[vbcastor]

I was just playing a person whom I was told not to name, opened 2♦ and my pard and I asked what that meant. He responded 'ask partner'. I was under the impression that here at BBO that you were supposed to explain your bid. When I called on a 'yellow' person to come answer this question after being told that he did not have to tell me anything since they did not have a partnership agreement, I was told he was right. I feel that bridge should be fair and that since you alert your own bids, you were supposed to explain. Apparently I was wrong. If I join a game and play with a stranger, then I don't have to tell anyone anything. Personally I think this stinks. My respect for the 'yellow' people have gone away completely as I thought this site was intent on fairness. It was just a pick-up game so no big deal but it upset me greatly. I did not expect him to tell me every card he had in his hand as he so stated in the chat area. I simply wanted to know if it was strong, weak, multi or whatever. He did not alert it so I assumed it was weak but still expected him to say. So maybe I was wrong about BBO. Maybe BBO does not care about fairness. I can go to a table and make totally wild bids and I have reason to explain since I would not have a partnership agreement with some stranger. If this is what BBO calls fair, then maybe I should find someplace else to play.

[Echognome]

The laws of bridge say that you only have to explain your agreements not your bids. I will usually explain what I intend my bid to mean when playing self alerts, but I'm certainly not required to do so. It is NOT unfair as if you don't know, certainly their partner does not know either.

To put it another way, suppose that I psych. Do I have to tell the opponents that my bid is a psych? No! But my partner cannot know it was a psych either. So it's fair in that both partner and opponents don't know.

As for the yellow you called, what can you expect them to do? They are upholding the laws of bridge. They also cannot possibly attend to every irregularity that occurs either as there are many, many players and not that many yellows.

[uday]

We generally use self-alerts. Players are expected to respond to opps queries. If a player does not, or is otherwise uncivil, email abuse@br....com and let us know, and we will educate that player. I assume you tried to explain this to the "perp" in a civil manner.


Mind, there is no need to draw sweeping conclusions about us or the others on the site based upon the actions of an individual who might or might not be here to play bridge.

There are a lot of us pushing cards about, and not all of us are nice normal people.

[mike777]

Echognome, on Jul 13 2005, 02:15 PM, said:

The laws of bridge say that you only have to explain your agreements not your bids.  I will usually explain what I intend my bid to mean when playing self alerts, but I'm certainly not required to do so.  It is NOT unfair as if you don't know, certainly their partner does not know either.

To put it another way, suppose that I psych.  Do I have to tell the opponents that my bid is a psych?  No!  But my partner cannot know it was a psych either.  So it's fair in that both partner and opponents don't know.

As for the yellow you called, what can you expect them to do?  They are upholding the laws of bridge.  They also cannot possibly attend to every irregularity that occurs either as there are many, many players and not that many yellows.

Matt strongly disagree with you on this one.

If I sit down with an unknown partner and open 2D I have an assumed agreement not an explicit one but an assumed one. My assumption may be wrong but I still think I have an agreement. If I sit with a stranger I must assume some agreements even with zero discussion, agreed? If not how do I play bridge?

Even if you disagree with me, and many do, I would think active ethics would say explain my darn opening bid of 2D to opp. I hope yellows up hold ethics as well as laws which need not be the same thing.

[luis]

vbcastor, on Jul 13 2005, 07:07 PM, said:

I was just playing a person whom I was told not to name, opened 2♦ and my pard and I asked what that meant. He responded 'ask partner'. I was under the impression that here at BBO that you were supposed to explain your bid. When I called on a 'yellow' person to come answer this question after being told that he did not have to tell me anything since they did not have a partnership agreement, I was told he was right. I feel that bridge should be fair and that since you alert your own bids, you were supposed to explain. Apparently I was wrong. If I join a game and play with a stranger, then I don't have to tell anyone anything. Personally I think this stinks. My respect for the 'yellow' people have gone away completely as I thought this site was intent on fairness. It was just a pick-up game so no big deal but it upset me greatly. I did not expect him to tell me every card he had in his hand as he so stated in the chat area. I simply wanted to know if it was strong, weak, multi or whatever. He did not alert it so I assumed it was weak but still expected him to say. So maybe I was wrong about BBO. Maybe BBO does not care about fairness. I can go to a table and make totally wild bids and I have reason to explain since I would not have a partnership agreement with some stranger. If this is what BBO calls fair, then maybe I should find someplace else to play.

