[1eyedjack]

asdfg2k, on Jul 16 2005, 03:05 PM, said:

Somehwere?  Ought to be?  Does not the title "BBO Rules" have meaning?

Is there a point to this somewhere?

asdfg2k, on Jul 16 2005, 03:05 PM, said:

You're bending the meaning of the law beyond its breaking point when you ascribe the knowledge (or superimposition) of system into the phrase "general knowledge and experience" rather than placing it squarely where it belongs in "partnership agreement or experience."

Not where it is a matter of pure speculation on your (the bidder's) part whether or not your partner is abiding by (or even aware of) that system.

asdfg2k, on Jul 16 2005, 03:05 PM, said:

Further, your conclusion puts the onus on Vicki and that is also completely unacceptable.

If my conclusion puts the same onus on Vicki as it does on the partner of the bidder it is completely acceptable. That is what is meant by a level playing field.

asdfg2k, on Jul 16 2005, 03:05 PM, said:

  The onus is on the bidder to explain his/her bid in the context of his agreements (after superimposition of the site rules).

Indeed. No less and no more. If there are no agreements that is where his onus ends.

asdfg2k, on Jul 16 2005, 03:05 PM, said:

A response of "No agreements" which then, in your opinion, leaves it to Vicki to do the work is completely unacceptable.  IMO, it is rudeness of the highest order.

To do what work, precisely? Certainly no more work than is required of the partner of the bidder. It is you who sought to impose a deemed BBO standard system on players in the absence of agreement, not I. I simply picked up the ball that you dropped and ran with it. If I open a modified Moscito 2D opener opposite a pickup partner with nothing in his profile to indicate an understanding of the bid, YOU would say that I have an obligation to disclose its meaning because ( a ) it is an opening bid below the level of 3N, ( b ) it is a bid defined in some system somewhere, and ( c ) my very use of the bid is evidence of an expectation that my partner will understand it. You do not allow for the possibility that it may be simply a strategically unsound ploy. Rather an extreme one, but sometimes an extreme example is required in order to illustrate a point to someone who wilfully will not see it. More common examples are (as in the OP) whether a jump opening bid is weak or strong, whether a jump response is weak or strong, whether a jump overcall is weak or strong, or even whether a red suit response to 1N is a transfer.
And I am sorry to wake you up to this fact: but players do have a habit of taking strategically unsound actions, relying without justification on partner not screwing it up. The other day I opened 1-suit opposite a pickup partner, and we had discussed nothing. Perhaps given time we would have got around to discussing bits, but everyone is in a hurry to get playing in the meantime. Partner made a jump shift response that happened to be weak, and I interpreted it as strong. Bad result, not surprisingly. YOU would maintain, if there is any consistency at all in your arguments, that on enquiry my partner, when he made his response, CLEARLY "expecting" me to read the bid correctly (else SURELY he would NEVER have done something so stupid), had a duty to provide the opponents with the advantage to which I was denied, by describing the bid to them on enquiry. The fact that I misinterpreted the bid and got a bad result is not punishment enough for you. Of course there was a chance that I would guess correctly, but partner, in deciding what to disclose to opponents, would be in an impossible position if his disclosure depended on the accuracy of my guess. After the hand was over all 3 other players, none of whom were known to me, launched into a discussion of how weak jump shifts were the superior method, as though that justified (strategically) his doing it opposite a pickup partner. What he failed to take into account is that, even if it is superior, and even if it is the prevailing method, it is certainly not a universally adopted method and it was an unnecessary risk: A simple change of suit response without jumping had a far less chance of disaster, albeit lacking preemptive effect. For all I know, weak jump shifts may even be part of BBO standard. I have not bothered to check. It is not relevant.

asdfg2k, on Jul 16 2005, 03:05 PM, said:

Face it, the yellow was wrong, had a clear path to both educate the opp and keep Vicki happy but blew it. 

