[Zelandakh]

Lesh18, on 2012-April-25, 12:23, said:

Basically, do I have to tell my opponents literally everything my partner knows? Including all HCP and suit distributions requirements for particular bids?

Yes, the opponents are entitled to exactly the same information as you have. You should provide this if they ask you about one of your partner's bids. You should also expect this from opponents when you ask them about their calls. Some opponents are less forthcoming than others - if you find out that an opponent's explanation was less than complete and think this might have affected the outcome then you should speak to the Director about it (if one is present).

Lesh18, on 2012-April-25, 13:56, said:

When playing casually (just 4 players, playing rubber or a duplicate scoring, but that does not really matter), is it important that we include the vulnurablity factor in? I mean, we used to play all games just as if all pairs were non-vulnurable, because my co-players are even less experienced than I am.

Does the vulnurability - non-vulnurability really play in important role in bridge game? Or can it be avoided for the same experience from the game?

Yes, the vulnerability makes some considerable difference in certain situations. If you are just playing practise hands with friends then I would suggest playing one hand with both pairs not vulnerable, then the second and third hands with the dealing side not vulnerable and the non-dealing side vulnerable, and the fourth hand with both sides vulnerable. I personally use a pair of jokers on a corner of the table to indicate vulnerability which seems to work quite well (no joker = both nv, one joker = pair with short side are vul, both jokers crossed = both vul).

[jillybean]

Stephen Tu, on 2012-April-25, 20:38, said:

OK, maybe I should have said "was alertable". Wasn't clear on the timeline when the change to announcements was introduced to the EBU.
Also, one can argue that announcement is a subset of alerting, in the ACBL the regulations require you to use the alert strip on announceable calls. An announcement is basically an alertable call with the asking and giving of the explanation considered automatic. I also didn't think that a discussion of the differences between alerts and announcements would be particularly useful in a nov/beginner forum.

In the U.S., stayman is neither alerted nor announced.

Basically, I think you are being a bit pedantic.

I think it is very important that novice/beginners learn the differences between alerts and announcements.

[Stephen Tu]

jillybean, on 2012-April-26, 07:36, said:

I think it is very important that novice/beginners learn the differences between alerts and announcements.

The poster is asking lots of questions about home games and plays online, no evidence of offline tourney play. I think it is very far down on the list of things to be learning about. When OP starts venturing out to offline clubs/tournaments, announcements will be introduced soon enough, and no one is going to lose a board by alerting instead of announcing. Opp will ask, then explain the few calls requiring announcement, no big deal. People should be going easy on newbies at the local club.

And in terms of rules, it's much more important for newbies to learn:
- how they are supposed to handle times when partner forgets an alert, alerts something you didn't expect, misexplains, or explains correctly but you forgot, etc.
- propriety regarding partner's hesitations, skip bid procedure.

Alerting instead of announcing hardly has any effect, announcements were mainly to speed up the game and getting rid of the need for "special alerts". (Announcing instead of alerting is bad though, people should be better about teaching not to alert minor transfers, and not announcing everything).

[jdeegan]

The basic idea in the usual club duplicate bridge game is that of a level playing field. You are playing just two or three hands versus the opponents. Trickery is effective, but doesn't make for a good contest opposite unwitting opposition. The idea is to best the enemy within the rules. It also important to understand the rules. Just in case.

[tytobyto]

[I apologize for being more interested in bidding than in cardplay (tho I'm acutely aware that bidding must anticipate cardplay).]

I conclude from the ACBL General Convention Chart that certain conventions are disallowed:
1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods.
So why e.g. is IDAC (Instant Destruction Against a Club) aka IDAK (Instant Destroyer And Killer) permitted?
4. Forcing pass systems.
If a convention includes a forcing pass is it considered a forcing pass "system?"
5. Relay (tell me more) systems.
How e.g. do Stayman or 1-step responses to Astro avoid this prohibition?

[paua]

paua, on 2012-April-25, 04:13, said:

Hi, welcome. Yes, you are correct on all points. Point 4. I read as - "if we *DO NOT* alert" ...

The word "convention" is very very misleading. It has thankfully been taken out of the new 2007 Laws. Think in terms of "partnership agreements". And although we call these agreements by names (Stayman, Transfers, Blackwood) they should be explained in plain words, not just giving the name of the 'convention'. Insist on this.

[awm]

tytobyto, on 2012-December-05, 22:39, said:

[I apologize for being more interested in bidding than in cardplay (tho I'm acutely aware that bidding must anticipate cardplay).]

