[inquiry]

arrows, on Jan 12 2005, 02:36 AM, said:

Thanks for your inputs,

The only thing I learned so far is that "No agreement"
is different from "No information available". Fat one.

You know what, if i just say "No agreement", I was kicking out too.
That guy kicked me out in a ACBL BBO tourney once, when I did nothing
wrong and opps was trying to make an issue, and he/she ask I to
apologize for nothing, I refused.

Here, I was asked to say how many HCP I had.
and unfortunately , I don't know how to count that, and have no
interest to learn how, so I am out.

You should provide how many hcp if you have a specific agreement. Let;s say you have agreed that 2NT is invitiational. You would say (when asked), "invitational". If you agreed that it showed 10-11 hcp, you should say 10-11 hcp. If you agreed no four card major for the bid, you should add that even if they don't specific ask.

If you agreed 2NT was "forcing", you should say that, and if forcing means 13+ hcp, you should add that too. It really isn't hard, you tell what your agreement is.

No informations is just that, no information. Your opponents don't know if you have an agreement and are not telling them or if you have no agreement. That is not fair to them. They get to know what information your partner has access too....

[mcphee]

I can't beleive this happens. The idea here is for people to have fun, compete the best they can on a level equal to all. How hard can it be to simply comply with the request? Some play this 2NT as a GF, some don't, frankly I think it should be a required alert, especially for internet bridge. Geesh, they even want you to alert cue bids here.

This issue is not a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of getting along.

[Fluffy]

Gerben said it, invitaional balanced is the correct answer (regardless of if it is or not), I would ahd answered jsut limit, since it is faster .

[inquiry]

Free, on Jan 12 2005, 07:27 AM, said:

Also, it's not wise to give lectures to your opponents, if they ask a question you respond. If they ask your HCP range and you don't know what HCP is, then you bounce the question back "what is HCP?". It's your right not to know that, but at least you're in a constructive conversation... If they kick you for not knowing the term HCP, you'll have a case, but now you don't.

If you have no agreed upon hcp range, you are perfectly in your right to not give a range. If the TD ask, you simple respond that we have no agreement so I can't say what our agreed hcp range is.

Arrows had no agreements with this fellow, and the correct response to any inquiry (hehehe) is that "we have no agreement, so natural". If they ask is it forcing, or is it invitational, you don't have to say.. you repeat, "we have no agreement". They are not entitled to know if 2NT was forcing or invitational if your partner doesn't know it. However, then second time you bid 2NT whit this partner, you know have an agreement. He saw what you bid 2NT with the last time. So the second time, "we have no agreement" is no longer appropriate. The response should be "natural, non-forcing". Likewise, if your partner now bids 2NT to one of your bids, your assumption is he saw what you had when you bid 2NT, so he should explain it the same (that is, he is no longer able to say, "we have no agreement"). Your 2NT bid has established an agreement for future hands between the two of you.

Ben

[arrows]

The sadness is that few people think "I wanna play 2NT" is a correct answer.
For those who play bridge a game counting HCP. This is outrageous violation
of their law. I admit that I presented it in a sarcastic way. But common
sense is what all a pick-up partnership has. we don't have the luxury make up
some fancy preempt. For example, in the first hand, my LHO open
2H showing H + any other suit. Obviously, they are seasoned partnership

Another thing I wanna point out is that the incompetent director and management
gives more leeway to the bad guys and hurt who are playing honestly.

After the sequence 1C pass 2NT pass; pass ?
It won't take a genius to predict that the chances of my RHO are going to take
any action over 2NT is zero, since he passed 1C the first time. But he kept
asking a question before his final pass and it's his partner turn to lead.
I am not suggest anything here, but what else I suppose to think?

[inquiry]

arrows, on Jan 12 2005, 12:53 PM, said:

The sadness is that few people think "I wanna play 2NT" is a correct answer.
For those who play bridge a game counting HCP. This is outrageous violation
of their law. I admit that I presented it in a sarcastic way. But common
sense is what all a pick-up partnership has. we don't have the luxury make up
some fancy preempt. For example, in the first hand, my LHO open
2H showing H + any other suit. Obviously, they are seasoned partnership

Another thing I wanna point out is that the incompetent director and management
gives more leeway to the bad guys and hurt who are playing honestly.

