[1eyedjack]

You are playing for the first time with a pickup partner, and have not discussed any system. There is no CC and nothing in either profile of relevance.

Partner opens 1N and you (responder) have a 6 card Spade suit.

You don't know whether you are playing transfers. So you decide to make an assumption. You decide to assume tha you are playing transfers, albeit undiscussed, and you therefore respond 2H and hope that partner reads it right.

2 questions arise:
1) Do you self-alert (let us say for the sake of argument that transfers by agreement ARE alertable).
2) Whether or not you self alert, if your opponents ask you (responder) what the bid means, do you explain the assumption that you have made or do you simply answer "no agreement".

My own feelings are:
It would be nonsense to alert and then explain no-agreement. So the options are either ( A ) self-alert and then explain transfers or ( B ) do not alert and explain no agreement.

I favour option ( B ) because I see no reason why the opponents should have an advantage over my partner (the reverse of course is equally true and more frequently called into question).

I know that in the above particular example the practical solution is to permit discussion at the table so that both opponents and opener are informed of your assumption. And I think that that is widely accepted as the way to proceed. It may not be the most appropriate example for that reason, but I want to concentrate on the general case. More obscure cases are: when a double might be either takout or penalty, or whether 4NT is blackwood or quantitative ... situations where even regular partnerships foul it up on occasion.

I get occasions when the opponents ask me privately what my partner's bid meant, and I explain no agreement, only then to discover that opps have subsequently asked my partner what he meant by the bid. That strikes me as unfair.

I also get occasions where opponents cannot believe that I make an artificial bid and have no agreement that it is artificial, so when it is discovered at the end of the hand what I held there is some bad feeling. I have had opponents complain that an artificial bid is alertable regardless of whether there is a partnership agreement in place however implicit or explicit.

[inquiry]

First, this very question has been discussed several times before. A long thread that beat it to death is....

http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...agreement"

Let's just say there is a difference of opinion. Some, like Luis thinks if you have no agreement, you have no agreement and no alert is needed. Others like myself think if you are looking at 6 spades and 1 heart, and you bid 2H over your partner's 1NT you must be assuming he is going to catch it as transfer, regardless if you have specifically discussed this or not (we actually assume you did discuss 2/1 or SAYC or something when you started playing so you probably have an implicit agreement to play this as jacoby, but this could be a fourth suit forcing or nmf or some such), so I would say alwert is necessary. Bidding a singleton and NOT alerting is, in effect, saying to your opponents that 2H is "natural" (since no alert).

Ben

[McBruce]

If you are sure enough that your partner will interpret a bid in a certain way to make the bid in the first place, it seems to me that it is unfair not to alert the opponents.

Example: I agreed SAYC with a player in an individual tourney. Auction (no opposition bidding) went 2♣ 2♦ 2NT 3♦. Had I been the one bidding 3♦ I would alert this as a transfer to the opponents if that was what I meant. As it happened, I was the 2♣ opener, and after I bid 3♥ partner continued to 3NT. I had a clear 4♥ call, so I made it, sending a comment to the opponents that "I sure hope that 3♦ was a transfer. " (It wasn't and I went down--such is playing in individuals...)

I'm amazed that 1eyedjack would consider it "unfair" that after an explanation of "no agreement" the opponents turned to his partner and asked if there was an agreement. Whyever would you want to make yourself look bad? If you make an artificial call without alerting because you arbitrarily decide that there is no agreement, and your partner either tells the opponents that there IS in fact an agreement, or bids as though there was one, it looks like you were trying to mislead the opponents. Of course there are going to be bad feelings, and arguments about the rules are not going to make the opponents happy.

Better to just be actively ethical and tell the opponents what you know: "this is meant as a transfer, but I'm not sure about our agreement." It's a very small price to pay in most cases, and far better than giving the appearance of someone bending the rules to gain an advantage.