I conclude from the ACBL General Convention Chart that certain conventions are disallowed:
1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods.
So why e.g. is IDAC (Instant Destruction Against a Club) aka IDAK (Instant Destroyer And Killer) permitted?
4. Forcing pass systems.
If a convention includes a forcing pass is it considered a forcing pass "system?"
5. Relay (tell me more) systems.
How e.g. do Stayman or 1-step responses to Astro avoid this prohibition?

1. The definition of "agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponnets' methods" is somewhat murky. People like to name their conventions stuff like IDAC regardless of whether those conventions actually violate this rule. In practice the application of this rule is normally to opening bids (only) that could be on very light values and do not promise any particular suit.

4. A forcing pass system is a system which includes an agreement that Pass in 1st/2nd position forces partner to bid. This has nothing to do with pass being forcing in various other auctions (i.e. after we have forced to game on values), which is a perfectly legal agreement.

5. A relay system is a system where relays sequences start prior to opener's rebid after an opening of one-of-a-suit. Playing relays in some situations (such as the 2♣ "relay" response to a 1NT opening, the 2NT "relay" response to a weak two, or the fourth suit forcing "relay") does not make your system a relay system.

[mycroft]

In particular, the "seemingly dividing line" for "primarily destructive" is:
- if after a strong club, your 1♠ overcall shows "spades", or "not spades", or "clubs or both red suits", or "clubs or takeout of clubs" or even "spades or takeout of spades", it has a constructive purpose and is not primarily destructive.
- if after the strong club, your 1♠ overcall says "I have 13 cards and I must bid at least 1♠" or "wants to play somewhere at the 2 level", it is primarily destructive and not allowed.

IDA[C|K] isn't even close to "primarily destructive" per regulation - and, (as a strong club player) it isn't in practise either. It's about as bad as Bergen-style (i.e. 4=4 common) DONT over a strong NT.

AWM: we have special regulations for "weak (natural) opening bids at the one level" and conventional weak openers that handle opening bids. DISALLOWED, 1, is primarily required to put an upper bound on COMPETITIVE, 7a): [allowed: DEFENCES TO] conventional calls, in my experience.

[jh51]

IrishToby, on 2012-March-17, 22:59, said:

3. We would be unethical (violating the rules?) not to follow the conventions we have identified to our opposition;

I am not 100% sure of what was meant by this, but it not necessarily unethical to make a conventional bid when you do not have what the bid describes. I recently had a hand where, after partner had responded in hearts, I needed to know whether she had the Q♥ for a slam contract. I had all 5 keycards, and we were using 1430 RKC, so I knew her resposne to a 4NT ask would be 5♦, leaving no room for the Q ask. We were not using kickback, so that was out, but we were using Exclusion RKC. I did not in fact do this, but I considered trating my singleton spade Ace as a void for ERKC purposes to elicit a response where I could make a Q ask.

Supposedly, if I had jumped to 4S I would have been showing a void, but there would have been nothing unethical or illegal with making such a bid.

[tytobyto]

mycroft, on 2012-December-06, 11:39, said:

- if after the strong club, your 1♠ overcall says "I have 13 cards and I must bid at least 1♠" or "wants to play somewhere at the 2 level", it is primarily destructive and not allowed.

Thank you, but I need even more clarification. Your first example I get; your 2nd maybe not. Perhaps I'm not clear about what "constructive" means exactly. I think "positive" means "partner, I believe we have something here;" "constructive" means "partner, here's some useful advice, but let's get this over with." Why wouldn't your 2nd example be considered constructive? You know your opponenets won't let you play at the one level, even if opener's partner has nothing, but all the same, if you're not required to make this bid (as in your first example), then it seems you're telling your partner something.

Back to your first example. I'm really talking out of my hat here. What if "pass" means something specific (I asked earlier, and was told that's OK), and 1S is what you bid if no other bid is correct? Is that still illegal? I notice that you wrote "at least 1♠." What if all my bids below 1S (and pass and double, are they called low?) mean that I have some points? So if I bid 1S, it might mean that I have nothing, but it doesn't mean "I must bid at least 1♠" because I could have bid lower with a better hand.

Sorry for the nitpicking, but I've always thought it wise to approach a game by understanding the rules. (I'm not a rules lawyer. If my opponent misunderstands a rule I let them take their move back.)

[blackshoe]

The meaning of a "positive" response to an artificial opening depends on what the opening shows. A positive response to a Precision 1♣ says "partner, we should have at least a game here" — which is why positive responses are, generally speaking, forcing to game. A positive response to a two club opening, OTOH, should say "partner, we may well have a slam here; we certainly have a game". Unfortunately, the 2♣ opening has become so much weaker in recent years than it used to be that "positive" as a description of the normal response to 2♣ has lost much of its meaning.