After the sequence 1C pass 2NT pass; pass ?
It won't take a genius to predict that the chances of my RHO are going to take
any action over 2NT is zero, since he passed 1C the first time. But he kept
asking a question before his final pass and it's his partner turn to lead.
I am not suggest anything here, but what else I suppose to think?

"I wanna play 2NT" is simply not an acceptible answer

A) You know that your partner understands this as "you want to play 2NT". In otherwords, that this is your specific agreement. In fact, this is not your agreement, you had no agreement. So even IF YOU WANTED TO SUGGEST 2NT as a possibible final contract, this is not your agreement. So in fact, giving this as a reply is incorrect. You are REQUIRED to disclose your agreement, not your hand nor your intention when you made your bid. The only correct reply is "we have no agreement"

Of course, if you had agreed that 2NT means, "I want to play 2NT" then by all means, you could use that as your answer (that is, if that is a suitable definition of what you ahve agreed). But when pressed, you would have to furhter define this as "natural" (if your agreement as part of "I want to play 2NT" is that you have to be balanced), and if your partner is "ok" to bid on with more than a minimum, then the "I want to play 2NT" has to be further elaborated as "non-forcing, but invitational".

Compare this to your arguement about 1m-1M-3NT where the 3NT rebid is often described as "I want to play 3NT". The 3NT rebidder mgiht hold a void in the major bid by parnter (not balanced) and good cards in a 3-5-5-0 type hand. He might hold solid seven card suit and stopper or semi-stopper in the toher suits, or he might have some big old balanced hand and think 2NT is too big of an underbid. His bid was meant as a signoff (game reached) and his partner is "expected" to pass. So here "I want to play 3NT" is their agreement. There is no balanced hand requirement, there is no information about the other suits (he may or may not have a four card major), there is no information about upper limit of the hand other than he didn't open with a forcing first bid... these are all quite different from your 1m-2NT where you probably promise a balance hand, where you probably deny a four card major, where you probably deny five card support for their minor, and where you probalby promsie some minimum nubmer of tricks, losers, or hcp (dependign upon how you evalaute your hand). The opponents have a right to what ever your agreements are.. and in the case of 1m-1M-3NT the agreement is just that... opener thinks his hand is worth a shot at 3NT opposite the 1M response.. and responder has no idea and no way of knowing the nature of opener's hand that allowed him to make that decision. Of course, if the agreement is to bid 3NT with a running minor suit, then that needs to be alerted...and explained.

Ben

[junyi_zhu]

arrows, on Jan 12 2005, 02:02 AM, said:

I have been rudely(at least from the point of my view) replaced in a
tournment game today, and I don't feel I am treated fairly.

If the other party involved think it's fair. what they said and what they did
to me is perfectly okey. then I have no problem with it, too.
So I would ask whoever in charge here a favor,
just let this post be here and serve some educational purpose, showing why
I did is wrong and how the game is ruled here at BBO. so that, hopefully
for the benefit of everyone else who playing here.

Are you guys serious about this issue? I think the ruling is ridiculous, his explanation is really accepetable: "FOR JESUS SAKE, I WANNA PLAY 2NT", that means he explained this 2NT as "to play", isn't "to play" enough? To some, natural is an explanation, "to play" isn't. That's nothing about English language to me, that's just ridiculous. Still, I don't like the manner though, without "for Jesus sake" would be better. Well, I really hope everybody can read the post carefully before responding, but seems nobody has done so so far.

[Free]

arrows, on Jan 12 2005, 05:53 PM, said:

After the sequence 1C pass 2NT pass; pass ? It won't take a genius to predict that the chances of my RHO are going to take any action over 2NT is zero, since he passed 1C the first time. But he kept asking a question before his final pass and it's his partner turn to lead.
I am not suggest anything here, but what else I suppose to think?

It doesn't matter if you or your partner, or your opponents are geniusses or total idiots. If an opponent asks an explanation about a bid you made, you HAVE to give it. Even if it's the most known bid, there are still players who don't know it and deserve an explanation. All the other stuff has nothing to do with the fact that you didn't give an explanation, but decided to give them a "no information available" and refused again later on while trying to teach your opps something about bridge.