Maybe you should consider another game not another site to play. BBO is a great place to play bridge, probably the best you won't find the people and the commitment that we find in BBO in other places.
What you describe is a problem with the rules of bridge not with BBO. Create your own table and indicate that all the bids must be explained in order to play at your table. You are free to do that and remove the players that don't follow your rules.
Some of us prefer to deduct what other players have instead of directly asking them, it's more fun.

[MickyB]

Just to agree with Echognome...you are required to disclose partnership agreements. Not just explicit agreements, also implicit agreements - eg you open a weak 2♦ on one hand, partner will then expect it to be weak the next time you do it. Or you are playing with someone from your country against opps from elsewhere, and you know that nearly everyone in your country plays lebensohl a particular way round...you should say so.

What you needn't do is say how you intend a bid when your partner knows no more about it than your opps do. If you do decide to tell your opps what you meant the bid as, you should make it clear that it isn't an agreement (as Echognome does, most of his alerts have question marks on!) - otherwise they will assume your partner knows what he is doing! This (in theory) could lead to an adjustment against you due to providing misinformation.

[Echognome]

Mike - I personally will not sit down at a table and just play without at least a discussion of a general approach (SAYC partner? 2/1 partner? Acol partner?).
What it seems that you are describing to me is an implicit agreement: one perhaps implied by something written on your profile or your partner's. But supposing you sat down and both your's and your p's proifles were blank and you had both had country of "other" written down AND you hadn't discussed anything or played with this person before, then you have no agreements. You won't even know your own NT range. You don't have to explain your bids then.

But the relevant laws are:

Quote

LAW 75 - PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS
A. Special Partnership Agreements
Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and
freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). Information conveyed to
partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and
conditions of the current deal.

B. Violations of Partnership Agreements
A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his
partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a partnership
may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). No player has the
obligation to disclose to the opponents that he has violated an announced
agreement and if the opponents are subsequently damaged, as through
drawing a false inference from such violation, they are not entitled to redress.

C. Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements
When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an
opponent’s inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information
conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience,
but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and
experience.

[MickyB]

mike777, on Jul 13 2005, 08:20 PM, said:

If I sit down with an unknown partner and open 2D I have an assumed agreement not an explicit one but an assumed one. My assumption may be wrong but I still think I have an agreement. If I sit with a stranger I must assume some agreements even with zero discussion, agreed? If not how do I play bridge?

If you have had no discussion, then say "undiscussed". If the opponent has played on the site before, he will probably assume SAYC as you did. If your opponent is new to the site then you should say "we haven't discussed anything so we are probably playing SAYC, in which a 2♦ opener is weak".

I realise that you don't always know when an opponent is new to BBO

[vbcastor]

Well I just wanted to know the rules and I've been told before to explain my bids by bbo players since I've been playing here. But now I found out that was wrong and I'm upset...Sorry. I don't have to have what my bid meant as in the case of a psyche but I thought at BBO, people would explain their intent with the bid. When I play at my studio, my pard must explain the bid but here the rule is self alert and I thought self explain. But if this is the acceptable way, I will play with people I know and trust. I always give my intent of my bid if asked as I think the game should be fair. But I see some of the responses here think maybe fairness is not important and all have their right to their opinions.

[mike777]

MickyB, on Jul 13 2005, 02:31 PM, said:

mike777, on Jul 13 2005, 08:20 PM, said:

If I sit down with an unknown partner and open 2D I have an assumed agreement not an explicit one but an assumed one. My assumption may be wrong but I still think I have an agreement. If I sit with a stranger I must assume some agreements even with zero discussion, agreed? If not how do I play bridge?

If you have had no discussion, then say "undiscussed". If the opponent has played on the site before, he will probably assume SAYC as you did. If your opponent is new to the site then you should say "we haven't discussed anything so we are probably playing SAYC, in which a 2♦ opener is weak".

I realise that you don't always know when an opponent is new to BBO

Agree but this is not what was done, this is part of ethics, not law. At the very least, also is there not something in the law that requires us to have a filled out cc including the space where opening 2 D is. There is in the acbl and I assume in most countries. S0 again if we are going to apply the law, let us follow all of them cheers.

