[Chamaco]

Free, on Jan 13 2005, 03:43 PM, said:

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...

When your pard makes a penalty double, it's the same: if asked by opps, most times you'll just say "penalty".

But this does not mean you can never overrule removing the dbl: sure, perhaps you may explain it better as "suggestion to penalize", but how often do you say "suggestion to penalize" vs simply "penalty"?

The situation is exactly the same to the "to play" bids.

Perhaps everyone is lazy in different situations

[kenxie]

Wow, good NEWS!
Waked up and saw major percentage players are with me!!!

Lucky I can still enjoy the bridge game.
It is still the same as I thought.

I just like logic.
IMHO, Bidding always shows extra, not less.
At least I never heard that:

1c/ 1nt/ 2c/ 2nt (this 2nt is less strength than 1nt.....)
Ohh my god, that will be a dizaster, at least to me.

Logically, since P always have the possibility of having extra: points, control, shape, double match. and with your hand, limited information. there is obsolutly NO reason to force your Pd to shut UP.

If you have extra, forcing or inviting, if not and you want to stay here, tell you P "I wanna stay here" that is my understanding about to play.

Honestly, even if you wanna sign off, like
1S-1nt(forcing) 2c-2s
This 2s, I think 99% of the players will agree it is a sign off, it is even worse than 1s/2s. besides, your P is limited to not have the good hands like open 1S and rebid 3 level.

However, your P still allow to bid. well I admit 95%+ percentage you will pass.
open 1, the range is too wide. what is your problem is your got to find a way to explain yourself better in an efficient way. That is a fun part of bridge game.

FREE, allow me to be kidding here:
I describe you as follows:
In 30-35 and with advanced skill.

The reason is you will accept fight, so you must be young, you stick with what you thought, so you can't be very young. and you are confident, so you must be at least advanced. But I didn't find any evident that you prefer logic you I guess you are not an expert. Forgive me rudeness, I just like to make a fun.
You should know how happy I am when I know I could still enojy bridge here.

[arrows]

Quote

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!

Don't yell at me, OK? I say you are yelling because there are excalmatory
marks in this part. and it particularly addresses to me.

I didn't poison anything. You are not in a position to make judgement in public
about what's wrong, what is right. I don't know who you are, but I think it's
pretty safe for me to assume you are not God.

I am not here to argue with you, so please just delete this part, and I will
do the same too.

[arrows]

To the administrator:

Should we shut down this thread too?
Because it finally turns out someone yelling in the public.


((NOTE: OTHER THREAD NOT TO BE DISCUSSED PUBLICALLY. This time it is me yelling!!! I am getting tired of repeating uday's directive on that other thread, and tired of editing your continued comments on it. Consider this a final and very serious warning. - ben))

[inquiry]

arrows, on Jan 13 2005, 12:37 PM, said:

To the administrator:

Should we shut down this thread too?
Because it finally turns out someone yelling in the public.

And BTW, I am still interested (EDITED) in the other thread.

((NOTE: OTHER THREAD NOT TO BE DISCUSSED PUBLICALLY. This time it is me yelling!!! I am getting tired of repeating uday's directive on that other thread, and tired of editing your continued comments on it. Consider this a final and very serious warning. - ben))

Arrows,

Shutting down this thread is not an option at this point. The other posters are doing what they can to keep you from dredging up items from the "older" and now blocked thread. They aren't yelling, they are not even saying you were right or wrong in that thread. What they are saying is the subject of that thread is now moot as it is not going to be allowed to be discussed further.

With that in mind, I have edited your last post to remove the content of the reference you made to the last thread, as you are not gong to get a public answer to anything posted in that thread. IF you want to email the people involved privately, that is entirely up to you... but post on this issue no more. (Of course, can continue the "to play" discussion if you like, this is why this thread is not locked.).

Ben

[arrows]

Ben, I RESPECTFULLY disagree with you that "FREE" was not yelling
in his/her post earlier.

Although you are yelling at me, who is well-known
now a troublemaker, I have no hard feeling of you. I understand you are a
nice guy, but just used (or hired?) to do the troublesome jobs which the owner of this forum don't want to do.

Take care. Don't get too excited.

[helium]

In my systemcard i write "to play" on 4M openings. this dont mean that p have to pass 100% of the time but rather pass whit a normal hand.
And agree whit the posters saying "to play" is a bad explination and that
"non-forcing" or "natural is better terms:)




kenneth

[arrows]

I suddenly have a question wanna ask (and I am serious):

suppose my partner opens a preemptive 3♥, and
I bid 4♥, Is my 4♥ bid considered a natural bid?

[DrTodd13]

There is a continuum of "forcingness" from absolutely forcing to absolutely partner-must-not-bid. You can subdivide up this continuum into however many sections you want and give each section a name. We as a community haven't agreed on what the sections are or what names they should have so we've got the situation where some people have created a section they call "to play" and others a section called "non-forcing." I think there is some overlap in what some people normally mean by these words. As long as we are speaking in generalities there will always be confusion. If you really want to eliminate this you are going to have to define ranges in the continuum based on what percentage of the time partner will bid on. Ideally, when asked for an explanation, you could give this percentage rather than words to describe the bid.

