[Free]

Because Kenxie asked...

If you explain a bid as "To play", is partner allowed to bid on? Or did you give a wrong explanation when partner is still allowed to bid (for example with extra strength)?

To give you some thoughts about the subject, here are 2 kinds of biddings which are totally different imo, but some people would both alert them as "to play".

1m-2NT "to play" (with the standard meaning)
1NT-2M "to play" (not using transfers)

[hrothgar]

Here's my take on things:

When someone says "To play", this is shorthand for

"Partner is expected to pass if they hold a 'standard' hand, however, there may exist a set of hands such that partner is permitted to reject the signoff"

To some extent, this is a terrible description, since the definition of "To play" will depend on both partnership understanding and the definition of the previous bids.

For example, suppose that I bid "3NT" as to play over partner's 15-17 HCP NT opening. Partner's hand is VERY tightly defined. In this case, the meaning of partner's 1NT effectively means that he can't hold a hand suitable to rejecting 3NT as a contract.

Contrast this with the case where I bid 3NT "to play" over a Standard American 1S opening. Partner could easily hold a hand suitable for rejecting my 3NT bid.

[HeartA]

Of course pd can bid on if he has extra.

[helium]

he can only bid on whit something really speasial.


kenneth

[pclayton]

Agree 100% with Richard. Partner can bid on with: a) extra points or b ) extra shape.

This is a continuation of a thread about the 2N call. Certainly opener is not barred if he holds a 22 count; or even a shapely 10 count.

Here's another case: weak 2, then a 3N overcall. Explanation? I want to play 3N! I don't need to tell you if my hand is a balanced 24, or a 15 count with a running suit and stop.

I only need to disclose my partnership agreement; if there is one.

[the hog]

hrothgar, on Jan 13 2005, 06:24 AM, said:

Here's my take on things:

When someone says "To play", this is shorthand for

"Partner is expected to pass if they hold a 'standard' hand, however, there may exist a set of hands such that partner is permitted to reject the signoff"

To some extent, this is a terrible description, since the definition of "To play" will depend on both partnership understanding and the definition of the previous bids.

For example, suppose that I bid "3NT" as to play over partner's 15-17 HCP NT opening. Partner's hand is VERY tightly defined. In this case, the meaning of partner's 1NT effectively means that he can't hold a hand suitable to rejecting 3NT as a contract.

Contrast this with the case where I bid 3NT "to play" over a Standard American 1S opening. Partner could easily hold a hand suitable for rejecting my 3NT bid.

Agree totally. When we are talking about someone whose English isn't great, "to play" can be perfectly easily interpreted as "natural".

[Cowology]

^^ Yup. Richard said it well.

[inquiry]

pclayton, on Jan 12 2005, 04:41 PM, said:

I only need to disclose my partnership agreement; if there is one.

Don't you need to disclose that you have you NO AGREEMENT if you in fact have no agreement. In otherwords, your responsibility, especially when asked, is to clearly state what your agreement is.. .and "no agreement" is the explaination if you have none.

[tysen2k]

For me "to play" means that I expect partner to pass 97% of the time.

I would never describe 1m-2N (NF) as "to play" but rather as "non-forcing" or "invitational"

Tysen

[the hog]

inquiry, on Jan 13 2005, 07:02 AM, said:

pclayton, on Jan 12 2005, 04:41 PM, said:

I only need to disclose my partnership agreement; if there is one.

Don't you need to disclose that you have you NO AGREEMENT if you in fact have no agreement. In otherwords, your responsibility, especially when asked, is to clearly state what your agreement is.. .and "no agreement" is the explaination if you have none.

Ben, not to press a point but that assumption is clearly implicit in what Phil wrote.

[Free]

"Partner is expected to pass if they hold a 'standard' hand, however, there may exist a set of hands such that partner is permitted to reject the signoff"

So opening with 1X with 19HCP isn't 'standard', but with 13HCP it is? Either I have to learn the English language again, or the standard systems, or this sentence is absolute rubish.