[1eyedjack]

OK as this has apparently been debated to death (which I did not know but do now). I hope not continue the debate here, but will read through that debate instead. As some specific points have been raised here I shall comment just on those points. That there has been a heated debate on the matter with divided opinions justifies my concerns, I think.

Per inquiry:
"Others like myself think if you are looking at 6 spades and 1 heart, and you bid 2H over your partner's 1NT you must be assuming he is going to catch it as transfer". For "assuming" read "hoping/praying". In the case stated I may be 51% confident that 2H will be read as a transfer, and 49% as natural, and that confidence is derived not from any discussion with partner but from statistical experience, ie a pool of knowledge as available to the opponents as it is to our partnership. I have to make an assumption one way or another. If I bid 2S you will presumably say that I am "assuming" that partner will catch it as natural. If you follow this thread of thought to its logical conclusion you should explain what you mean by every bid (on equiry) whatever agreement with partner is in place and however natural or artificial, as every time you bid you are "assuming" that partner will read it. This is not my understanding of the law and it certainly places the opponents at an advantage.

Per inquiry:
"we actually assume you did discuss 2/1 or SAYC or something when you started playing so you probably have an implicit agreement to play this as jacoby". If those are the facts then of course the explanation should be in keeping with that. I thought I had made it clear that there was no discussion. In practice in most cases the opponents are present at any initial discussion and no assumption is necessary. However if they are not present at that time than I disagree that the assumption is warranted, or indeed necessary. If I answer "no agreement" and the opponents ask "what general system" are you playing I am happy honestly to answer "no agreement" to that also if that is the fact of the matter.

Per MrBruce:
"I'm amazed that 1eyedjack would consider it "unfair" that after an explanation of "no agreement" the opponents turned to his partner and asked if there was an agreement". "Unfair" is perhaps the wrong word. "Insulting" is more appropriate. The opponents have chosen to disbelieve my explanation and have therefore accused me of cheating. Or they have believed my explanation but seek additional and unfair advantage by coercing my partner, who may be less knowledgable of the law, into describing his hand (not the non-existent agreement)to them, but not to me, in the knowledge that there is no agreement.

I am in turn surprised at MrBruce's "amazement", given that, as inquiry has kindly pointed out to me, there is considerable disagreement on the matter already debated in these forums.

I have encountered countless occasions in face to face bridge when my partner has been asked along the lines of "what does your partner's bid mean"", answer "no agreement", re-ask "well then what do you assume it means?" Now, I happen to know that the second question is inappropriate and that IF "no agreement" is the truth of the matter then no expansion on that explanation is either necessary or appropriate. However some of my partners in face-to-face are not so worldly-wise in the laws of bridge, bow to these bullying tactics and answer the second question. In face-to-face games I can call the director when opponents ask my partner an inappropriate question, and we can all abide by the director's instructions. I am confident that a good director will instruct my partner to respond that there is no agreement if that is the case. In an online game I cannot protect my partner in this manner because I am unaware until later that the question has been posed.

Question: If my partner believes that there is an agreement but I believe that there is none, is it not axiomatic that there is no agreement? How can an agreement be founded on disagreement?

Per MrBruce:
"Better to just be actively ethical and tell the opponents what you know: "this is meant as a transfer, but I'm not sure about our agreement." It's a very small price to pay in most cases, and far better than giving the appearance of someone bending the rules to gain an advantage."

I question the statement that "It's a very small price to pay". You are already at a huge disadvantage from having no agreements in the first place. Telling your opponents your hand when your partner has no clue is no small additional advantage to the opponents.

Better, I think, to identify what the rules are and abide by them. Nothing can be more actively ethical. What MrBruce is advocating is: Give the opponents an advantage to which they are not entitled in order to maintain a facade of active ethics. I am all in favour of active ethics but this is not my idea of it.

If this thread is to continue, can I suggest that the question of whether a bid is "alertable" should be excluded from further discussion? That is the lesser question and clouds the central issue. Assume that the question is posed regardless of whether or not the bid is alerted and consider only the response to that question.