[mycroft]

The Laws say this:

Quote

LAW 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS

A. Right to Choose Call or Play
    A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding.

B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited
    A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation.

BBO's "regulations" (actually, more like codified traditions) say "self alert, self-explain". Therefore, *if they have an agreement*, the bidder should tell you what that agreement is. If they don't, the bidder should tell you what he knows that convinced him to make that call.

However, this does not mean:

a) That the bidder needs to tell you what he hopes partner will guess the bid means. If I sit down to a table, agree "2/1", and open 2D, I *hope* partner guesses it's a standard weak 2. In fact, I really hope he doesn't think it's Flannery. However, what I have to tell you is "we've agreed 2/1. That's the extent of our agreements." Note: I'll have one after this hand...

b) that the bidder needs to tell you what he has in his hand. If I am playing with my regular partner, and it goes p-p-3NT, our agreement is "to play, don't correct". I could have 25 HCP balanced, I could have AKQxxxx and a couple of controls outside, I could have a lot of things. I don't have to tell you what it is.

c) that the bidder has to have what he explains. p-p-3NT again; I could have CAKJTxxxx and out, hoping partner has a trick and we can run 9, or that he doesn't, and you have 6M; I could even have CQJT8xxxx and out, and plan to pull a double to 4C, but are willing to score up -400 or -450 in 3NT. Yeah, it's a pure psychic, but that's legal, as long as partner is as in the dark as you are.

In other words, "ask partner" was wrong. "We agreed 2/1, but that's the extent of our agreements" is okay - if it's true. Of course, if your opponent was new to online, he may have thought "ask partner" is the right thing to do - after all, it is in all the F2F games he plays.

Doesn't help you any - but it's a pickup game, his partner gets no help either. Welcome to cut-for-partners rubber bridge with an American, a Canadian, a Pole and a Korean.

I'm willing to bet the yellow didn't say you had to ask bidder's partner, though - just that 'no agreement, we play <whatever>' is full disclosure if that is complete.

Welcome to BBO, I hope you give it a good chance.

[mike777]

Again there must be a law that says you have a filled out cc. There is in the ACBL and can only assume something similiar in other countries. So here no cc filled out in full then they are breaking the law.

Now back to ethics and being polite at the table while still allowing Matt his Psyches and all of us not to have to explain our basic bridge bids and all our cards in our hands

[Echognome]

Mike - Just to be on record as saying that I never implied that one should not be polite or be unethical. Just stating the laws. To answer your question about convention cards, it's up to the sponsoring organisation.

Quote

E. Convention Card
1. Right to Prescribe
The sponsoring organisation may prescribe a convention card on which
partners are to list their conventions and other agreements and may
establish regulations for its use, including a requirement that both
members of a partnership employ the same system (such a regulation
must not restrict style and judgement, only method).

[Walddk]

The person you asked should have said "no agreement", and that's it. If you want him to tell you how he intended his 2♦ opening, you must change the Laws of Duplicate Bridge first.

Sorry, that's how it is, whether you agree or not and has nothing to do with playing bridge on BBO. If we follow the rules (and why would we not?), it's the same everywhere, in real life and on the internet, although I know that a few TDs on the net don't care much about the law.

But we have had that discussion before.

Roland

[mike777]

Echognome, on Jul 13 2005, 02:47 PM, said:

Mike - Just to be on record as saying that I never implied that one should not be polite or be unethical.  Just stating the laws.  To answer your question about convention cards, it's up to the sponsoring organisation.

Quote

E. Convention Card
1. Right to Prescribe
The sponsoring organisation may prescribe a convention card on which
partners are to list their conventions and other agreements and may
establish regulations for its use, including a requirement that both
members of a partnership employ the same system (such a regulation
must not restrict style and judgement, only method).

Are you saying the UK does not mandate a filled out cc? Just which countries do not require this? In any event I hope we can all agree that the actual response given here to a new member of BBO by this player and the yellow was not best?

[MickyB]

vbcastor, on Jul 13 2005, 08:35 PM, said:

I always give my intent of my bid if asked as I think the game should be fair. But I see some of the responses here think maybe fairness is not important and all have their right to their opinions.

