[fred]

Some definitions you might find useful:

1. Signoff - partner is expected to pass 100% of the time.

Examples:

1NT-3NT (3NT is a signoff, opener will always pass)

1H-2H-4H (4H is a signoff, responder will always pass)

2. Non-forcing bid - partner can pass if he wants but he will not do so 100% of the time.

Examples:

1H-3H (3H is non-forcing, opener will sometimes pass, but frequently bid again)

1H-4H (4H is non-forcing, opener will usually pass, but occasionally bid again)

The difference between "signoffs" and "non-forcing bids" is that the partner of a player who makes a signoff bid has limited his hand whereas the partner of a player who makes a non-forcing bid has not limited his hand.

"To play" is not very well-defined. In my opinion it should mean the same thing as "signoff", but players frequently use this term to describe various non-forcing bids (especially those non-forcing bids like 1H-4H that are usually passed in practice).

Suggest you don't use "to play" when describing the meaning of your bids to the opponents since this term is not very well defined (as this thread demonstrates).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mikestar]

Lets look at some terms as aplied to natural bids in the denomination you wish to play:

1. Absolute signoff: unless he made an error (had an Ace hidden, etc.) partner cannot have a hand which justifies bidding on. For example 1N-3N.

2. Signoff: you expect partner to pass. Partner will pass most of the time but will bid on with some extarordinary hands. For example 1N-2S playing strong NT and natural responses. Partner may raise to 3S (or conventionally show a doubleton) with 17 prime points and 4-card support.

3. What I think I can make: You are suggesting a final contract and partner is free to bid on but you are in no way suggesting he do so. For example, (3S)-3N. partner can have many hands justifying bidding on, but won't do so just because he has slightly more than the 7-8 count you expect.

4. Invitational: You are urging partner to bid on unless he is minimum. For example 1S-3S playing limit raises.

5. Forcing: No need to define this one. When asked, you will need to specify forcing to what level.

6. Preemptive: a special case of #2. Your partner will tend to bid on only with extraordinary extras, but you also expect to go down unless partner has a fair amount of extras.

I would assume that "to play" means #1, #2, or #3 depending on the bidding context.

[junyi_zhu]

fred, on Jan 12 2005, 11:51 PM, said:

Some definitions you might find useful:

1. Signoff - partner is expected to pass 100% of the time.

Examples:

1NT-3NT (3NT is a signoff, opener will always pass)

1H-2H-4H (4H is a signoff, responder will always pass)

2. Non-forcing bid - partner can pass if he wants but he will not do so 100% of the time.

Examples:

1H-3H (3H is non-forcing, opener will sometimes pass, but frequently bid again)

1H-4H (4H is non-forcing, opener will usually pass, but occasionally bid again)

The difference between "signoffs" and "non-forcing bids" is that the partner of a player who makes a signoff bid has limited his hand whereas the partner of a player who makes a non-forcing bid has not limited his hand.

"To play" is not very well-defined. In my opinion it should mean the same thing as "signoff", but players frequently use this term to describe various non-forcing bids (especially those non-forcing bids like 1H-4H that are usually passed in practice).

Suggest you don't use "to play" when describing the meaning of your bids to the opponents since this term is not very well defined (as this thread demonstrates).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I think to play means natural and passable. Like 1H 4S, you can say 4S is to play, but partner can bid on with a great hand. Or 1H 2S(wjs) is also to play and partner can bid on if he has a good support. Actually, to play is somewhat like the earlier days bridge, at that time, forcing bids haven't been invented and most bids are natural and usualy passable. Yes, I believe to play is not a good term to explain one bid. If possible, one should usually provide the most accurate explanation of his bids, like HCP range in normal situations, suit length or losers to give opponents' a better overview. To play isn't that accurate because it may cover a large variety of hands. Still, for BBO, what I usually do is to give a short explanation in the bidding box and talk to opps privately about the detailed information.

[arrows]

IMHO,

"to play" means given the bidding context so far, I wanna play what I bid.

First of all, "to play" must be a natural bid, otherwise makes no sense.
second, "to play" implies "Not Forcing", it's obvious.
Third, as most people have said, "to play" definitely doesn't mean parnter must pass.


To illustrate, For example, a natural bid might be forcing as well, a Non-forcing bid
might not be always natural. Say, your partner opens multi 2D, you bid 2S is
neither forcing nor natural.

In conclusion, "to play" is less ambiguous a description than natural or not forcing,
because it automatically qualifies both.

[fred]

I disagree Arrow.

Suppose your partner opens with a Namyats 4C showing a strong preempt in hearts.