There's still something called "rules", which you clearly disobbeyed. However none of your opponents break any rule by asking such question. The fact that Abalucy is a private club, should be an extra indication to stick to the rules, keep low-profile, and play some bridge...

[arrows]

Let me make it crystal-clear,

I am not questioning their right to ask the meaning of my call.
I am questioning the timing.

As it turns out, he had no cards and no intention to bid over 2NT.
shouldn't he put off his question after the opening lead?

[Free]

No, since it's his turn to bid, and it doesn't suggest any lead imo.

[inquiry]

arrows, on Jan 12 2005, 02:07 PM, said:

Let me make it crystal-clear,

I am not questioning their right to ask the meaning of my call.
I am questioning the timing.

As it turns out, he had no cards and no intention to bid over 2NT.
shouldn't he put off his question after the opening lead?

Well, your last two post have taken a markedly different turn from the first post. You are now not upset (or not talking about) the consequences of your failure to explain your bid (I want to play 2NT is not your agreement, so it is the wrong answer... your "agreement" is no agreement")., but rather that someone would ask a question in the first place. You have added an implication that mearly by asking the question, your opponent was cheating somehow...

Let's start with the issue of timing. It is only approriate to ask about the meaning of bids when it is your turn to bid. So your RHO could not ask about the bid before it was his turn. But in online bridge this is a little fuzzy as who is asking is not clear, you simply get a box asking you to explain.

Given that this was matchpoiints, and the second board, and the fact that your partner opened, we can assume you were WEST and north south were vulnerable. South could have a lot of hands where he has a legitamate problem. He could be well stacked in clubs and thinking about risking a lead directing double. He could have a long suit he considered preempting on, but given teh vul decided not too... now if he has a club void, he might be reconsidering. Or he may just want to know what your agreement is so he can count your hand (do you for instance, deny a four card major, or is 2NT neutral on the question if you have a major or not).

Given I suspect that they vul, it is probably pretty clear south is going to pass unless he was thinking to wack 2NT for a club lead (After all, he could have all the missing points and a club stack so he was unable to double).

And I wonder about your characterization that south had no cards. I think he is either strong with clubs, or has a fair six or seven card suit and club shortness. IF he lacks either one of those, he still could be trying to see what your agreement is so he can count out your hand during play... this was MATCHPOINTS after all, and one over trick (or one extra undertrick) can mean a full board swing.

So to handle your new arguement, he asked at exactly the appropriate and legally prescribed time. If his partner leads a club, and if he has a huge club stack, there might be a case for calling the director to see if the enquiry might have suggested such a lead... likewise, if his partner leads a small doubleton or singelton and hits his partner suit, their might be reason to call the director and see if this lead was suggested by the action of asking what the bid means (assuming his partner can figure out a question was asked). But, it is entirely inappropriate to suggest anything nefarious by a person exercising their rights to ask a question about the auction when it is there turn to bid.

In response to junyi_zhu's question, Are you guys serious about this issue? I think the ruling is ridiculous, his explanation is really accepetable: "FOR JESUS SAKE, I WANNA PLAY 2NT" Yes, we are very serious. To begin with "I WANNA PLAY 2NT" turns out not to be their specific agreement...as arrows admits they had no agreement. The fact that east took the bid as non-forcing (he passed) and in fact, clearly interpreted the bid as "I wanna play 2NT" non-withstanding. It was obviouls to south how east took the bid. What is not obvious is if they had that agreement or not. Maybe South would be willing to risk a balancing bid if he knew that 2NT was limited to 10 to 11 hcp and balance, but not want to risk it if there was no agreement because West might have more than that. Befoire South gets to bid, he has the right, and arrows has the responsiblity to fully, and clearly explain his partnership agreement.