The distinction between "constructive" and "destructive" when talking about overcalls is a little more difficult to pin down. For one thing, the two terms do not cover the whole spectrum of possibilities (there's also "preemptive" overcalls, for example). I think a "constructive" overcall says "partner, I have a little something, let's compete". A "destructive" overcall says "partner, I got nothing, but I want to screw with them as much as possible" – this is, pretty much, why destructive methods are illegal in many places.

Be sure you understand the difference between rules as in the laws and regulations governing the game — like "always follow suit" or "certain calls require that you alert" — and rules in the sense of "partnership understandings about the meanings of calls" or "the logic behind bidding x instead of y". They are two different things. You violate the former at your peril. If you violate the latter, nobody's going to care except your partner. In fact, your opponents may thank you for it.

[Zelandakh]

jh51, on 2012-December-06, 15:55, said:

Supposedly, if I had jumped to 4S I would have been showing a void, but there would have been nothing unethical or illegal with making such a bid.

The first time, no. However, once you and your partner have agreed that this is allowed, you should include the possibility in your description.

[mycroft]

When discussing "constructive" vs "destructive" re: the ACBL GCC, they are not talking about agreements that show some range of hands called "constructive", they are talking about *agreements* that are c. or d. And they define a destructive conventional agreement - one whose *primary purpose* is to damage the opponents' methods. So if it *shows something*, even if it damages the opponents' methods, it's not a destructive agreement. Jargon overload, again; sorry about that (not that I have anything to do with creating it).

As I said, case law has determined that line to be very much tilted toward "showing anything means it's constructive" - vis. wonder bids vs. a strong club (1♠ shows "spades or takeout of spades") being considered "not destructive".

[tytobyto]

A silly question.

Partnerships can change what their bids mean depending on what they are playing against, e.g. overcalls of an artificial bid mean something different than if the same bid were natural. So, is it possible that I could have a bid whose meaning depends on the way you bid defensively, but your defensive bid depends on what my original bid means, thus our definitions chase each other in circles?

Writing the previous sentence conjured up another silly question: in the midst of play, is one allowed to ask an opponent about the meaning of a bid they have not yet made (a hypothetical question)? If yes, then suppose this is the situation (I'm just trying to present an example, if it's foolish don't answer that no one would ever do this): it's my turn to bid, but before I do, I want to find out from my opponents whether "If I were to now bid 2S, and you were to double me, is the double for takeout or for penalty?" Besides wanting to know if I'm allowed to ask such a question, I'd like to know which opponent I should ask. Either one, it seems, I would be preparing both for the hypothetical situation and giving them a chance to confirm their agreement (or lack thereof).

[blackshoe]

tytobyto, on 2012-December-17, 17:34, said:

A silly question.

Partnerships can change what their bids mean depending on what they are playing against, e.g. overcalls of an artificial bid mean something different than if the same bid were natural. So, is it possible that I could have a bid whose meaning depends on the way you bid defensively, but your defensive bid depends on what my original bid means, thus our definitions chase each other in circles?

No. When your opponents find out what you're playing, they can change their normal defensive bidding to fit your system. You can't then change your system.

tytobyto, on 2012-December-17, 17:34, said:

Writing the previous sentence conjured up another silly question: in the midst of play, is one allowed to ask an opponent about the meaning of a bid they have not yet made (a hypothetical question)?

No. You can ask about calls made, and about alternative calls that might have been made but were not made, but you can't ask the kind of questions you're talking about.

[tytobyto]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-17, 18:55, said:

No. When your opponents find out what you're playing, they can change their normal defensive bidding to fit your system. You can't then change your system.


No. You can ask about calls made, and about alternative calls that might have been made but were not made, but you can't ask the kind of questions you're talking about.

Thank you, thank you. Either I'm getting better at asking questions here, or you're very astute, because you answered my questions exactly. They were, in fact, silly questions, because in the bidding I know, those questions don't come up; but I'm an analyst and I have to analyze.

But to clarify, I could ask my hypothetical question before play commences, yes?

[blackshoe]

The play of a hand starts when any player takes his hand from the board, and ends when the score is agreed. During this interval, asking hypothetical questions about auctions that did not and could not happen is a waste of time, and could result in penalties for slow play.

When you arrive at a table, you should examine your opponent's system card to determine what his partnership agreements are. You could ask about hypothetical auctions then, I suppose, but again, if you spend too much time on it, you're subject to penalties for wasting time.

Most players are happy to discuss hypothetical situations involving their bidding system, or yours, but after the round is played, if there's time, or after the session if there isn't.