Your 4H response could be characterized as "to play", but it is not a natural bid.

If "to play" was an unambiguous term then I doubt that there would be any need for 2 full pages of posts debating the meaning of the term.

The meaning may be crystal clear in your mind, but it doesn't seem like it is to everyone else.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[arrows]

As everyone knows, the mother thread of this one has been just petrified.

Let me make it crystal-clear,
I am not questioning the right of adminstrator to end that discussion,
I am questioning the timing.

((Large number of paragraphs deleted by inquiry)

Also, I didn't see anyone yelling at the public during discussion,
I would have great interest to know what that is all about.

((NOTE ADDED BY INQUIRY: When uday writes as he did in the "mohter thread" (as you say) that "This thread has turned less than civil. I have shut it down. It may not be reopened elsewhere on these forums, and I will move it out of the public area in a few hours" It is obvious you can not re-intreduce the topic, can not reask for apologies, can not continue the discussion along those line. I am certain both sides would have more to say, but uday's edict ends this discussion as far as public BBF posting is concedrned. - ben

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2005-January-12, 21:27

[hrothgar]

arrows, on Jan 13 2005, 05:27 AM, said:

As everyone knows, the mother thread of this one has been just petrified.

Arrows, I have no problem if you want to start a new thread to discuss why the "Parent" was killed.

I really wish that you wouldn't poison this thread with this topic...
We're haven't some nice, polite discussion here, and I'd hate to lose the discourse

Any chance that I can convince you to edit/remove you last posting and to start a new thread in which to hash this out...

[arrows]

Quote

Suppose your partner opens with a Namyats 4C showing a strong preempt in hearts.

Your 4H response could be characterized as "to play", but it is not a natural bid.

If "to play" was an unambiguous term then I doubt that there would be any need for 2 full pages of posts debating the meaning of the term.

Nice catch, Fred!

I think we all know what I am talking about.
I know it's very tough to make a bullet-proof argument.
That's why I didn't say it's "unambiguous"
I said it's "less ambiguous". or didn't I?
And of course, even that statement, open to further debate , too.

[helene_t]

Seems like "to play" means that partner is expected to pass unless he has extraordinairy extra's. Of course, "extraordinary" is a somewhat vague term and hopefully the opps will understand that. However, consider this:

1♦ - 1NT

In the Looier system this is a sign-off and opener should pass unless he's pretty sure the contract can be improved (holding a longer canapé suit would be reason to bid on).

If 1♦ is neboulous as in Rigal Precision, I might interpret it the same way if it was explained as "to play" but I'm not familiar with the system and I'm probably wrong.

If this is a classic Acol auction 1NT is stronly limited and almost always balanced, yet 1♦ is wide-range so it would hardly be "extraordinary" for opener to bid on.

If this is a natural 5-card major system with a weak 1NT, may be non-forcing but defently not "to play" since opener would very often bid on. Also, 1NT is by no means garantied to be ballanced, actually it is likely to be based on a long club suit.

You see, "to play" is an unfortunate term and should be used only when it's clear to the opponents what it means, even if they are unfamilar with your system. Of course, they can ask again, but they want to be polite and therefore prefer not to ask the same question twice.

[Chamaco]

I think the "to play" issue is tricky.

Of course one should disclose to opps the same info that partner has.

On the other hand:

1) opps asking the meaning of unalerted bids is somewhat unethical (if done when the pard can see): it is like telling to p that you have a hand based on which these info matter to you.

2) every time it has occurred to me, opps only wanted me to be so specific that they could nail me down if my hand did not comply PERFECTLY to all the features of the hand.

Example sequences:

1D-pass-

I responded 2NT (mean as invitational in NT). Opps asked my p and she said "invitational to 3NT". Then opps asked "with or without 4cM" ?
Pard said "without".

I played 3NT holding a 4333 with 4 H, and made the contract because they misdefended, assuming I held only 3 H, then they called the director to ask for an adjustment (and they got it).

Now, regardless of whether the adjustment was right or wrong, this shows the attitude of most people who insist to ask a super -accurate description of your bid: they want you to commit to guarantee/exclude certain features so they can call the TD if your hand does not fit 100% with them.

[Free]

I completely agree with Fred. For me, "to play" is TO PLAY, and nothing else. This might be a non-natural bid, since this aspect has nothing to do with what you want to play.
If a bid is not 100% to play, then it has a more specific meaning (for example "invitational"), so "to play" is just not enough. Non-forcing on the other hand tells you much more! It's a bid where partner may pass, but is not supposed to pass. This makes a world of difference to your LHO. If South makes a "to play bid", then West will suppose your partner will pass, and might need some immediate action. However, if partner is still allowed to bid, then he'll probably be less excited to bid.

