[EricK]

Suppose I sit down against two Bulgarians (to pick a country at random). All they agree is Standard Bulgarian, and then one of them opens 2♦.

I ask and they say "No agreements. All we have agreed is Standard Bulgarian". Is that fair? Surely Bulgarians have a better idea of what 2♦ might mean than I do, even if there are various flavours of Standard Bulgarian with different meanings for 2♦.

My personal opinion (and it is only that) is that it is bad bridge to make bids that partner might not understand and if you do you deserve any bad results that occur. So you should explain what you mean by your bids to the opponents even if that means they have more info than your partner.

Eric

[Walddk]

EricK, on Jul 13 2005, 11:01 PM, said:

I ask and they say "No agreements. All we have agreed is Standard Bulgarian". Is that fair?

No, "Standard Bulgarian" is not a sufficient explanation. If this is the reply you get, you just ask another question: "What is 2♦ in Standard Bulgarian"?

Now they must tell you what the bid means (full disclosure).

Roland

[david_c]

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

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...

I'd suggest you continue to explain your bids in the same way as you were doing before. Then everyone's happy, and you'll have an enjoyable game. Occasionally you will meet someone who doesn't tell you what they intend their bid to mean, but just says they haven't discussed it with their partner. Well, as long as that is actually true, there shouldn't be a problem - just assume it means what you think it means, and don't worry about it.

As others have pointed out, the Laws say you only have to explain things which you have agreed with your partner. So this is the way things are. Personally I think this part of the Laws could be improved when self-alerting is used: in particular, I don't believe it should be possible to make a bid which is intended as conventional but then explain it as "no agreement". So, in this case, you would be entitled to assume that the 2♦ bid is natural. But the Laws do not say this [yet].

Anyway, "no agreement" may be an acceptable answer. But this doesn't stop you asking further questions if you want. For example, here it would be a good idea to ask what basic system the opponents were playing. Never forget that asking the right questions is an important part of the disclosure process. In theory the opponents should try to describe their bids as fully as possible if you ask for an explanation, but even if they give you a good explanation you shouldn't be afraid to ask if there is something else you need to know. I say this because a lot of players on BBO seem to be reluctant to ask questions, and rely far too much on their opponents' alerts.

[Echognome]

Just to concur with Roland on this point, I'm talking about what the laws say you are required to do, not what I personally find to be good etiquette online. As anyone that plays against me knows, I always err on the side of disclosing too much. In part this is because the alert laws are different in the EBU and the ACBL and we have to alert a lot more bids (e.g. stayman). When using self-alerts I don't see anything wrong with alerting too much.

I also agree with Richie that if it's simply a misclick or mistake I have no problem skipping the hand or letting the opponents have an undo. Again, playing for fun at the table, I don't HAVE to give an undo, but in my opinion, why not? However, if the opponents do not let me have an undo, I just shrug and carry on. After all, I'm not playing for masterpoints or money.

[pigpenz]

i had a case where i was a passed hand playing in an ACBL indi and i made a sandwich notrump call auction
p 1d p 1s
1nt

opp asked what bid meant and I said we have no agreement, he came unglued called for acbl director, td said no agreement was insufficient, i said its an indi how can we have an agreement and i am a passed hand. In play of hand opp came unglued again when on play of his partner suit i showed up without a stopper inthe suit I guess its the nature of the beast.

Also I have psyched a comic notrump overcall, and after the hand an opp will saly 15-18 hcp he he....I just respond what do you want me to tell you I have psyched?

[hrothgar]

Here are the proceedures that I follow when I am playing in an Indy

On most hands bidding/play commences without any explicit agreement regarding bidding system. In these cases, I typically assume that we are playing something similar to BBO-Basic

I self alert conventional calls which are "alertable". Jacoby Transfers over a partner's 1NT opening are a classic example.

I do not provide explanations for non-alertable bids. Case in point, if the opponents asked for a discription of my 2♦ opening, I reply "No agreement". Playing without any partnership agreement is enough of a disadvantage without also providing the opponents with extra disclosure...

On those occasions where I do agree on system (2/1 GF or whatever) I am, of course, willing to provide additional information regarding the meaning of non-alertable bids.

[kgr]

Walddk, on Jul 13 2005, 11:09 PM, said:

EricK, on Jul 13 2005, 11:01 PM, said:

I ask and they say "No agreements. All we have agreed is Standard Bulgarian". Is that fair?

No, "Standard Bulgarian" is not a sufficient explanation. If this is the reply you get, you just ask another question: "What is 2♦ in Standard Bulgarian"?

Now they must tell you what the bid means (full disclosure).