In the long term I believe that there is no solution to players who unreasonably believe that you are being unethical for want of their own misunderstanding of the law, other than a campaign of education.

[inquiry]

I guess we could continue discussing this issue, but I am sure that no agreement will be reached. But let's consider this from a tournment director point of view. Let's assume you are called to a table because of the following auction (with no alerts).....

(1NT)-P-(2♥)*- "? ? ? "

For the 2♥ bid there was no alert, when asked, the 2♥ bidder replied no "we have no agreement". In my opinion no agreement means you are not playing a convention..... now others disagree with this point, they assume no agreement means everyone (partrner and opponents) should be equally in the dark. Now 2♥ could be weak signoff in ♥, transfer to 2♠'s, or even forcing with ♥. Who knows if the opponents have no agreement.

So now how is the fourth hand to bid with
1) Heart legnth
2) Heart shortness
3) Spade legnth
4) Spade void and good values

With heart length and 2♥ shows hearts, pass is easy. With heart shortness if 2♥ shows ♥ you could play double as takeout. With spades, if ♥ shows shortness you could bid 2♠ and with a spade void and good values if 2♥ shows spades, you could "cue-bid" 2♠. Now, the fact is, since there is "no agreement" between your opponents, you have no way to bid your hand logically. But somehow, from my experience (McBruce example excluded), these no-agreement statements made where a "conventional call" is made the partner of the no-agreement partner would seems to always "get it right".

This is when the tournment director could get involved. I suspect that if the defending side takes an action based upon "failure to alert" (say dbl to show takeout) when it is wrong (partner takes out and they don't have hearts and you get clobbered), the no agreement side will get a ruling against them.

I am not sure what game this is where people make "conventional bids" that they have no agreement with their partners and then duck the responsibility to alert based upon the "no agreement argument", but it isn't bridge (at least imho). If I ahve a singleton heart and six spades and over 1NT I bid 2♥, I fully expect partner to get it right. This is not a 51/49 issue... because if I thought he would get it wrong, I wouldn't bid it. And, since my 2♥ was not "natural", I alert it.

To me, the "no agreement" issue is much more likely when you are talking stregnth of a bid, not a convention. For example,,

1♠-(x)-3♦

Here you bid 3♦ (natural) and your opponent ask you is that weak or strong. Here, if you have no agreement, the correct answer is we have no agreement.

1♠-2♣
2♠-3♣

And the opponents ask you is your 3♣ "forcing", now maybe you want it to be, and maybe you don't want it to be, but if you haven't discussed it with your partner, then to answer "we have no agreement" is still the correct answer. But for me, to use a conventional call (unusual NT, jacoby transfer, splinter bid) which would be alertable because the bid you made IS NOT NATURAL, I think the alert is mandatory. If you would like to volunteer that this auction has not been discussed as well, fine. And as I said, others disagree with this position, but it seems right to me.

BTW, when Misho and I play, we invite our opponents to discuss their "bidding" during play... at out table it is perfectly ok to ask your partner before bidding 2♥ if he plays jacoby, or to announce after bidding 2♥ that it is natural or jacoby... (as long as you don't make it one way one hand and another the next). I always publically ask how 5♣ or 5♦ response to RKCB means so that the 4NT bidder can see the answer against pick up partnerships.

Ben

[Free]

yes, we can discuss this for ever. but if something isn't clear, i usually ask opps if i may ask something to my partner about agreements. usually they accept it, and you don't have any troubles.

and like ben and misho, i rather play an 'open' game where everyone is allowed to ask something usefull...

[joker_gib]

inquiry, on Mar 23 2004, 05:31 AM, said:

BTW, when Misho and I play, we invite our opponents to discuss their "bidding" during play... at out table it is perfectly ok to ask your partner before bidding 2♥ if he plays jacoby, or to announce after bidding 2♥ that it is natural or jacoby... (as long as you don't make it one way one hand and another the next). I always publically ask how 5♣ or 5♦ response to RKCB means so that the 4NT bidder can see the answer against pick up partnerships.