If I was asked and I bid that as non-forcing balance, I would expalin, as non-forcing, invite, no four card major, no five card fit, no side suit singleton or void if I felt chatty.. .otherwise I would explain as, "NF, no 4M, natural"

The real problem here, however, was not arrows lack of proper response (no agreement), but rather his attitude ("there's nothing to explain"), his tone (caps, using for jesus sake), his lecture "bridge is a game about tricks, has nothing to do with HCP, for that matter". All of this over something as simple as the main tentant of bridge... partnerships can have no secret agreements, and your opponents are entitled to a full and complete explaination of your agreements which you explalin when asked. Arrrows had the ultimate, easy, answer that is given 1000 times a day on BBO... "we have no agreement". Instead, he became argumentative, smug and irritated. No doubt becasue, as his last two post now suggest, he probalby thought the mear fact that a question was asked was somehow cheating. He can always ask a director to protect him if this is the case, but he still has to answer fully and completelely.

[pclayton]

(Playing the role of public defender for Arrows will be...ME )

exodus: hi Maaa

1. Inapprorpiate for a player to greet a Director by their name. They are a referee, not an advocate, nor anyone's friend.

Maaa: please explain your bid
->Maaa: there's nothing to explain
Maaa: there is allways something to explain ... please do it now

2. There isn't always something to explain. But if the Agreement is 'none', then don't get argumentative.

(Now I write the following message in the explaination box:
FOR JESUS SAKE, I WANNA PLAY 2NT)

3. DO NOT EVER MENTION THE LEADER OF A RELIGION IN A BAD TONE AGAIN.


exodus: I asked for 2NT...arrows doasnt want explain...is he first one
in abalucy?
Maaa: nie pytajcie wiecej
rosaherna: glp
Maaa: why cant you just name your hcp range ?

4. Whats with the director speaking Polish at the table?

ABALUCY: hi problem here?

4. This is a laugher. The club 'owner' struts over to a table where there is an issue being handled by the Director. Who called Aba to the table? The Director? The Player who called the Director? Certainly not Arrows. Totally inappropriate and undermines the credibility of the Abalucy club. Hire the directors and let them do their job.

If Abalucy decided to join the table to observe, and not speak, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But this is clearly a procedural problem. Disciplinary matters are not handled at the table.

It is the director's right (and obligation) to boot a player from a tourney. It is within the club "owner's" right to boot a player from the membership ranks. This issue was not handled appropriately at all.

arrows: bridge is a game about tricks, has nothing to do with HCP, for
that matter

.....as the situation escalates.

ABALUCY: arrows - thank you for playing - It is clear you do not
understand or follow FRECT

5. I don't understand FRECT either I guess. For Aba - here's a tip: Criticize in private, compliment in public. Aba runs a good program, so I will balance my own 'criticism' with a compliment.

arrows: they ask me to explain 2NT
arrows: i have nothing to explain

...........continuing the ineffective policy of non-disclosure.

ABALUCY: I will be replacing you from the tourney and you will be
hearing from us regarding your membership

and as the situation comes to a predictable finish.

No one wins in these situations. Arrows: try to be more forthright in your answers. I'd be a lot more sympathetic if you were.

To: Abalucy club: Try to be more professional with the way you handle your members. Don't get involved with director disputes at the table.

I know I'll get plenty of flame about: its a private club, and they can do what they want. Rubbish! Certain clubs have a very high profile on BBO, and the standards they project reflects upon BBO in general.

[junyi_zhu]

inquiry, on Jan 12 2005, 06:47 PM, said:

arrows, on Jan 12 2005, 02:07 PM, said:

Let me make it crystal-clear,

I am not questioning their right to ask the meaning of my call.
I am questioning the timing.

As it turns out, he had no cards and no intention to bid over 2NT.
shouldn't he put off his question after the opening lead?

Well, your last two post have taken a markedly different turn from the first post. You are now not upset (or not talking about) the consequences of your failure to explain your bid (I want to play 2NT is not your agreement, so it is the wrong answer... your "agreement" is no agreement")., but rather that someone would ask a question in the first place. You have added an implication that mearly by asking the question, your opponent was cheating somehow...

Let's start with the issue of timing. It is only approriate to ask about the meaning of bids when it is your turn to bid. So your RHO could not ask about the bid before it was his turn. But in online bridge this is a little fuzzy as who is asking is not clear, you simply get a box asking you to explain.