Roland

..and the same is true if they agreed SAYC, ACOL,...
Because of that I suppose that there is an implicit agreement about 2D and if opps ask you should explain.
The Bulgarians do not need to know that in SAYC 2D is weak with 6-card D.

It is difficult for me to imagine a situation where you open 2D, Opps ask what it means and you have the right not to explain it because you don't have an agreement with your partner. This would mean that you didn't even agree what system (eg SAYC) you play.

[kgr]

hrothgar, on Jul 13 2005, 11:46 PM, said:

Here are the proceedures that I follow when I am playing in an Indy

On most hands bidding/play commences without any explicit agreement regarding bidding system. In these cases, I typically assume that we are playing something similar to BBO-Basic

I self alert conventional calls which are "alertable". Jacoby Transfers over a partner's 1NT opening are a classic example.

I do not provide explanations for non-alertable bids. Case in point, if the opponents asked for a discription of my 2♦ opening, I reply "No agreement". Playing without any partnership agreement is enough of a disadvantage without also providing the opponents with extra disclosure...

On those occasions where I do agree on system (2/1 GF or whatever) I am, of course, willing to provide additional information regarding the meaning of non-alertable bids.

Even if you did not agree system and opps ask explanation you should still say "weak with 6-card Diamond".

Suppose I never played on BBO. I did always play f2f bridge in Belgium and never saw anybody play weak 2D (2D would either be multi or something strong).
Now I play for the first time on BBO and you open 2D. I ask you an explanation and you answer: "No agreement"...while in fact the implicit agreement is 2D is weak with 6-card D (because this is mostly played if no other agreement).
Do you now think that you gave me the correct information with "No agreement"?

[hrothgar]

kgr, on Jul 14 2005, 01:27 AM, said:

Suppose I never played on BBO. I did always play f2f bridge in Belgium and never saw anybody play weak 2D (2D would either be multi or something strong).  Now I play for the first time on BBO and you open 2D. I ask you an explanation and you answer: "No agreement"...while in fact the implicit agreement is 2D is weak with 6-card D (because this is mostly played if no other agreement).

I suggest that you might find it valuable to learn something about "standard" bidding before entering an Individual. If you are this clueless then I severely doubt that your partners are going to appreciate the opportunity to play with you...

The laws surrounding disclosure are intended to provide the opponents with specific information about explict partnership agreement. They are not intended to protect the opponents from their own ignorance regarding the basics.

[Cascade]

hrothgar, on Jul 14 2005, 10:48 AM, said:

The laws surrounding disclosure are intended to provide the opponents with specific information about explict partnership agreement.

The laws provide for disclosure of much more. They require disclosure explict agreements, implicit agreements and partnership experience.

[hrothgar]

Cascade, on Jul 14 2005, 02:11 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 14 2005, 10:48 AM, said:

The laws surrounding disclosure are intended to provide the opponents with specific information about explict partnership agreement.

The laws provide for disclosure of much more. They require disclosure explict agreements, implicit agreements and partnership experience.

Cascade is correct: I should have said "explicit and implict"

With this said and done, the important thing to focus on is "partnership agreement". Under the conditions that I specified its hard to claim that I have any kind of partnership agreement.

One point that I think is VERY worth considering:

In order for an opponent to be damaged by my failure to disclose my hand type, they need to be unsure regarding the definition of the bid in question.

If they are unsure regarding the definition of the bid in question than there is clearly no consensus regarding the definition of the bid in question. Ergo, there can not be any kind of implicit agreement that I am obliged to disclose.

[hotShot]

Having players from everywhere in the world online, it is possible to hit someone you is unfamiliar with english. So "ask partner" might have just suggested, that partner can understand english.

Without any other agreement the site rules apply. They say, if nothing else is said, BBO Basic is on.

[cherdano]

I think it will rarely be right to answer "no agreement". Say a partner with "US" flag sits down opposite me, we have no system discussion, and I open 2♣, with a strong hand of course. My Polish opponent, self-rated beginner, asks me what 2♣ means. Does really anyone think answering "no agreement" is the right way to play this game?

Arend

[Winstonm]

You can always come to our table - we have a standing rule when we start a table that opponents can ask out loud at any time what a bid means - the main room is for practice sessions and having opps foul up due to misunderstandings or because they are a new partnership does no one any good. I would encourage one and all to adopt this table rule as it helps unfamiliar players avoid silly contracts that only serve to slow down the game.

WinstonM

[coyot]

Cascade, on Jul 13 2005, 06:11 PM, said:

The laws provide for disclosure of much more. They require disclosure explict agreements, implicit agreements and partnership experience.

That's exactly the point.