I totally agree with Ben !

When you bid in a 1 card suit, you have to warn opponents although this gives them an advantage.

By the way, what's the interest to defeat a contract in which opps are playing with trumps 2-1 because one thought it was transfer and the other not ???

Let's try to play good bridge and not being focused on some silly results that do not bring any satisfaction at all !

Alain

[luis]

I will say again that if you have no agreements with your pd about a particular bid the bid shouldn't be alerted.
Some players think that because you are playing online you are entitled to know what a player has for a particular bid and I strongly disagree. You are entitled to know a partnership has agreed not what each player has for their bids.

I completely agree that it is an unfair advantage to your opponents to tell them
something that your pd must figure out. Well I've said this a zillion times, it's not a matter of courtesy it's just what the rules say.

Your example is weak because transfers are usually announced, not alerted.

[JRG]

Time to add my two colones (wish it were the same as two cents) worth.

I fully agree with Ben. If you make an artificial bid with the expectation that partner will "get it", then you should alert it. If you made the bid and didn't expect partner to get it, then you were being silly. In other words, alert your artificial bids.

It has been referred to here as well as in other threads: Online bridge and face-to-face bridge are different.

Look at the alert mechanism itself. I haven't played in Team Trials or other events using bidding screens, so it has always been that the partner of the person who made the bid alerts it. Online (at least on BBO), we self-alert (and partner doesn't get to see).

I think it would certainly be closer to face-to-face bridge if we followed the same alert rule (that is, alerting partner's calls, not your own), and it certainly doesn't change partner's not getting any unauthorized information because partner still would not see the alert. It has the benefit that if partner is "going to catch it", then it is a alertable.

Yes, I know you can make arguments that partner is, perhaps, going to accept a non-existent transfer and have his bid interpretted as a cue-bid or whatever. However, I believe to say this gives the opponents an "unfair" advantage is fallacious.

Firstly: The opponents are entitled to know if we expect partner to catch a bid -- I think this is more or less equivalent to having an implicit agreement (the proprieties (Law 75 A) state that "Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents...").

Secondly: Several times I have come across (I wish my memory were good enough to remember the exact circumstances) something that I do not remember seeing in the Laws. I'm fairly certain (sorry about the equivocation) that directors making their rulings expect you to know (and not forget) your partnership agreements. This is different from deviating from your agreements (which is fine as long as it has not become an implicit, but unannounced, agreement). Of course you can "forget" -- as long as the opponents are not hurt by it.

I've forgotten agreements I have made with partner and "missed" a bid. The funny thing is, I can never remember getting a good result because of it -- the best I can remember is getting a below average board and more often than not a bottom.

All said and done though, like many others here, I prefer a pleasant game without silly results. I have actively encouraged opponents to ask "do you play xxxx" before making a bid. I also agree with those that say awarding Masterpoints or other prizes in online bridge is silly -- any value Masterpoints might have had will rapidly disappear and I suspect others are right when they say the incidence of cheating would skyrocket.

[inquiry]

1eyedjack, on Mar 23 2004, 02:45 AM, said:

If you follow this thread of thought to its logical conclusion you should explain what you mean by every bid (on equiry) whatever agreement with partner is in place and however natural or artificial, as every time you bid you are "assuming" that partner will read it. This is not my understanding of the law and it certainly places the opponents at an advantage.

In fact, if you make a bid and the opponents ask you what it means, I think no agreement is acceptabe if that is the case... I gave several examples of such bids (is this bid weak or strong, is this bid forcing or not)... but if you make an ALERTABLE (or "announcable") conventional bid, that is a horse of an entirely different color.