Given that this was matchpoiints, and the second board, and the fact that your partner opened, we can assume you were WEST and north south were vulnerable. South could have a lot of hands where he has a legitamate problem. He could be well stacked in clubs and thinking about risking a lead directing double. He could have a long suit he considered preempting on, but given teh vul decided not too... now if he has a club void, he might be reconsidering. Or he may just want to know what your agreement is so he can count your hand (do you for instance, deny a four card major, or is 2NT neutral on the question if you have a major or not).

Given I suspect that they vul, it is probably pretty clear south is going to pass unless he was thinking to wack 2NT for a club lead (After all, he could have all the missing points and a club stack so he was unable to double).

And I wonder about your characterization that south had no cards. I think he is either strong with clubs, or has a fair six or seven card suit and club shortness. IF he lacks either one of those, he still could be trying to see what your agreement is so he can count out your hand during play... this was MATCHPOINTS after all, and one over trick (or one extra undertrick) can mean a full board swing.

So to handle your new arguement, he asked at exactly the appropriate and legally prescribed time. If his partner leads a club, and if he has a huge club stack, there might be a case for calling the director to see if the enquiry might have suggested such a lead... likewise, if his partner leads a small doubleton or singelton and hits his partner suit, their might be reason to call the director and see if this lead was suggested by the action of asking what the bid means (assuming his partner can figure out a question was asked). But, it is entirely inappropriate to suggest anything nefarious by a person exercising their rights to ask a question about the auction when it is there turn to bid.

In response to junyi_zhu's question, Are you guys serious about this issue? I think the ruling is ridiculous, his explanation is really accepetable: "FOR JESUS SAKE, I WANNA PLAY 2NT" Yes, we are very serious. To begin with "I WANNA PLAY 2NT" turns out not to be their specific agreement...as arrows admits they had no agreement. The fact that east took the bid as non-forcing (he passed) and in fact, clearly interpreted the bid as "I wanna play 2NT" non-withstanding. It was obviouls to south how east took the bid. What is not obvious is if they had that agreement or not. Maybe South would be willing to risk a balancing bid if he knew that 2NT was limited to 10 to 11 hcp and balance, but not want to risk it if there was no agreement because West might have more than that. Befoire South gets to bid, he has the right, and arrows has the responsiblity to fully, and clearly explain his partnership agreement.

If I was asked and I bid that as non-forcing balance, I would expalin, as non-forcing, invite, no four card major, no five card fit, no side suit singleton or void if I felt chatty.. .otherwise I would explain as, "NF, no 4M, natural"

The real problem here, however, was not arrows lack of proper response (no agreement), but rather his attitude ("there's nothing to explain"), his tone (caps, using for jesus sake), his lecture "bridge is a game about tricks, has nothing to do with HCP, for that matter". All of this over something as simple as the main tentant of bridge... partnerships can have no secret agreements, and your opponents are entitled to a full and complete explaination of your agreements which you explalin when asked. Arrrows had the ultimate, easy, answer that is given 1000 times a day on BBO... "we have no agreement". Instead, he became argumentative, smug and irritated. No doubt becasue, as his last two post now suggest, he probalby thought the mear fact that a question was asked was somehow cheating. He can always ask a director to protect him if this is the case, but he still has to answer fully and completelely.

We are not talking about the same thing. There are different opinions. Some said "arrows never gives an explanation", that's a false claim because arrows gave the clear explanation, 2NT means he wants to play 2NT. Then You said arrows gives the wrong explanantion. That means you think it is an explanation, but it's wrong. Even if we have no agreement on one issue, can't I say I take it as natural or I take it as to play? "I want to play 2NT" is really an explanation, no matter whether it is a true claim or a false claim, which you guys just refuse to admit. I don't want to continue on this topic anymore, it's not bridge.

[kenxie]

Seriously.
What you guys talking about?
As I understand clearly, you guys suppose to like bridge and experienced a lot and was enjoying it.

The bridge means logic and being a gentleman to me.

Fot his one, is "I wanna play 2nt" a logically answer?
seems true to me.

he didn't say "sac", so just treat it as a nature bid.
or for your guys understanding "10+~12-HCP"?
BTW, bidding is an evaluation, not equals to points, although most of your guys think so.
So, as long as he is honest, and keeping a hand that looks usual, what is the problem here?
If he has only 1 point and 6C, well you can call a director, since he is cheating, is he?

second, was he throwing something to Opps face?
I didn't see it.

