assumes that you're correct about your partnership agreements. Maybe partner thinks that it's clear which meta-agreement was supposed to apply.

[Zelandakh]

Explain the agreements you have in as much detail as you can. That is option 2. If RHO has further questions then you do not have any further information for them. This seems to work in any situation.

[Fluffy]

what about our NON agreements?

Prior to last tournament we had played 3♣ opening as trasnfer to diamonds, but right now we were playing 3♣ as natural club preempt.

partner opened 3♣ and I had something like:

♠KQx
♥AQx
♦x
♣AQxxxx

[barmar]

That's a tricky one.

If you have partnership experience that indicates that partner sometimes forgets an agreement, you should disclose it. But partner doesn't have a history of forgetting this agreement, because it's a new one.

You DO have knowledge that this is a new agreement, so you could feel it appropriate to warn the opponents. But the only reason you suspect this is because of your hand, not an explicit agreement or partnership experience (unless they've messed up for the first few weeks every time you've changed agreements).

[Fluffy]

I'd like to know if I am allowed to say to my screenmate:

This shows clubs, but before this tournament it showed diamonds, my hand says he is very likelly to have forgotten the new agreement, and I am gonan bid in a way that covers to a maximum both posibilities.

[blackshoe]

Allowed yes, required no.

[Free]

I would just say there is no specific agreement against this call since we didn't prepare for this overcall and opps didn't pre alert it to give us a chance to prepare either.

If they ask me what I think, I'll say that I think they should've prealerted.
If they ask me what I think it is, I'll say that's irrelevant.

[Zelandakh]

 Free, on 2011-November-22, 08:04, said:

I would just say there is no specific agreement against this call since we didn't prepare for this overcall and opps didn't pre alert it to give us a chance to prepare either.

If they ask me what I think, I'll say that I think they should've prealerted.
If they ask me what I think it is, I'll say that's irrelevant.

Sorry Free but this is just wrong. If the local authority requires a pre-alert then by all means warn them that you will be calling the Director if you feel there might have been damage from the lack of pre-alert, or even call the Director immediately, but you are not allowed to refuse to give the opponents full disclosure of any relevant agreements.

[mycroft]

Zel, what he says is incomplete, but not wrong.

I would be calling the TD as soon as they question my "we have no agreement about this call that requires a Pre-Alert we didn't get" - frankly, I'd probably be calling the TD as soon as the non-Pre-Alerted call was made.

My line might be "we needed to agree on a defence to it, and have been denied the ability to do so"; it might be "we have a defence to this, and would have quickly reviewed it had we been told at the correct time - I don't remember it right now, though"; it might be "you have to provide a defence - where is it?"; it might be "we have <agreement> over <this similar call>." (and in response to "how are you taking it", I think Free has it right).

[Free]

 Zelandakh, on 2011-November-22, 09:07, said:

Sorry Free but this is just wrong. If the local authority requires a pre-alert then by all means warn them that you will be calling the Director if you feel there might have been damage from the lack of pre-alert, or even call the Director immediately, but you are not allowed to refuse to give the opponents full disclosure of any relevant agreements.

You're exactly right, you have to disclose your agreements. However, apparently we don't have any relevant agreement! Having 2 different agreements is the the same as having none. I'm not going to give my opponents the wrong information. If opponents insist I'll call the Director, no problem. There's no reason to warn opponents for whatever reason. Either they follow the rules, or they don't. When I'm in doubt, I call the Director and he'll sort it out.

Now there are only 2 agreements, but what if you have 4?
- natural
- inv+ with fit
- values
- takeout
You might as well explain partner can have any possible hand without the ♦K and be right more often than not...