[ochinko]

hrothgar, on Mar 8 2005, 10:35 AM, said:

luis, on Mar 8 2005, 06:23 PM, said:

I have a theory but I don't know if it's sound or just my imagination.

I try to make my bids as descriptive as possible to my pd so he can remember similar hands where I used similar bids and know what to expect from me. Since he has more data than the opps he will have valuable info to make a good decision.

....

Maybe my theory is a complete nonsense.

Luis, it sounds very much like you are saying the following:

We expect to benefit from incomplete disclosure of methods
We design our bidding system to maximize our chance of creating "special" agreements

If true, this is completely disgusting

I agree whole heartedly. A victory tastes good only if achieved within the rules and ethics of the game. This smells like the players in the local club who listen to the conversations at the other tables in order to take advantage of some cruical extra info.

It is expected (perhaps even required) from your partner to alert even normal bids, and explain to your opps that you tend to make psychic bids in a particular position.

[TimG]

luis, on Mar 8 2005, 10:23 AM, said:

I try to make my bids as descriptive as possible to my pd so he can remember similar hands where I used similar bids and know what to expect from me. Since he has more data than the opps he will have valuable info to make a good decision.

Sounds like you're avoiding full disclosure. Your partner may have more data than the opponents, but he must fully explain your methods (even style and tendencies) so that just this situation does not occur.

[han]

I don't think that Luis is doing something unethical. After all, the opponents can ask his partner about his style. I believe his argument that he doesn't like to bid 2C or double with this hand because he doesn't want partner to expect a hand like this in the future is sound. However, I really dislike bidding 6C here.

I would bid 2C, 5C close second (at the table I might very well have chosen 5C). I would never double, and my partners would never expect this hand if I double.

I'm not too worried about 2C getting passed out, but if it does, I'd apologize and my partner and team mates would understand; I'm sure of that. What I dislike most about 2C is that the auction might go (1S)-2C-(3C)-p-(4S)-5C, and now the opponents would be much better placed than over a direct 5C.

[luis]

hrothgar, on Mar 8 2005, 03:35 PM, said:

luis, on Mar 8 2005, 06:23 PM, said:

I have a theory but I don't know if it's sound or just my imagination.

I try to make my bids as descriptive as possible to my pd so he can remember similar hands where I used similar bids and know what to expect from me. Since he has more data than the opps he will have valuable info to make a good decision.

....

Maybe my theory is a complete nonsense.

Luis, it sounds very much like you are saying the following:

We expect to benefit from incomplete disclosure of methods
We design our bidding system to maximize our chance of creating "special" agreements

If true, this is completely disgusting

When did I say that?
I can bid whatever I want and you can ask my pd whatever you want and he will tell you any agreement explicit or not that we have.
Not bidding X or 2c with strange hands is not an agreement it's quite natural, on the other hand bidding 2c or X with an 8th card suit is worth an alert if your pd is aware of that possibility.
I just don't want my pd to imagina I might be holding 3 aces and an 8th card suit when I bid 2c, is that unethical ?
You have to be quite touched to imagine that I'm trying to benefit from not fully disclosing my methods.
Maybe is your comment the one that is disgusting, don't you think?

[Free]

Imo some people are overreacting to Luis' post. I don't think he (or his partner) has bad intentions, but as we all know, partner ALWAYS has more info/data to make a good decision because he knows our style and agressiveness. If you'd keep that for yourselves, that's unethical, but get real! I can easily show some situations where my online partners don't give absolute FULL disclosure, but now they're pointing to someone else...

[pclayton]

There's disclosure and there's disclosure.

Who knows more about Meckstroth's tendencies than Rodwell?

When Meck opens a precision 2♣, does Rodwell have to disclose everything he knows about Meck's tendencies in this situation? I think you'll be there awhile, and you are probably giving your pard UI along the way with your line of questioning.

Luis' idea makes a lot of sense. His pard is the one that will benefit from bidding within defined parameters. The next time the auction starts (1♠) - 6♣, his partner can explain that the bid could contain a fair amount of offense, but is defined as a pressure bid.

[Brandal]

luis, on Mar 7 2005, 02:11 PM, said:

I found the options funny, is somebody going to vote for something else than "other" ?
I think 2♣, pass and dbl are really bad options.
I'm between 5♣ and 6♣ because with some luck in dummy this hand is very playable in a slam at least we don't have 2 quick losers and any red suit king can be fantastic.