With this I tend to agree, up to the word "and". Whether Vicki would have been kept happy by the outcome of further enquiry is unknown. With most of the remainder of what you say I disagree. Particularly your curious notion of what constitutes rudeness. There is no issue of rudeness if a player seeks to abide by the laws. Even if his interpretation of the law is mistaken, he is not being rude - just mistaken.

If the yellow had been a bit more searching in his enquiries it is entirely possible that no further information would have been available. The player may well have insisted that there was nothing to add to "no agreement". Vicki, (and I suppose you) would be no more happy with the outcome, and yet in that case I would not fault the yellow at all.

[asdfg2k]

1eyedjack, on Jul 16 2005, 05:39 PM, said:

If the yellow had been a bit more searching in his enquiries it is entirely possible that no further information would have been available. The player may well have insisted that there was nothing to add to "no agreement". Vicki, (and I suppose you) would be no more happy with the outcome, and yet in that case I would not fault the yellow at all.

If you are going to stick to your position that an agreed upon system (whether explicit or implied - that is, required by the rules) falls under general bridge knowledge, rather than an agreed upon system, then there is really no point in continuing the conversation. You have defined a circumstance where the end point is defined by an illogical beginning point. So, in your world, you are, in fact, correct.

Once you re-read Alice in Wonderland, come back and provide an update.

George

[asdfg2k]

1eyedjack, on Jul 16 2005, 05:39 PM, said:

asdfg2k, on Jul 16 2005, 03:05 PM, said:

A response of "No agreements" which then, in your opinion, leaves it to Vicki to do the work is completely unacceptable.  IMO, it is rudeness of the highest order.

To do what work, precisely? Certainly no more work than is required of the partner of the bidder.

Gaak! "What work"? You seem to be under the mistaken impression that not only Vicki, but the individual's partner, could have asked him a question about the bid. That is ridiculous. Vicki is entitled to know their "agreements", AFTER the superimposition of the system they either ARE or ARE ASSUMED to be playing. There have been many cases of situations where partners have different understandings of what their agreements are. That doesn't absolve a player from answering an inquiry with the information that is consistent with the agreement they believe to be in place. For you to state that there can be an agreed upon system but that a response of "No agreements" is what I'm disagreeing with. And just for emphasis, this is after the superimposition of the default system is acknowledged.

With respect to other things you have said, but not quoted on this message, you have twisted things so that specific comments are applied to the overall picture. That is merely obfuscation, so I won't address them in separate posts. I'll just point out one, and then walk away shaking my head:

I have always said that following the rules is never to be considered rude. I even said that if one unknowingly follows the wrong rule, that is not to be considered rude. But you, yes you, suggest that it is acceptable to knowingly violate the rules by stating "No agreements" when the superimposition of the system is known and acknowledged. THAT is what I referred to as rude. Nothing else.

George

[1eyedjack]

asdfg2k, on Jul 16 2005, 05:58 PM, said:

]If you are going to stick to your position that an agreed upon system (whether explicit or implied - that is, required by the rules) falls under general bridge knowledge, rather than an agreed upon system, then there is really no point in continuing the conversation.

I don't, and never have done.
It was you, at 03:06 am on 16 July 2005, who sought to bring "site rules" to bear as relevant to the question in hand (a superfluous and unnecessary diversion). I make the point only that site rules are available to all, and that all have an equal duty to be familiar with them or be prepared to pay the consequences, as indeed do I pay regularly (and willingly) when my partners assume on my part a knowledge of BBO standard that I do not possess (and, I stress, which I have not agreed to play). You suggest that I should pay again, by having my partner explain his methods to opponents, which he may be assuming that I will interpret correctly on the unjustifiable grounds that they coincide with a BBO standard system published in the site documentation. I have never suggested that there should be an implied agreement between partners that a system that is published in the site documentation be treated as being in force. If ever I gave that impression let this clarify it.

I am bound to say also that I am unimpressed by attempts to distinguish between the letter of the law and its spirit. Such distinctions are only required when the letter of the law is inadequate to provide a fair result. In this case it is quite adequate as written.