[the hog]

Frederick, I think you yourself are attempting to don the mantle of "bush lawyer". Argue not with a pedant for you will always lose. A 19 point hand is not "standard" in the context of that word.

[Cowology]

Free, on Jan 12 2005, 04:12 PM, said:

"Partner is expected to pass if they hold a 'standard' hand, however, there may exist a set of hands such that partner is permitted to reject the signoff"

So opening with 1X with 19HCP isn't 'standard', but with 13HCP it is? Either I have to learn the English language again, or the standard systems, or this sentence is absolute rubish.

It would be "standard" to open that hand 1x, but not a "standard" 1x opening....if that makes any sense lol

[hrothgar]

Free, on Jan 13 2005, 12:12 AM, said:

"Partner is expected to pass if they hold a 'standard' hand, however, there may exist a set of hands such that partner is permitted to reject the signoff"

So opening with 1X with 19HCP isn't 'standard', but with 13HCP it is?    Either I have to learn the English language again, or the standard systems, or this sentence is absolute rubish.

Consider the notion of "Mode" as applied to a specific bridge bid.

A Standard American 1C opening can incorporates a lot of different hand types. However, it is most likely to be based on a balanced hand (4432, 4333, 5332) pattern with roughly 12-14 HCP.

Now consider applying notions such as deviations from the Mode across an N dimensional space. Once you get far enough out on certain tails, you'll start rejecting signoffs...

[pbleighton]

Free:
"So opening with 1X with 19HCP isn't 'standard', but with 13HCP it is? Either I have to learn the English language again, or the standard systems, or this sentence is absolute rubish."

The_Hog:
"Frederick, I think you yourself are attempting to don the mantle of "bush lawyer". Argue not with a pedant for you will always lose. A 19 point hand is not "standard" in the context of that word."

Hrothgar:
"Now consider applying notions such as deviations from the Mode across an N dimensional space. Once you get far enough out on certain tails, you'll start rejecting signoffs..."

ROFL

Peter

P.S. Richard - I think a simple "bullshit" would have sufficed

[mycroft]

When I use "to play", it's always in a "partner has told me her hand, and is going to pass if uncontested" context. 1NT-2M(TP), 3D-3NT(TP), 1S-4S(TP, which in a limited opening system does not necessarily mean "weak"), 2H-4H(TP), that sort of thing. I tend to use different wording for "I expect partner to pass, but she may have the right kind of hand to go on".

Certainly, I would not refer to an invitational bid as "to play". The context is always "I have no interest in you raising me, pd."

[non-NAers and people with weak hearts can stop now]
Of course, in the (in)famous Meckstroth ACBL Bulletin editorials of mumble years ago, he argued that if, playing a 10-12 NT, "to play" meant you wouldn't raise the call even if contested with a 12 high 4432 with 4-card support, you're playing a(n illegal, in ACBL-land) psychic control if partner ever bids 2S with 1444 Q and out. I have no comment to that at all.

Michael.

[Free]

Ok, 1M-p-4M-something is indeed another situation. However if both opps pass, can partner still bid?

Seems like most people think "to play" is not meant as 100% to play. I'll keep that in mind

[flytoox]

Of coz pd can. For example, playing natural system, 1m-1N. If asked, 1N is clearly to play, and surely pd can bid 2M, 2N, 3N, or 6N wahtever.

To play, in my view, is equivalent to invitation.

[Free]

flytoox, on Jan 13 2005, 12:36 AM, said:

To play, in my view, is equivalent to invitation.

Obviously opposite different strength with partner...

[luke warm]

the question was, can partner bid again if my bid is alerted 'to play'... of course he can... we play a weak nt and are expected to bid a 5 card suit "to play" in an uncontested auction... however, if he opens 1nt and i bid 2s, he can most definitely bid 3s, even tho i would alert 2s as 'to play' and i'd fully expect pard to pass... if he did bid 3s, i'd be as surprised as the ops, but that's quite apart from his right to do so...

and i disagree with fly, 'to play' and 'invitational' don't carry the same meaning to me