Todd

[Free]

arrows, on Jan 13 2005, 05:31 PM, said:

Quote

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!

Don't yell at me, OK? I say you are yelling because there are excalmatory
marks in this part. and it particularly addresses to me.

I didn't poison anything. You are not in a position to make judgement in public
about what's wrong, what is right. I don't know who you are, but I think it's
pretty safe for me to assume you are not God.

I am not here to argue with you, so please just delete this part, and I will
do the same too.

Arrows, forgive me for using my "!"s wrong. They weren't meant to yell at you, just to highlight the important sentences.

I've had threads in the past who were closed because someone else made it ugly, and I really didn't like that. I don't want this to happen again, that's all.

[hotShot]

To me "tp play" means that I expect my partner to pass this bid.

But he does not have to pass!

[Free]

kenxie, on Jan 13 2005, 05:07 PM, said:

FREE, allow me to be kidding here:
I describe you as follows:
In 30-35 and with advanced skill.

The reason is you will accept fight, so you must be young, you stick with what you thought, so you can't be very young. and you are confident, so you must be at least advanced. But I didn't find any evident that you prefer logic you I guess you are not an expert. Forgive me rudeness, I just like to make a fun.
You should know how happy I am when I know I could still enojy bridge here.

Not bad...

I'm 24, and I honestly consider myself somewhere between advanced+ and expert. I have my poor moments from time to time, but I also have briliant ones

[Rebound]

Chamaco, on Jan 13 2005, 07:26 AM, said:

often such questions are use to nail down the bidder if he is deviating from a normal model hand.

OT: This may have been addressed already (if so, my apologies), but I have not yet read the full thread and Chamaco has mentioned this twice. You've been getting shafted if you have gotten adjustments against you for making bids which don't conform to your system (unless it happens A LOT in which case it is a hidden partnership agreement) since it is legal. You can certainly deviate from systemic agreements provided your partner is as much in the dark as the opponents are. The same thing has happened to me and I think it is rotten.

If I make such a bid and the opponents request an explanation, I feel no guilt whatsoever telling them what it is supposed to mean, not what I have (as I have seen so many others do). It really ticks me off to see someone adjust his/her explanation of a call to suit his/her holding. I don't care if it is supposed to help me know what they have, I'd rather play by the rules.

Incidentally, Fred, I totally agree with your statements regarding "to play", and frankly I am a little surprised it took so long for other posters to make the same point (I am a little late arriving to the thread I'm afraid.) It seems clear there are two possible definitions of it: partner has limited his/her hand earlier in the auction and is expected to pass under any circumstances, or partner will normally pass but may bid again under certain circumstances. Because of this ambiguity, the explanation should be discarded in favor of a more accurate explanation, as you suggest. However, I think that, in any event, despite your explanation, partner should not be barred from making another call under the rules.

Suppose partner has (as i have on occasion) had a brain fart and miscounted the hand somehow or there has been a partnership misunderstanding, and partner elects to call again despite your having described your call as "to play" or "signoff"? It is my understanding that no penalty should attach in this situation.

[Flame]

To play may not be a very good explanation, but its both sides duty to make sure the message pass, so if you say "to play" and im not sure what this mean i will ask again.

[helene_t]

Helium says: "Non-forcing" or "natural" [are] better terms.

Arrow asks: suppose my partner opens a preemptive 3♥, and
I bid 4♥, Is my 4♥ bid considered a natural bid?

Lol, now we can start a similar thread about what "natural" means, actually we have had that thread a couple of times before. IMHO (But Helium obviously disagrees), "natural" is even more confusing than "to play".

[jikl]

I never say to play; ever. My explanation that fits this subject is to say "I think this is what I can make opposite my partner's hand but partner may have other ideas ". This is when playing behind screens of course. At a table where verbal alerts are given then I say non-forcing.

Sean

[Free]

jikl, on Jan 15 2005, 01:33 AM, said:

I never say to play; ever. My explanation that fits this subject is to say "I think this is what I can make opposite my partner's hand but partner may have other ideas ". This is when playing behind screens of course. At a table where verbal alerts are given then I say non-forcing.

Sean

Lol, even that's not always true. Consider this hand:

-
xxx
xxx
Qxxxxxx

NV, partner opens a 10-12 1NT opening which doens't contain any 5 card M. I bid 2♠, a real "to play" bid (partner WILL pass, even if he's max and a 4 card support). If opps Dbl, I can easily go to 3♣ and they might not find their 9 card ♠ fit anymore, if they don't Dbl, we have a top board
"to play" is clearly NOT a synonim for "I think this is what I can make"

[arrows]

I see serious confusion here.

When you are asked the meaning of a call, you are supposed to tell them
what does the call mean to your parnter (if you have agreement), or what the
expectation other people should have upon this call.
NOT your motive of making this call.

For example, 1NT-2♠ means I wanna play 2♠, not a minor suit stayman,
not transfer or anything else, I don't have to address whether I expect I will
make it or not, is that a problem?

Giving a wordy explanation just make people think
you ware trying to deliberately mislead them in such a particular situation that
you have no ♠. I am not sure it is illegal or not.