That you have chosen to ignore the larger part of my posting in favour of an irrelevancy that you have introduced at the outset and which you perceive (and then only by misrepresenting my opinions) supports your case, only confirms to my mind the desperation of one on the defensive but who will not take the final gracious step to concede.

[luke warm]

asdfg2k, on Jul 16 2005, 04:02 PM, said:

And yet, your disclosure is woeful.

this statement, like most of yours i've read, is mere assertion... it's based on opinion only... you're entitled to that of course, but it shouldn't be confused with valid argumentation

Quote

"Natural" doesn't cut it.  Are you playing 4 card majors or 5 card majors?

"our agreement is 5 cards" or "natural but no agreement"... both are valid... would you be upset with me if i said "5 card majors" but had only 4?

Quote

Weak or strong NT?

14-16... sometimes that's weak, sometimes it isn't...if i announce 14-16 and show up with 12, would you be upset with me?

in any case, there are many qualified players and tournament directors around, and i've never heard even one of them say that "no agreement" is an improper explanation... but then they're probably using something subjective to base that on, such as the laws of the game, not something objective such as an opinion

Quote

"Pre-emptive"?  Oh, don't get me started.

"0-9" but in 3rd seat i've opened 3c/d/h/s with 14... would you be upset with me if i opened 3h with a 14 count after having said "0-9"?

Quote

But, in my world, taking a view of the world that honors only a portion of the applicable "rules" is the equivalent of making excuses.

as we've seen, your world seems to be one in which your opinions are the basis for not only laws of games but, now, definitions... if we're to use opinions only, your worldview is no better or worse, no more true or false, than anyone elses... that's why opinions are so tricky... one who relies on them has, in effect, appealed to himself as an authority

Quote

Once you re-read Alice in Wonderland, come back and provide an update.

some might call that arrogant, but that would be an opinion... there have been quite enough of those in this thread

[asdfg2k]

1eyedjack, on Jul 16 2005, 06:31 PM, said:

asdfg2k, on Jul 16 2005, 05:58 PM, said:

]If you are going to stick to your position that an agreed upon system (whether explicit or implied - that is, required by the rules) falls under general bridge knowledge, rather than an agreed upon system, then there is really no point in continuing the conversation.

I don't, and never have done.
It was you, at 03:06 am on 16 July 2005, who sought to bring "site rules" to bear as relevant to the question in hand (a superfluous and unnecessary diversion). I make the point only that site rules are available to all, and that all have an equal duty to be familiar with them or be prepared to pay the consequences, as indeed do I pay regularly (and willingly) when my partners assume on my part a knowledge of BBO standard that I do not possess (and, I stress, which I have not agreed to play). You suggest that I should pay again, by having my partner explain his methods to opponents, which he may be assuming that I will interpret correctly on the unjustifiable grounds that they coincide with a BBO standard system published in the site documentation. I have never suggested that there should be an implied agreement between partners that a system that is published in the site documentation be treated as being in force. If ever I gave that impression let this clarify it.

I am bound to say also that I am unimpressed by attempts to distinguish between the letter of the law and its spirit. Such distinctions are only required when the letter of the law is inadequate to provide a fair result. In this case it is quite adequate as written.

That you have chosen to ignore the larger part of my posting in favour of an irrelevancy that you have introduced at the outset and which you perceive (and then only by misrepresenting my opinions) supports your case, only confirms to my mind the desperation of one on the defensive but who will not take the final gracious step to concede.

Now this is getting funny.

Concede? You have already done so.

You have indicated that an important part of the issue is, in your mind, irrelevant. From the above:

"I have never suggested that there should be an implied agreement between partners that a system that is published in the site documentation be treated as being in force."

So, I had thought that given the identification of such in the BBO "RULES" section that you would have realized how pointless it was to make the above statement.

I was wrong. I'll concede that point.

