[blackshoe]

Notation suggestions:

call-(opponent's call)-partner's call-(other opponent's call); call-(opponent's call)-partner's call/partner's changed call-(other opponent's call);

It might be good to put each round of bidding on a new line. Then, after the semi-colon, you could put explanations, separated by hyphens (use "to" instead of a hyphen when specifying ranges) or by some other delimiter (colon? period?)

So
2♥-(P)-2NT-(3♠)-3♦/P; the last pass is DOPI(= step 2 = bad suit, good points);

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-26, 07:13, said:

Notation suggestions:

call-(opponent's call)-partner's call-(other opponent's call); call-(opponent's call)-partner's call/partner's changed call-(other opponent's call);

It might be good to put each round of bidding on a new line. Then, after the semi-colon, you could put explanations, separated by hyphens (use "to" instead of a hyphen when specifying ranges) or by some other delimiter (colon? period?)

So
2♥-(P)-2NT-(3♠)-3♦/P; the last pass is DOPI(= step 2 = bad suit, good points);

Good idea, but I think you should include in your format specification the possibility that you are opening the auction in second, third or fourth seat?

like: (P) - 2♥-(P)-2NT; (3♠) (This format is not very good because the posisiton of the semicolon is easily overlooked)

There is also the need for a format making it clear whether you or your partner made the opening bid?

[barmar]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-April-25, 14:17, said:

Here are some reasons why you might choose to have agreements about things following your own irregularity:
- if partner has a minor penalty card, he will often choose to play it given it's known rather than give an accurate signal
- if partner has a major penalty card, playing it does not give a signal
- if partner has a major penalty card and declarer demands a lead of that suit (say diamonds) then the lead will be suit preference rather than attitude in the suit

Are any of those really "agreements"? The play of a card is only a signal if the player has a choice of cards. If he's required to play a card, and that requirement is AI to you, then you would never consider it to be part of a signal. You don't have to agree to that.

Quote

A lot of these might be considered 'just bridge' but if they have come up multiple times (not necessarily a good thing) then you might have developed partnership experience and understandings.

I don't care how many times it's come up, no regulation can reasonably tell me that I must treat a compulsary play as a signal, unless the law says that it's UI that it was compulsary.

[pran]

barmar, on 2013-April-26, 09:06, said:

I don't care how many times it's come up, no regulation can reasonably tell me that I must treat a compulsary play as a signal, unless the law says that it's UI that it was compulsary.

In fact, explicitly and quite to the contrary

Law 50E1 said:

Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorized information for all players.

[FrancesHinden]

barmar, on 2013-April-26, 09:06, said:

Are any of those really "agreements"? The play of a card is only a signal if the player has a choice of cards. If he's required to play a card, and that requirement is AI to you, then you would never consider it to be part of a signal. You don't have to agree to that.

I don't care how many times it's come up, no regulation can reasonably tell me that I must treat a compulsary play as a signal, unless the law says that it's UI that it was compulsary.

For the first and third of those, you do have a choice of cards.
The second I agree was a poor example.

[nige1]

I use:

• Abbreviations AP = All pass, N = Notrump, _P = Pass, _X or DB = Double, XX or RD = redouble, (opponents calls in brackets).
• If West is not the dealer, the bidding diagram starts with "--"s (unless who is dealer doesn't matter).
• Each round ends with a semicolon.
• Describe bids separately below.
• There are only single spaces, so including HTML doesn't destroy the format.
• This lines up the auction if you specify a fixed width font like Courier
• For example, if I deal as East and bid 1♠

-- ---- 1♠ (_X);
XX (_P) _P (1N);
_X (AP)

[pran]

nige1, on 2013-April-26, 13:57, said:

I use:

• Abbreviations AP = All pass, N = Notrump, _P = Pass, _X or DB = Double, XX or RD = redouble, (opponents calls in brackets).
• If West is not the dealer, the bidding diagram starts with "--"s (unless who is dealer doesn't matter).
• Each round ends with a semicolon.
• Describe bids separately below.
• There are only single spaces, so including HTML doesn't destroy the format.
• This lines up the auction if you specify a fixed width font like Courier
• For example, if I deal as East and bid 1♠

-- ---- 1♠ (_X);
XX (_P) _P (1N);
_X (AP)

What would it look like if your partner dealt as East and you are sitting West? (Your first Call is the XX)

[nige1]

pran, on 2013-April-26, 14:24, said:

What would it look like if your partner dealt as East and you are sitting West? (Your first Call is the XX)

The same. But

• You can agree always to sit East, Partner West or
• You can put names above columns OXO LHO YOU RHO but
• When submitting a question about the bidding, you can just put ?? in the appropriate column

[barmar]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-April-26, 13:34, said:

For the first and third of those, you do have a choice of cards.

Do you mean when there's a minor penalty card? You have a choice of cards, but not a choice of cards that can be used to signal with (on the assumption that count and attitude signals are usually made with spot cards).

[FrancesHinden]

If you want to format an auction nicely, use the hand editor

a very good bid

---

[aguahombre]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-April-28, 04:06, said:

If you want to format an auction nicely, use the hand editor

I am lame, apparently. If someone would be so kind as to PM me with how to make a bid diagram without cards from the hand editor, and how to insert an insufficient bid.

[blackshoe]

if you uncheck the North, South, etc, boxes, that leaves only the bidding checked. I don't think it's possible to put in an IB, so I guess you'd have to use a comment.

[aguahombre]

I enjoy volunteering others to do things which will make my life easier. So, I volunteer Ed and David to create a separate hand editor just for the Laws fora which will allow I.B's.

[blackshoe]

"Do not confuse 'duty' with what others expect of you." -- Robert A. Heinlein.

[jeffford76]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-28, 13:48, said:

I enjoy volunteering others to do things which will make my life easier. So, I volunteer Ed and David to create a separate hand editor just for the Laws fora which will allow I.B's.

While we're at it, shouldn't we also allow 14 (or more) card hands, positions where the hands don't have the same number of cards, and multiple hands to contain the same card?

[aguahombre]

Absolutely. Get on it, guys

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2013-April-25, 08:51, said:

Continuing to play transfers would not be a variation in methods, so no problem.

Yes, but this is also an agreement, which can be defined as being against the rules (eg ACBL). Say the first time this comes up the pair have a disagreement - one thinks transfers remain on and the other continues to use transfers. Are they not going to discuss it and decide which to use next time? If they do then they are breaking the regulation; if not then they are at a major disadvantage. In the previous thread, it was suggested that the ACBL regulation is only that you cannot change an agreement but you can have new agreements. Yet another interpretation is that you can have whatever agreements you like in advance, providing you do not change them on the fly. Sadly, neither of these matches my understanding of the way the regulation is interpreted and enforced in the ACBL.

So, an example from that thread is to treat X of an accepted IB as takeout and X of a call of a higher number of the same denomination as a non-accepted IB as penalty. There is no variance of agreements - this is always in effect. However, this agreement is illegal in the ACBL unless you pretend it is just GBK and not an agreement. But as soon as it has happened a couple of times, it has become an agreement. So now what do you do? In other words, the regulation makes no sense and is unworkable without handling experienced partnerships in a very naive way. Anyone who believes that Meckwell do not know the difference between the accept + double and decline + double auctions is more than naive. That is pretty much the definition of an agreement - but somehow I do not think they will run afoul of a TD anytime soon.