So I vote 6♣ -optimistic-

To me,6C on that particular hand is saying:

"Go play somewhere else partner,
I'd like to play bridge alone"

[luis]

Brandal, on Mar 9 2005, 11:15 AM, said:

luis, on Mar 7 2005, 02:11 PM, said:

I found the options funny, is somebody going to vote for something else than "other" ?
I think 2♣, pass and dbl are really bad options.
I'm between 5♣ and 6♣ because with some luck in dummy this hand is very playable in a slam at least we don't have 2 quick losers and any red suit king can be fantastic.

So I vote 6♣ -optimistic-

To me,6C on that particular hand is saying:

"Go play somewhere else partner,
I'd like to play bridge alone"

So you are a wonderful pd and will show your pd you have a semi-solid 8 card club suit plus a spade void and two red aces. Go ahead I can't wait to see how you do that.
Your comment applies to hands where a player takes an unilateral decision when his pd could've have helped, when there's no way to let pd take a good decision I prefer to bid what I think I can make.

[Brandal]

luis, on Mar 9 2005, 09:36 AM, said:

Brandal, on Mar 9 2005, 11:15 AM, said:

luis, on Mar 7 2005, 02:11 PM, said:

I found the options funny, is somebody going to vote for something else than "other" ?
I think 2♣, pass and dbl are really bad options.
I'm between 5♣ and 6♣ because with some luck in dummy this hand is very playable in a slam at least we don't have 2 quick losers and any red suit king can be fantastic.

So I vote 6♣ -optimistic-

To me,6C on that particular hand is saying:

"Go play somewhere else partner,
I'd like to play bridge alone"

So you are a wonderful pd and will show your pd you have a semi-solid 8 card club suit plus a spade void and two red aces. Go ahead I can't wait to see how you do that.
Your comment applies to hands where a player takes an unilateral decision when his pd could've have helped, when there's no way to let pd take a good decision I prefer to bid what I think I can make.

I never claimed to have a better suggestion,Luis,
or suggest that your bid is wrong for you.

There are obviously hands where I bid where I want to play,
this hand just wasn't one of those.

My biddingstyle,if you will,suggests 2C for me.

[luke warm]

this concerns luis' earlier post about inferences his partner might make, having seen similar hands/auctions... i agree with phil and hannie on this, there's nothing even remotely wrong here... in a serious match/tourney, we've all had opps ask, or we've asked them, pointed questions... "would he normally bid that way with ______?" i know luis and fred and phil have been asked questions along those lines, and have probably asked similar questions...

it's impossible to have a regular partner and not draw inferences from his bids, based on similar past circumstances

[beatrix45]

I think with minor suit 8 and 9 baggers you have a basic choice: blast or walk the dog. This hand looks like a dog walker with its 3 bullets and ratty suit you could stand to have more information, but two other factors are also important: the quality of the opponents and the state of the match. Against high quality opposition, blasting is better. Also, are you going for a favorable swing or just to halve the board?

You could really bid anything with this hand. To try to halve the board against good opposition, you might bid 5C. To set a trap for good opposition, try 3C. To walk the dog against a non-seeded pair you would bid 2C or even pass. Feel of the table is critical here. You hold a rare and unexpected asset, so use it to do unto the opponents and do not let them do unto you.

Trixie

[Free]

I was the opposition

[Echognome]

I would also like to add to the preposterous accusation against Luis (whom I have never met online or otherwise).

You open a weak two hearts. Is your suit quality discussed with your regular partner? Does it depend if you're in 1st/2nd/3rd/4th? Vulnerable/Non-Vulnerable?

I know that on our convention card our point range says ATV = according to vulnerability. If opponents ask, we are happy to say what we "expect" partner to have in a particular seat and vulnerability. (e.g. 1st Favorable = 0-5)

Convention cards are simply not big enough to fill in all of your agreements with partner. Luis' point, which I interpret as, trying to be consistent with your bidding with partner is ust one of building partnership trust and learning partner's style.

I also believe that you can't have agreements about every aspect of the game, there are too many sequences to cover. So if you don't have an agreement, you have a tendency. If you have a tendency, which you are fully willing to disclose, how is that a "secret partnership agreement"?

I'd say that unless you play against Luis, you shouldn't make such accusations, and if you do, then here is not the proper forum for them.

[P_Marlowe]

Double, with the intention to rebid clubs as cheaply
as possible, this will describe my hand pretty well.

With kind regards
Marlowe