So, let me rephrase. Because you fail to take into consideration the rules of the site to begin with, even after having them pointed out to you, all we can do is agree to disagree.

Is that the sort of concession you were looking for?

George

[asdfg2k]

luke warm, on Jul 16 2005, 06:51 PM, said:

asdfg2k, on Jul 16 2005, 04:02 PM, said:

And yet, your disclosure is woeful.

this statement, like most of yours i've read, is mere assertion... it's based on opinion only... you're entitled to that of course, but it shouldn't be confused with valid argumentation

Quote

"Natural" doesn't cut it.  Are you playing 4 card majors or 5 card majors?

"our agreement is 5 cards" or "natural but no agreement"... both are valid... would you be upset with me if i said "5 card majors" but had only 4?

Quote

Weak or strong NT?

14-16... sometimes that's weak, sometimes it isn't...if i announce 14-16 and show up with 12, would you be upset with me?

In response to your first statement, I recognize it is an opinion, which is why I go on to provide clarification and specifically state what is woeful about it. Geez.

As far as your other comments quoted above, you need to find another source, because you won't believe me. Trust me on this, though, if you tried to get away with "Natural" at a tournament, a director would have your head.

As far as you extrapolating to the world where you have decided to stretch your bidding a bit (or a lot), that is the first time the concept has been brought up in this thread. If it wasn't painfully obvious before, let me make it clear here, so that nobody else is tempted to bring up this irrelevancy: No, I wouldn't be upset and I would have no right to be upset. All I'm entitled to is your agrements (both express and implied - and, of course, including the site rules).

It is as if you are arguing for the fact that since you are a habitual system-violator you are therefore excused from explaining what the system is in the first place. PUHleaze.

George

[1eyedjack]

asdfg2k, on Jul 16 2005, 06:13 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Jul 16 2005, 05:39 PM, said:

asdfg2k, on Jul 16 2005, 03:05 PM, said:

A response of "No agreements" which then, in your opinion, leaves it to Vicki to do the work is completely unacceptable.  IMO, it is rudeness of the highest order.

To do what work, precisely? Certainly no more work than is required of the partner of the bidder.

Gaak! "What work"? You seem to be under the mistaken impression that not only Vicki, but the individual's partner, could have asked him a question about the bid. That is ridiculous.

Indeed it would be, if that were my impression, which it is not, and has never been suggested. The only "work" implied in the tangent that you have raised is in familiarising yourself with site rules.

asdfg2k, on Jul 16 2005, 06:13 PM, said:

Vicki is entitled to know their "agreements", AFTER the superimposition of the system they either ARE or ARE ASSUMED to be playing.

My problem is with the assumption. Nothing in the laws require an assumed system. BBO site rules publish a standard system for convenience. No-one is required to adopt it nor do the rules require an assumption that it has been adopted, unless a particular tournament requires it, and then I agree that disclosure of the system is necessary. If, however, I have a hope (and nothing more than that) that partner will without any discussion treat my bid as being consistent with BBO standard (or ACOL, or SAYC, or any other system for that matter) then I take my chances and so should the opponents.

asdfg2k, on Jul 16 2005, 06:13 PM, said:

  There have been many cases of situations where partners have different understandings of what their agreements are.  That doesn't absolve a player from answering an inquiry with the information that is consistent with the agreement they believe to be in place.

All agreed

asdfg2k, on Jul 16 2005, 06:13 PM, said:

For you to state that there can be an agreed upon system but that a response of "No agreements" is what I'm disagreeing with.

And you would be right to disagree, were that my statement, which it was not.

asdfg2k, on Jul 16 2005, 06:13 PM, said:

  And just for emphasis, this is after the superimposition of the default system is acknowledged.