Quote

Per inquiry:
"we actually assume you did discuss 2/1 or SAYC or something when you started playing so you probably have an implicit agreement to play this as jacoby".  If those are the facts then of course the explanation should be in keeping with that.  I thought I had made it clear that there was no discussion.  In practice in most cases the opponents are present at any initial discussion and no assumption is necessary.  However if they are not present at that time than I disagree that the assumption is warranted, or indeed necessary.  If I answer "no agreement" and the opponents ask "what general system" are you playing I am happy honestly to answer "no agreement" to that also if that is the fact of the matter.

Of course, if you have not agreed a system, that is a fine answer. But again, if as JGR said, the fact that you make a jacoby transfer on a hand that you expect (hope? pray?) your partner will catch is defacto evidence that you expect that he will catch it, and therefore must be alerted (announced).

And to Luis... I would be happy with an announcement of "transfer" if that is your only objection to this case study, but somehow I doubt you actually will support froced annoucement either.. :-)

[hrothgar]

luis, on Mar 23 2004, 06:56 PM, said:

>I will say again that if you have no agreements with your pd >about a particular bid the bid shouldn't be alerted.
>Your example is weak because transfers are usually >announced, not alerted.

I would argue that if you are making a conventional bid like a Jacoby transfer, then you believe that there is an implicit agreement that the partnership is playing transfers.

It seems disingenous to start applying conventions and treatments with the expectation that partner will understand them without disclosing this information to the opponents.

[Trpltrbl]

I don't know very many people who don't play trf aftr NT opening, so just for that reason I will selfalert. But if I assuming something like Lebensohl, or some other lesser played convention, I will not alert, since no agreement.

Mike

[luis]

inquiry, on Mar 23 2004, 06:07 PM, said:

And to Luis... I would be happy with an announcement of "transfer" if that is your only objection to this case study, but somehow I doubt you actually will support froced annoucement either.. :-)

Assume a pick up pd so there're no "style" or "used to" matters:
If you make an unagreed bid with the intention of pd to "get it" you are entitled to enjoy the advantage if your pd understands the bid and your opponents don't. It's a FAIR advantage if your pd can understand the bidding better than your opps.

You are wrong about "implicit agreements" implcit agreements are agreements not written in your CC but agreements after all. There's a huge distinction between an implicit agreement and no-agreement.

I do agree with you about having a pleasant game and I also like to let opps talk about what conventions they play and so on but "strange bids" are part of the game and the skill to solve them is part of the game too and pretending to have an explanation for evey strange bid someone makes or giving an explanation each time you make such a bid spoils the fun.

Example 1:

1NT - 4d
I will encourage my opps to tell if that is Texas or South African.
No problem it's a "convention" and they can discuss what conventions they play even during the play. I accept this for almost all popular conventions.

Example 2:

1s-(dbl)-2s-dbl

Well if there's no agreement then is part of the game to let pd decipher this bid. If I bid this dbl with a pickup pd you can ask me a zillion times and I won't say what I have, I expect my pd to be a good player and understand what this dbl shows. If he doesn't get it or the opps don't get it it's part of the game. Take your risks.

Ben:

I have no problem with forced announcement of transfers.

JRG:

I disagree with every single word you wrote so I won't be quoting everything because it will only help to make this post longer. I think you have a confusion between "being nice" and "playing bridge". You can be a nice player, educated and friendly without telling your opponents what you have. Nice but not dumb.

[1eyedjack]

Rehi all

For any who are interested I re-posted the question at:

http://forums.bridge...p?showtopic=453

This received several responses, some from individuals who are particularly well qualified to give an opinion.

From the answers in that thread I am content that:

In the interest of fairness, a bid should be alerted if there is no agreement but if one or more possible interpretation is alertable. All the alert does, after all, is to prompt an enquiry. No possible damage to either side can arise from the act of alerting. At worst it may waste some time by prompting an enquiry that ends up imparting no useful information (even the knowledge that there is no agreement may have some value to the opponents). Anyone who assumes a meaning from an alert without enquiry is a fool. At that point it is the response to the enquiry that assumes relevance.