So was wrong he did?
"for xx sake"???

Well, maybe.
But I haven't seen anybody nagging about this.
They kept nagging about 2nt CAN NOT be a "I wanna play" bid.
or say nature bid, or say instinct, whatsoever...

So tell me, please, are you guys playing so called BRIDGE?
At this point, I strongly agree with junyi_zhu.
IT IS NOT BRIDGE!

[arrows]

Things are getting tricky these days.
You bid something, and was asked what does it mean, you said you wanna
play it. and nobody believes you.

Man, this is bridge, how could one just bid what one wanna play? it must not
be true, you must be trying to hide something.
Can't you see everyone is using his/her bids to convey coded, sophisticated messages?

What? you don't have a system??
you must be joking, or you are really nuts. You need to learn how to
appreciate the ultimate esthetical completeness of mordern bridge, in which
one never bid what one wanna play!

[Free]

"I want to play ..." is NOT an explanation for a bid! After pass-pass-? I want to play anything at the 1-level when NV vs V with less than 6 HCP, even a 2-1 fit. So this would mean I can just bid anything I want and explain it "I want to play this" while partner interpretes it as a 'normal opening hand and at least a 5 card suit - or maybe a psych'? Ofcourse not, get real. Fill in your convention card with nothing but "I want to play this", good luck with your next TD-intervention!

The only bids which maybe might be explained as "I want to play this" is when partner will ALWAYS pass! And I don't see why partner would pass your 2NT with a maximum 1♣ opening, so this bid is not "to play", which also means your explanation (after several times of asking for it - almost begging for one) was wrong...

[kenxie]

"To play means your P will have to Always pass...."
POLL here!!

How many of you guys agree with that?
If more than 50%, I will have to leave here and enjoying myself elsewhere.

That means, 1s-3s, even the opener have 11-~21+ range, he got to PASS.
so did 1d-1nt and lots of other stuff.

This is the first time I hard there is something in BRIDGE, forcing PASS, instead of bid....

[hrothgar]

One point that I think is worth emphasizing:

I'm a strong advocate of complete disclosure, particular when players are using "unusual" systems.

There is a world of difference between describing a highly convoluted or conventional bid and describing a standard, natural and non-forcing bid.

Equally significant, there is a lot of difference between providing information to a novice player and providing explanations to an expert level player who should bloody well know what a 2NT response means.

Finally, there is a big difference between disclosure requirements from a well oiled partnership and a pair playing pickup.

Given the Exodus and Multi were sitting at the table when Arrows and partner agreed to system, they have ever bit as much information available about the agreed meaning of the 2NT response as Arrows partner.

To some extent, this last point may have colored my own perspective.

1. I don't think that Arrow's offense was egregious. Neither the use of CAPS or language would bother me in the least. Arrows didn't go out of his way to be helpful. Oh well.

2. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. People are drawing a lot of attention to ways in which Arrows could have handled this differently. Personally, I find the opponent's behaviour equallydisturbing. I think that they were looking for trouble and found it.

3. I think that a lot of players who are asking for information are trying to take a doubleshot. They are hoping to either

(A) Get an un-necessarily precise description regarding your hand
(B) Be able to whine for an adjustment if you hand does not perfectly match the one that was described.

Please reference two other threads that are taking place focused on complaints surrounding 1NT opener's with inappropriate hands.

[Free]

kenxie, on Jan 12 2005, 08:53 PM, said:

"To play means your P will have to Always pass...."
POLL here!!

How many of you guys agree with that?
If more than 50%, I will have to leave here and enjoying myself elsewhere.

That means, 1s-3s, even the opener have 11-~21+ range, he got to PASS.
so did 1d-1nt and lots of other stuff.

This is the first time I hard there is something in BRIDGE, forcing PASS, instead of bid....

Ok you're on, I've posted a poll

[helium]

Arrows when u playin TURNEYS on, or off line you have to alert and explain your bids properly, if you cant do that i suggest you DONT play in turneys.

And that this happend in aba i find a bit strange, isnt abaluky a club for more experienced players???



kenneth