It is not acknowledged.

asdfg2k, on Jul 16 2005, 06:13 PM, said:

With respect to other things you have said, but not quoted on this message, you have twisted things so that specific comments are applied to the overall picture.  That is merely obfuscation, so I won't address them in separate posts.  I'll just point out one, and then walk away shaking my head:

I have always said that following the rules is never to be considered rude.  I even said that if one unknowingly follows the wrong rule, that is not to be considered rude.  But you, yes you, suggest that it is acceptable to knowingly violate the rules by stating "No agreements" when the superimposition of the system is known and acknowledged.  THAT is what I referred to as rude.  Nothing else. 

George

I cannot respond to non-specific criticisms of my arguments, but on the one aspect of rudeness I feel that I can. At 03:05 pm on 16 July 2005 you said

Quote

A response of "No agreements" which then, in your opinion, leaves it to Vicki to do the work is completely unacceptable.  IMO, it is rudeness of the highest order."

I think I can be forgiven for reading from this statement that the act of rudeness was that of "a response of no agreements". I now accept your assurance that it was not. I am also content to accept your allegation that it is I who am rude. If I felt that it was a widely regarded opinion I would be concerned. So far it is only you who have expressed that opinion and I can live with that.

[1eyedjack]

asdfg2k, on Jul 16 2005, 06:53 PM, said:

Concede?  You have already done so.

I know that it might be inconvenient, but if the hurry to get out a response were tempered by a desire to respond to all points in a single post to which you wish to respond, then the thread might not get so confused, by avoiding a response to one of your posts before you have completed posting other matters. Never mind.

I am content that you will not concede the point (and for clarity, the point is whether "no agreement" can be an adequate response to a request for an explanation of a 2D opening bid). If you choose to believe that I have conceded then you are welcome to leave with that impression. If you wish to proceed with the impression that I have been rude then likewise be my guest. I am resigned that you have a closed mind on both of those issues, and I leave it to other readers to judge for themselves the merits of the issues raised. Certainly it seems unlikely that anything further will be achieved bar repetition.

[luke warm]

asdfg2k, on Jul 16 2005, 07:01 PM, said:

In response to your first statement, I recognize it is an opinion, which is why I go on to provide clarification and specifically state what is woeful about it. Geez.

i think you might have misunderstood me... i'm not saying that *only* the one instance to which i refer is a mere assertion, i'm saying that almost all of what you have written falls into that category...

take for example an opponent's reply of "no agreement" when asked about a bid... pretend for a second that opinions aren't allowed, upon what do you base your contention that such a reply is improper?

[asdfg2k]

1eyedjack, on Jul 16 2005, 07:03 PM, said:

asdfg2k, on Jul 16 2005, 06:13 PM, said:

With respect to other things you have said, but not quoted on this message, you have twisted things so that specific comments are applied to the overall picture.  That is merely obfuscation, so I won't address them in separate posts.  I'll just point out one, and then walk away shaking my head:

I have always said that following the rules is never to be considered rude.  I even said that if one unknowingly follows the wrong rule, that is not to be considered rude.  But you, yes you, suggest that it is acceptable to knowingly violate the rules by stating "No agreements" when the superimposition of the system is known and acknowledged.  THAT is what I referred to as rude.  Nothing else. 

George

I cannot respond to non-specific criticisms of my arguments, but on the one aspect of rudeness I feel that I can. At 03:05 pm on 16 July 2005 you said

Quote

A response of "No agreements" which then, in your opinion, leaves it to Vicki to do the work is completely unacceptable.  IMO, it is rudeness of the highest order."

I think I can be forgiven for reading from this statement that the act of rudeness was that of "a response of no agreements". I now accept your assurance that it was not. I am also content to accept your allegation that it is I who am rude. If I felt that it was a widely regarded opinion I would be concerned. So far it is only you who have expressed that opinion and I can live with that.

You have to refer to things in order if you want to understand their context.