I understand you are upset, but...

The game is fair. It is a game of agreements, and the purpose of disclosure is so that the other three at the table all know as much as each other. Please don't say that we believe fairness is not important.

[Echognome]

mike777, on Jul 13 2005, 08:51 PM, said:

Are you saying the UK does not mandate a filled out cc? Just which countries do not require this? In any event I hope we can all agree that the actual response given here to a new member of BBO by this player and the yellow was not best?

Umm no. Not sure how those words were put into my mouth.

However, the convention card may be simplified to fit on a scorecard (which leaves much less room here than the standard one in the acbl) "if your methods are sufficiently straightforward to need no further explanation."

Second, this is one of the least enforced laws in the EBU (in my opinion). If we started not allowing people to play at the club because they didn't have a convention card, we'd have a lot fewer players.

Third, I'm still not sure what this has to do with the original question. It seems that what everyone agrees is that the player should have said "no agreement" not "ask partner". I have no idea whether one interprets this as rude or if the player was subsequently rude at the table and am glad that I don't have to deal with this.

Finally, how can we say that the yellow didn't handle this correctly? Although the player said "ask partner", the yellow investigated and said "that he did not have to tell me anything since they did not have a partnership agreement." That sounds exactly like what we have all been saying.

[mike777]

Echognome, on Jul 13 2005, 03:15 PM, said:

mike777, on Jul 13 2005, 08:51 PM, said:

Are you saying the UK does not mandate a filled out cc? Just which countries do not require this? In any event I hope we can all agree that the actual response given here to a new member of BBO by this player and the yellow was not best?

Umm no. Not sure how those words were put into my mouth.

However, the convention card may be simplified to fit on a scorecard (which leaves much less room here than the standard one in the acbl) "if your methods are sufficiently straightforward to need no further explanation."

Second, this is one of the least enforced laws in the EBU (in my opinion). If we started not allowing people to play at the club because they didn't have a convention card, we'd have a lot fewer players.

Third, I'm still not sure what this has to do with the original question. It seems that what everyone agrees is that the player should have said "no agreement" not "ask partner". I have no idea whether one interprets this as rude or if the player was subsequently rude at the table and am glad that I don't have to deal with this.

Finally, how can we say that the yellow didn't handle this correctly? Although the player said "ask partner", the yellow investigated and said "that he did not have to tell me anything since they did not have a partnership agreement." That sounds exactly like what we have all been saying.

Thanks for info about your local clubs, not the same here in usa. In fact I remember entire club games being halted why we waited for a pair to fill out a cc.

Well I still say there was an assumed agreement even with zero discussion that needs to be disclosed. Even if the assumption was incorrect.

I was going to suggest that bbo go to mandatory cc be posted before cards appear so this issue would go away but I see there would be stiff opposition to even an auto 2/1 or sayc card for bbo.

[reisig]

In my opinion...usually meaningless...Games in the main club should be friendly and fair (also tourneys). If my opponents opened 2♦ and one thought it was a weak two and the other thought something else...I would simply ask to skip the hand - at any point, when the misunderstanding was discovered. Who wants to win because of a situation like that? Are we here to enjoy the game and each other - or win at any cost? Players should explain all bids ...possibly saying ("but we never discussed it") This is not a contest of secrets. If you psyche ..of course ..you wouldn't tell them about that..being tricky is part of the game.

[Walddk]

reisig, on Jul 13 2005, 10:27 PM, said:

In my opinion...usually meaningless...Games in the main club should be friendly and fair (also tourneys). If my opponents opened 2♦ and one thought it was a weak two and the other thought something else...I would simply ask to skip the hand - at any point, when the misunderstanding was discovered. Who wants to win because of a situation like that? Are we here to enjoy the game and each other - or win at any cost? Players should explain all bids ...possibly saying ("but we never discussed it") This is not a contest of secrets. If you psyche ..of course ..you wouldn't tell them about that..being tricky is part of the game.

I agree with you wholeheartedly Richie, and I would explain too. But one thing is what you should, another thing is what you must. The player in question did not want to tell, and he did nothing wrong when he declined.

However, he should have said "no agreement" and not "ask partner".

Roland