On the other hand, imo it's quite clear when a bid is non-forcing and when it's actually to play and let partner shut up. If partner's hand is well defined, then to play will usually be played, where as if partner has a wide range of hands, he'll still be able to bid.

My advice (you don't have to agree): don't use the term "to play", since it can only lead to misunderstandings. Use common terms like non-forcing, signoff,... The language difficulties might already be enough to create some heavy discussions.

To Arrows: I didn't start this thread so you could justify your other thread, I started this to actually know what people think about this, since it interested me. I don't agree with most votes, but I'll keep this result in mind when someone explaines a bid as "to play". I hope you can find a way to just let it go, and not to poison someone else's honest threads! Even if it started because of your initial posts, it has nothing to do with it!

[helene_t]

Chamaco, on Jan 13 2005, 12:22 PM, said:

1D-pass-

I responded 2NT (mean as invitational in NT). Opps asked my p and she said "invitational to 3NT"). Then opps asked "with or without 4cM" ?
Pard said "without".

This was an inapropriate question and pd should have refused to give an answer. If 2NT had been forcing, the question would have been appropriate.

[Free]

Chamaco,

I've had similar problems in the past, but I've found a sweet solution: use the word "usually" a lot more in your explanations. It's waterproof, it's true and afterwards there can't be any discussions if your partner deviated a little from the system

I had some biddings like 1m-1NT and opps asked if I could have a 4 card M. Partner answered "usually not" and with my 3-4-3-3 and 8753 in ♥ I kept them out of 2♠.

[epeeist]

Chamaco, on Jan 13 2005, 05:22 AM, said:

I think the "to play" issue is tricky.

Of course one should disclose to opps the same info that partner has.

On the other hand:

1) opps asking the meaning of unalerted bids is somewhat unethical (if done when the pard can see): it is like telling to p that it maters to you.
....

Unfortunately, many bridge players don't alert all the bids they should (in my opinion) alert on BBO. So how is it unethical to ask for an explanation of a bid that you think, maybe, should have been alerted, but you can't be sure because you don't know how vigilant your opponents are about alerting? When you click on a bid and an explanation is given, it appears to one's partner also and partner may be able to deduce (by delay in explanation) that you asked. I try to avoid using private chat to ask, because the opponent often seems to "mistakenly" explain the bid in public chat, letting their partner know what the bid meant. "Mistakenly" was in quotes because I'm sure it's sometimes an accident, but it seems to happen a bit too frequently in my experience to always be a mistake...

Or what if there's no/improper convention card in a tournament that requires one? Or when opponents are using a system that is totally unfamiliar to you and you have no clue what the bids mean (e.g. I encounter Polish club bidders rarely enough that I've never learned the basics of the system)? In one online ACBL (convention card required) tournament, the opponents refused, after several deals and polite requests, to put up a convention card (and didn't explain why not, etc.). So how was I to know what, especially in a competitive bidding sequence, their bids meant or if they were using conventions of which I was unaware? The TD agreed with me that I was entitled to ask the meaning of EVERY bid, since they refused to comply with the rules.

I try to overcome the possibility of giving UI to my partners ("Hey, that explanation of the bid popped up late, my partner's probably curious about the bid...) by always asking about bids that I am unsure of, even if I have a bad hand. If I only asked when I had a good hand or thought it might make a difference on defence, a regular partner might, even subconsciously, gradually deduce a pattern. For instance, I always (unless opps have clearly disclosed previously) ask what 4NT bids and responses mean, even if I think it will make no difference. If I only clicked when I had e.g. a side suit ace, that would gradually come to constitute a clue to a regular partner or to some opponents. And yes, on a few occasions I (and my partner, by the explanations) have become aware that the opponents were mutually mistaken over whether they were using normal or rkcb and that influenced my decision whether to double. I've been told that ethically, there is no problem with allowing a known bidding mistake by your opponents to influence your actions.

I agree that since BBO is self-alerting, one should only be asking the bidder what their bids mean (not their partners), in all but unusual situations -- e.g. on one occasion when an opponent rudely refused to explain whether they were using Jacoby transfers or 4-suit transfers (i.e. whether a 2♠ bid, alerted as a transfer, meant only clubs, or could mean clubs or diamonds), I (privately) asked their partner, who said "new partner" or "no agreement" or something like that, which was fine. I asked the partner because the delay caused by my polite questions, and rude responses from my opponent, led to inquiries over whether I was still there, what was the problem, etc.