My 03:05 pm on 16 July 2005 comment was specifically in response to your post, which quoted my 03:06 AM Jul 16 2005 comment. Go back and read them (I won't do your work for you). You will find that my comment about your rudeness was specifically after you stated:

"It is fair to assume that opponents are complying with the laws including site rules, until evidence to the contrary. As such a "BBO standard" is a matter of "general knowledge and experience" of those playing at BBO. "No agreement" is simply an abbreviation for "your guess is as good as mine". "Your guess" may reasonably be based on BBO standard."

Here is where you placed BBO standard into "general knowledge and experience" rather than where it belongs, in "partnership agreements". For you to ackowledge that you know it is an agreed upon system but then to claim that it belongs in general knowledge and experience just so you can theoretically and legalistically state "NO agreements" is what I believe to be rude.

Yes, those who know and acknowledge should be held to a higher standard.

George

[hrothgar]

asdfg2k, on Jul 15 2005, 09:26 PM, said:

Are these really that hard? Do you really think that these are the sorts of bids that one can hide behind the "no agreement" caveat? I do NOT. Not even close.

George

I'd like to return to the set of hands that I posted that you believe absolutely require an explanation.

As I noted earlier, none of these bids matched their partner's expectations.
Equally significant, none of these bids correspond to the definition set forth in the standard system that you claim everyone has agreed to play...

I was curious what justification you have for your assertion that these bids require an explanation...

From my perspective, you seem to be starting with a flawed assumption: Players are required to describe their hands to the opponents which has no basis in the Laws. You are now desperately searching for ways to justify this argument.

At the end of the day, you are welcome to follow whatever ethical code you see fit.
Just don't lecture us if we don't follow them same precepts

[1eyedjack]

asdfg2k, on Jul 16 2005, 07:18 PM, said:

"It is fair to assume that opponents are complying with the laws including site rules, until evidence to the contrary. As such a "BBO standard" is a matter of "general knowledge and experience" of those playing at BBO. "No agreement" is simply an abbreviation for "your guess is as good as mine". "Your guess" may reasonably be based on BBO standard."

I suppose that this is open to misinterpretation, and to someone to whom it is convenient, indeed to whom it is necessary for the rest of their argument to have any foundation, inevitable. For any ambiguity I apologise, as it seems to have resulted in an enormous amount of thread drift.

The "guess" to which I referred was whether or not BBO standard was a system that partner thinks we are playing. It was never intended to mean that the "guess" was what the bid meant within that system.

Certainly nothing in that post suggested that BBO standard was a system either required to be played or to be assumed to be played.

As to whether BBO standard is a matter of general knowledge (or any other system for that matter), that is the only issue that I was addressing when pointing out that it is published in the public domain.

Let us consider, therefore, the small part that general bridge knowledge has to play in this sorry affair:

It is *I* would have thought general bridge knowledge that a natural 2D opener shows a tolerance for playing in Diamonds. You may not agree with that, and if so, to humour you let us agree that the bidder is required to disclose that fact, on enquiry, to the opponents. It is also I would have thought general bridge knowledge that of those common systems in the public domain that employ a natural 2D opener, the limitations on length (to a lesser extent) and on strength (to a greater extent) vary depending on system. Again I am willing to concede that this fact may NOT be general bridge knowledge, and the bidder could be obliged to point this out.

Now the questions that I ask are this: If the explanation provided to Vicki, instead of "no agreement", was "no agreement, but here is a list of the common usages ...", then ( a ) would YOU be satisfied that the disclosure was now complete, and ( b ) do you think that Vicki would have been any better placed as a result? Reading your other posts I suspect that your answer to ( a ) would be "no", on which point we differ, but I will allow you the opportunity to correct me. As to ( b ) I may be reading too much into the OP that was not stated, but I would be willing to bet that Vicki already had a strong suspicion that the bid showed Diamonds and was primarily interested in knowing whether the bid was preemptive or strong, already in the knowledge that either was feasible (ie already in possession of that general bridge knowledge). Indeed the very fact that she asked the question suggests that she was aware that there are more than feasible treatment. As such I would submit that it is unlikely that Vicki would have been any better off from being in possession of that more verbose explanation.