I am not sure whether BBO guidelines require an alert under those conditions but I intend to do so anyway. BBO certainly has the authority to require an alert under those circumstances and I would recommend that if there is any doubt on the matter then this should be clarified in the site rules.

Having alerted and received an enquiry, it is entirely proper to answer that there is no agreement if that is the fact of the matter. Obviously you have to consider the possibility of an implied agreement and disclose it, but if there is genuinely no agreement then there is nothing wrong in saying so.

If you are unhappy about explaining baldly "no agreement" then (say you have just made a 2H response to 1NT) it would appear to be sound to respond "We have no agreement. Common treatments are natural or transfer to Spades. Take your pick, as partner will have to do". In this explanation there is a slight risk that you are teaching the opponents bridge skills that are beyond the scope of your required response to the query, but in practice it is unlikely that you are telling them anything that they do not already know.

That would appear to level the playing field, in my opinion, without providing the opponents with an additional and unnecessary advantage over that which they already hold.

[1eyedjack]

Further to my post just submitted, if there is one problem arising from the conclusions therein it is remembering to alert a natural call where there is no agreement and the potential for an artificial interpretation. If you don't do this habitually then when you DO alert and explain no agreement the opponents will likely assume the artificial interpretation with greater accuracy than will your partner (who of course has not seen the alert).

Assuming that I can remember to alert in the first place, I can at least cut down on the subsequent repetitive strain injury by programming a button into OKScript that sends a standard message to opponents "no agreement but there are likely to be artificial meanings among the possible interpretations".

[JRG]

luis, on Mar 23 2004, 08:22 PM, said:

[snip]
JRG:

I disagree with every single word you wrote so I won't be quoting everything because it will only help to make this post longer. I think you have a confusion between "being nice" and "playing bridge". You can be a nice player, educated and friendly without telling your opponents what you have. Nice but not dumb.

We will just have to agree to disagree. My position is that the game of bridge requires full disclose. The opponents have the right (when it is that player's turn) to ask about not only the meanings of the calls made, but of the "relevant calls available but not made" (Law 20F1).

This is not the same as saying "I hold...".

The other thing (and this is purely my opinion and not necessarily fact) is that I believe playing a game resembling bridge where one of the objectives is "Partner, guess what convention I'm using now" is not the same as playing bridge. On the other hand, I agree (again opinion) that if you truly "make up a call" with the hope that partner will figure it out, then (but ONLY then) your position is perfectly correct. If I'm not mistaken, Roth (or someone similar) invented the Unusual NT in exactly this way in a high-stakes rubber bridge game.

I guess part of the reason we disagree is that I dislike intensely playing with a pickup partner without at least agreeing on a general system ("I'll play your card, but no..."). Doing otherwise smacks of Poker (and I've never been any good at Poker )

[Fluffy]

I am also with you JRG!

Let´s see an example on how it would get non alerting your bids:

1NT-(p)-2♥-(p)
2♠-(p)-(p)-??


Now that player that has been unalerted holds for example 5♥+5♦, he for sure now he realises 2♥ was transfer and he would have doubled and now bid 3♦ to show his 2 suiter perfectly, (or maybe he just wanted a ♥ lead he didn´t get, or .... many options)

and I supose Luis would tell him, no man I didn´t know he would understand it as transfer so I didn´t alert..... so you have deceived the opponent and that is the 'price' for after all agreeing with unusual partner?, this is very doubtful, but further more...

If not alerting was rigth because not usual partners... can you imagine what could 2 usual partners with blank profile do arguing they don´t know each other?

If BBO was designed to self-alert was probably because it was designed that you alerted what you try your bids to mean, not what you agreed.

I beleive its BBO designers´s matter to make a decision and to publish it, what they intended to do when making BBO, that way we wouldn´t have doubts .

After all transfers can be 'suposed' by all people at a table and its probably not the best example, but I also think the problems will be analogue.