[Chamaco]

epeeist, on Jan 13 2005, 11:08 AM, said:

Unfortunately, many bridge players don't alert all the bids they should (in my opinion) alert on BBO. So how is it unethical to ask for an explanation of a bid that you think, maybe, should have been alerted, but you can't be sure because you don't know how vigilant your opponents are about alerting?

IMO, it is not fully appropriate when:

1. partner can see your request of explanation; he get UI from when you decide or not whether to ask explanations;
Concealed asking is never unethical.

2. you are trying to force opps to be superprecise in their explanation.
I mean, a questons such as "is it invitational?" "is it forcing?", is ok, but asking "hcp range?" is too much: often such questions are use to nail down the bidder if he he is deviating from a normal model hand.

[42]

It was a first-round-NT-bid that caused this discussion: I always took (and take ) NT bids in first round as a SUGGESTION "to play" because in "common sense" bridge, using systems like SAYC (used as basic BBO system if no other system is agreed), better minor, the German Forum D, etc. the range for the bid is small and therefore limited. It means for me: "p, if you only have what you promised with your opening bid, let us play 1/2/3NT, I have either the necessary strength and/or tricks for the level of my NT-bid". I also answered sometimes "to play" when I was asked and was not aware that this could be understood as doubtful or rude behaviour. I am not obliged to give an exact picture of my hand, opps must only know as much as my partner knows. I also feel angry when strong opps ask what an unalerted NT-bid means, I feel that I shall go into a trap and help them with their perhaps not clearcut decision. And here is a possible exchange of unallowed information (it also appears in hesitation before the next bid of a not red-spotted opp).
So: if a bid is not alerted, it should be taken as a natural common sense bid; when it turns out that it was not, call TD. And, please, don't make people "small" with "Perhaps they forgot to alert"!
I am no native English speaker, I hope, my tone was ok...
Caren

[Gerben47]

There is a scale of bids with amount of control for you and for partner

"to play" for me means: 100% control for who bids it, 0% for partner.

1NT - 3NT "to play" = Partner the contract will be 3NT, and 3NT the contract will be. 4NT thou shalt not bid. <enter Monty Python's Holy Handgrenade>

Now the 2NT case that started it was 100% for partner, 0% for me:

1♣ - 2NT "partner I have an invitational hand without 4-card major. Please bid the best contract."

Other examples are preemptive bids.

Then there is the 50-50 type bid.
1♥: Opening hand with 5+ hearts, let's find out what we can play TOGETHER

And some bids inbetween those, like
"1NT". Balanced with <insert range here> points. Now these kinds of hands can in some cases take initiative but usually it is with partner. I would rate this as 25% control bid (75% for partner).

For more information how this can help explaining bids see Lukasz Slawinski's webpage www.new-bridge.net.

[Free]

I think some people just make too much about this UI! Sometimes it can be, but in other cases it just isn't. Everyone on his turn can ALWAYS ask about the explanation of ANY bid opps made. It doesn't matter if you're in the balancing seat or not.

Imo, IF you encounter a pair which wants to cheat, they won't do it through UI. Come on, it's online bridge, the possibilities of cheating are extremely huge! Why would they make it themselves so hard? Get real...

[Chamaco]

Gerben47, on Jan 13 2005, 01:12 PM, said:

1NT - 3NT "to play" = Partner the contract will be 3NT, and 3NT the contract will be. 4NT thou shalt not bid. <enter Monty Python's Holy Handgrenade>

Like other posters, I think that even those who intend "to play" bids, (including 2NT or whatever) , allow opener to bid on if he has a special hand, with substantial extras in shape or hcp.

Of course this does not aply when opener opens 1NT (and any other well-defined hands, where obviously one side has finished describing and the other places the contract)

Another example:

1S:4S "to play", which may come from:

1. a distributional yarborough xxxxx-x-xxx-xxxx
2. a much better hand such ATxxx- QJT - Jxx- xx
3. anything else

Whatever hand responder may have, opener is allowed to bid if he's got a battleship.
"To play" does not bar pard from bidding on, it is a suggestion to play there.
Of course I agree with all the posters who say one should include other info such as "invitational", "nonforcing" and negative inferencedrawn from failure to bid something lse (e.g. the failure to bid Jacoby 2NT forcing raise to a major or to support with a mixed or limit raise using, say, Bergen raises or whatever you use)

[Free]

Chamaco, on Jan 13 2005, 02:46 PM, said:

"To play" does not bar pard from bidding on, it is a suggestion to play there.

So why not take any doubt away and explain it as "suggestion to play"??? I really don't see the difficulty, only lazyness...