[MorK]

I did not read the whole thread, so maybe, you're already talking about anything else here but:

I think you have to explain your bids. I consider the tables in BBO as tables which have "very good screens".
Some days ago in a tournament, I asked the opps about a bid... My left opponent, who was bidding, said: ask my partner and the partner responded: i need not explain it, because it is not alerted.
Yes, it is not alerted but in screens I may also ask for bids are natural, because natural bids can have a remarkable strength. So I called TD, who agreed to my opponents... That's why, I do not play anymore in this tournament of this TD.

I can only advise you to play tournaments and stop going to tournaments where the TD agrees to that behaviour

MorK

[1eyedjack]

MorK, on Jul 17 2005, 01:01 AM, said:

I did not read the whole thread, so maybe, you're already talking about anything else here but:

I think you have to explain your bids.

Change the word "bids" to "agreements" and I agree with you. Having said that I agree with you in the main in the experience that follows:

MorK, on Jul 17 2005, 01:01 AM, said:

I consider the tables in BBO as tables which have "very good screens".
Some days ago in a tournament, I asked the opps about a bid... My left opponent, who was bidding, said: ask my partner and the partner responded: i need not explain it, because it is not alerted.
Yes, it is not alerted but in screens I may also ask for bids are natural, because natural bids can have a remarkable strength. So I called TD, who agreed to my opponents... That's why, I do not play anymore in this tournament of this TD.

I can only advise you to play tournaments and stop going to tournaments where the TD agrees to that behaviour

MorK

In principle a description of "natural" is not (necessarily) sufficient because as you say there are implied nuances. Likewise the fact that a bid is not alertable does not absolve them of a requirement to explain. An exception might be if the partners have not agreed on any of those implied nuances (but even then the appropriate response is no further agreement, not a flat denial of responsibility to disclose). That (absence of agreement) is unlikely in a tourney, where a basic system is likely to have been agreed upon. Even then it does not take many bids into the auction before the waters can get murky for an unestablished partnership who in 5 minutes prior to the start of the tourney agree on a "packaged" system (which invariably is subject to multiple treatments). So the response to your enquiry was certainly inappropriate. Whether a more appropriate response would have been any more helpful to you is a matter of speculation. Probably it would have been, but it is not certain.

[Double !]

I have a very simple question.

Give me one good, coherent reason why one should not explain any and all bids, whether alertable or not, if an opp asks for it. Remember, what might be standard in one area of the world need not be standard in another, even if you've agreed to play sayc. What purpose do those who decline to answer have in choosing such a response?

This is not the same as playing f2f where an alert or announcement could result in an UI situation. The "no agreement" response, although legally and politically correct, is still an avoidance response. If you know what the bid means, tell the opps. If you don't know, then be honest about it. Move past the issue about whether or not one "has to" explain a bid, and put yourself in opp's shoes. Opp asked a question, perhaps to ensure that your bid didn't mean something other than what the opp thought it meant. Just answer the D_____ question to the best of your ability in the spirit of the game.

[vbcastor]

Thank you Double. That's my feelings on the subject exactly and stated very well.

[hrothgar]

Double !, on Jul 17 2005, 09:42 PM, said:

I have a very simple question.

Give me one good, coherent reason why one should not explain any and all bids, whether alertable or not, if an opp asks for it. Remember, what might be standard in one area of the world need not be standard in another, even if you've agreed to play sayc. What purpose do those who decline to answer have in choosing such a response?

This is not the same as playing f2f where an alert or announcement could result in an UI situation. The "no agreement" response, although legally and politically correct, is still an avoidance response. If you know what the bid means, tell the opps. If you don't know, then be honest about it. Move past the issue about whether or not one "has to" explain a bid, and put yourself in opp's shoes. Opp asked a question, perhaps to ensure that your bid didn't mean something other than what the opp thought it meant. Just answer the D_____ question to the best of your ability in the spirit of the game.