If you sit down to an indy in BBO and open 2♦ with 6 weak diamonds, you ARE using implicit agreement! You're expecting your partner to understand that bid (why else use it)!

And you just HAVE to tell the opponents about this when they ask.

I think that it would be good if the TDs of indies prescribed "default" bidding system for the tourney and people would have to openly agree on something else if not wanting to play it.

Then you would know that in a SAYC indy any 2♦ bid is weak diamonds unless you noticed the opponents agreeing on some other system.

[scoob]

Winstonm, on Jul 13 2005, 06:32 PM, said:

You can always come to our table - we have a standing rule when we start a table that opponents can ask out loud at any time what a bid means - the main room is for practice sessions and having opps foul up due to misunderstandings or because they are a new partnership does no one any good. I would encourage one and all to adopt this table rule as it helps unfamiliar players avoid silly contracts that only serve to slow down the game.

WinstonM

this is a wonderful approach - one that i also follow and wish more people would.

[hrothgar]

coyot, on Jul 14 2005, 01:27 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 13 2005, 06:11 PM, said:

The laws provide for disclosure of much more.  They require disclosure explict agreements, implicit agreements and partnership experience.

That's exactly the point.

If you sit down to an indy in BBO and open 2♦ with 6 weak diamonds, you ARE using implicit agreement! You're expecting your partner to understand that bid (why else use it)!

And you just HAVE to tell the opponents about this when they ask.

I think that it would be good if the TDs of indies prescribed "default" bidding system for the tourney and people would have to openly agree on something else if not wanting to play it.

Then you would know that in a SAYC indy any 2♦ bid is weak diamonds unless you noticed the opponents agreeing on some other system.

I am also expecting that the opponents have a modicum of competence...

I readily admit that I have an issue here. In my experience, their are a large number of opponents who habitually interogate the opponents for comprehensive descriptions of standard sequences and then claim damage if the hand doesn't perfectly match the description provided...

I repeat once again: If the opponents have any need to ask about the meaning of a bid, than there is no consensus regarding its meaning and I am entitled to respond "no agreement"...

[kenberg]

It will always be tough in pick-up games to ensure a common understanding of responsibilities. In the case at hand: If an opponent opened 2D and no one said anything, it would not occur to me to ask a question about it. If it turned out to be, say, Flannery and if his partner treated it as Flannery I would ask a few questions after the hand. Or just leave. In practical terms, an undiscussed 2D bid in a pick-up game is weak, whatever its meaning might be in Standard Martian.

It seems to me there is a continuum of expectations depending on the setting. Learning social rubber bridge a long time ago, it was not unheard of to have someone follow a bid with the statement "You remember what that means, dear?". At the Reisenger, this is not allowed.

I like to play online at what might be called "Tournament Standard" rules. We don't get to tell each other what our bids mean, we do explain to the opponents what we intend if we make a bid that might be ambiguous Eg 1C-P-1H-(2H), where 2H can be explained as "Intended aas natural". It would be nuts to make this bid if you did not have reason to believe that partner will understand it (explicitly discussed or not) so you tell the opponents what you have in mind.

It's important to accept the fact that others will see this differently.

Ken

[1eyedjack]

coyot, on Jul 14 2005, 05:27 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 13 2005, 06:11 PM, said:

The laws provide for disclosure of much more.  They require disclosure explict agreements, implicit agreements and partnership experience.

That's exactly the point.

If you sit down to an indy in BBO and open 2♦ with 6 weak diamonds, you ARE using implicit agreement! You're expecting your partner to understand that bid (why else use it)!

You could be making the bid more in the HOPE of his interpreting it than in the EXPECTATION. An expectation should be disclosed. I am less convinced that a hope requires disclosure, where the hope is without foundation.

[mike777]

1eyedjack, on Jul 14 2005, 12:56 PM, said:

coyot, on Jul 14 2005, 05:27 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 13 2005, 06:11 PM, said:

The laws provide for disclosure of much more.  They require disclosure explict agreements, implicit agreements and partnership experience.

That's exactly the point.

If you sit down to an indy in BBO and open 2♦ with 6 weak diamonds, you ARE using implicit agreement! You're expecting your partner to understand that bid (why else use it)!

You could be making the bid more in the HOPE of his interpreting it than in the EXPECTATION. An expectation should be disclosed. I am less convinced that a hope requires disclosure, where the hope is without foundation.

Great now I am at a table where my opp's are making hope bids without any foundation. I ask my opp what bid means and they tell me ask their partner. Why are telling me that with no foundation? Do they make bids and answer my questions with no foundation also? How can one even play bridge with no foundation?