When we play games, we do so based on the rules and regulations.
The reason for this is simple: The rules are (ideally) concert and absolute.

When we substitute our notions regarding polite/ethical behaviour for the Laws we are forced to rely on personal notions of what is/isn't ethical or moral. Personally, I think that it is a mistake to legislate based on anything as relativistic as "morality".

In this case, the Laws of Bridge are very clear. We are obligated to disclosure Partnership Agreement. I'm not going to start ruling against players who are following the law.

[Double !]

hrothgar, on Jul 17 2005, 02:00 PM, said:

Double !, on Jul 17 2005, 09:42 PM, said:

I have a very simple question.

Give me one good, coherent reason why one should not explain any and all bids, whether alertable or not, if an opp asks for it.  Remember, what might be standard in one area of the world need not be standard in another, even if you've agreed to play sayc.  What purpose do those who decline to answer have in choosing such a response? 

This is not the same as playing f2f where an alert or announcement could result in an UI situation.  The "no agreement" response, although legally and politically correct, is still an avoidance response.  If you know what the bid means, tell the opps.  If you don't know, then be honest about it.  Move past the issue about whether or not one "has to" explain a bid, and put yourself in opp's shoes.  Opp asked a question, perhaps to ensure that your bid didn't mean something other than what the opp thought it meant.  Just answer the D_____ question to the best of your ability in the spirit of the game.

When we play games, we do so based on the rules and regulations.
The reason for this is simple: The rules are (ideally) concert and absolute.

When we substitute our notions regarding polite/ethical behaviour for the Laws we are forced to rely on personal notions of what is/isn't ethical or moral. Personally, I think that it is a mistake to legislate based on anything as relativistic as "morality".

In this case, the Laws of Bridge are very clear. We are obligated to disclosure Partnership Agreement. I'm not going to start ruling against players who are following the law.

you are right. the acbl laws mandate full disclosure and clarify when certain bids should be alerted, announced, and delay-alerted. I am fully aware of this. But, unless the rules have changed drastically over time, the opps are entitled to ask any questions they wish whenever it's their turn to bid (except for the purpose of alerting their partner to something), and the rules don't proscribe answering an opponent's question in a less-than-complete manner. Full disclosure and "active ethics", as far as I know, includes answering any and all of the opps questions when asked. [ for example, suppose the bidding goes 1NT-p-2C and opp asks for a meaning. The answer, "Stayman" is insufficient even though the convention is known to most players. But that is not explaining the "meaning" of the bid.] And, this is not an issue of morality: it is an issue of the established rules of the game and for answering questions.

[hrothgar]

Double !, on Jul 17 2005, 10:35 PM, said:

Full disclosure and "active ethics", as far as I know, includes answering any and all of the opps questions when asked.  [ for example, suppose the bidding goes 1NT-p-2C and opp asks for a meaning.  The answer, "Stayman" is insufficient even though the convention is known to most players.  But that is not explaining the "meaning" of the bid.]  And, this is not an issue of morality: it is an issue of the established rules of the game and for answering questions.

Comment the first: Active ethics is another attempt to substitute personal concepts about morality for the rule of law. Much as Bobby Wolff might like active ethics, this program has no legal standing under the law. Wolff himself has come under enormous amounts of criticism for attempting to apply his own very subjective standards as law. I recommend that people consult http://www.blakjak.d...o.uk/lille8.htm for some interesting debate on this topic. The web page in question touches on a number of sallient points including:

a. Appropriate disclosure in the absence of agreement
b. Consequent versus subsequent damage
c. Debate regarding subjective rulings. Wolff makes a number of choice comments that illustrate while subjectivity is so dangerous. My favorite comment of Wolff's is "To accomplish this goal we must put pressure on everyone to conform and must either write or interpret the laws to that effect"

Comment the second: Your Stayman example really isn't relevant. You are discussing standards to describe a bid given that there is a partnership understand. The topic at hand is whether players are obliged to disclose their hand when there is no partnership agreement.