[Geoff103]

I wonder if other BBO regulars are becoming ever more irritated like me at ops who ask their partners to describe their bid whilst in the middle of the auction?

I play in the Acol room and am regularly confronted by ops who ask their partners things such as, is that a transfer p? Blackwoods, p? RKC ? and many others.

It ought to be obligatory to read your partner's profile and agree it before starting to play. Such questions are against the laws and would certainly not be allowed at your local club.

At the same time, it is surely good manners for the second player to come to the table with a new partner to either accept their partner's card without demur or debate it and agree it, before starting play.

[phoenix214]

If you are playing in a club, then it is fine, in my opinion. It is not like you are in a tournament where you have to win at all costs.
If you play in a tournament/team match, it would be a bit different.
+ what fun is there to get lots of imps in a club, because your opponents have a silly transfer/rkcb misunderstanding?

[Geoff103]

phoenix214, on 2016-July-31, 10:43, said:

If you are playing in a club, then it is fine, in my opinion. It is not like you are in a tournament where you have to win at all costs.
If you play in a tournament/team match, it would be a bit different.
+ what fun is there to get lots of imps in a club, because your opponents have a silly transfer/rkcb misunderstanding?

No, it is not fine at a club in any duplicate competition.

I recently witnessed one player secretly looking at a bidding crib sheet during the auction. Penalties were awarded against her. Across the table discussion is no different, it is a form of cheating.

[helene_t]

We are talking about pick-up partnerships that have zero agreements other than maybe "Acol" (whatever that means).

You could insist that they take a few minutes to discuss system before starting to play. I don't see what would be the advantage of that approach. A couple of minutes Wasted on discussing conventions that are unlikely to come up during the 5-6 boards or w/e they will be playing together.

It would maybe be different if they asked "landy, p?" after you opened 1nt, since they could then chose whichever defense suited their current hand best.

Asking "transfers?" is completely benign, though.

[eagles123]

if you feel so strongly about this, why not lock your table and make it a condition of joining that the system is agreed before play.

[1eyedjack]

Contrast the following undiscussed "pickup" scenarios at an MBC table

Situation 1:
S.....W.....N.....E
1N...P......2D

Comment by North to table: Transfer

Situation 2:

S....W.....N.....E
1C...1H...1S...2D
2S....3D...X

Comment by North to table: Penalties

Situation 3:

S.....W.....N.....E
1N...P.....2S

Comment by North to table: 11 points (1N previously agreed as 12-14)

=======================

Now, in my view, there is absolutely nothing wrong with situation 1. Any reasonable partnership would have agreed on this in advance in any other setting, but have in a BBO social table a desire to move things along apace.

Situation 2 I think is unacceptable. An experienced partnership may have agreed on this, but it smacks of making up the system on the fly to suit the hand that you have been dealt, and it is a situation where you can well imagine seasoned opponents fouling it up. Indeed West may have been counting on the ambiguity of the opponents' follow-ups at the point of bidding 3D. Had West been aware that North could make up an agreement for penalty doubles over 3D, then West might well not have bid 3D.

Situation 3 I think is borderline unacceptable. If you want to play that method then fine, talk about it after the hand is over, but there is no need for it and there would be alternative reasonable ways of handling it in the meantime.

The problem here is that if some situations are regarded as acceptable and others not, where do you draw the line? The reality is that different players will draw the line at different points, leading to friction unless the players adopt a sanguine approach to life in these scenarios, accept that in the overall scheme of things it is not that important, and do your best not to push it to extremes when it is your side doing the talking.

[akwoo]

Geoff103, on 2016-July-31, 10:08, said:

At the same time, it is surely good manners for the second player to come to the table with a new partner to either accept their partner's card without demur or debate it and agree it, before starting play.

Actually, I think in the main room, seriously debating a card before starting play would be quite bad manners. Do you really want to spend 5 minutes watching opponents discuss their conventions every time there is a new player? You would spend more time waiting than playing.

[The_Badger]

Hello Geoff,

I believe all of us on here (except if we are playing in some important/arranged game) have to tolerate the idiosyncrasies of BBO pick-up bridge. It can be annoying at worse, frustrating at best. (Bit like computer dating, I am led to believe.)

Try playing in the main room where the opponents are having a discussion during the game in Swahili, Polish, Italian, Mongolian, Welsh, or mainly English And not just about the bidding or play! Medical conditions, deaths, family holidays, shopping, the weather, etc. The list is endless...

I have no problem players asking is that so-and-so bid, as long as it is legitimate (and is part of their profile or non-profile). And yes, I am not totally happy with blank/sparse profiles, but all singing-and-dancing convention cards on BBO would slow things down to a snail's pace. And for many, many players English is not their main language.

What I do get annoyed with are players opening 2♠, have "weak" on their profile, and then announce it as "strong". I might make a sarcastic comment at that point...

However, except if you feel exceptionally cheated, or the opponents are obviously cheating, I would let sleeping dogs lie, and I try to remain chilled about playing on BBO.

I find the Acol Room to be a lot more reliable place to play cards than many other places on BBO, where "musical chair" partners, who dip in and out of various games for a couple of hands at a time exist. That's a lot more annoying than a player asking if 4♣ is Gerber when patently it is not (in context).

And that's why I usually lock a table as host in the main room, only allow 95%+ players to join - my own reliability is 100% by the way - and check their profiles before allowing to sit. That usually guarantees a good table for all. And happy players

[barmar]

The_Badger, on 2016-August-01, 00:20, said:

Try playing in the main room where the opponents are having a discussion during the game in Swahili, Polish, Italian, Mongolian, Welsh, or mainly English And not just about the bidding or play! Medical conditions, deaths, family holidays, shopping, the weather, etc. The list is endless...

Are you suggesting that when friends get together to play bridge online, they shouldn't be allowed to socialize at the same time?

[sfi]

barmar, on 2016-August-01, 00:25, said:

Are you suggesting that when friends get together to play bridge online, they shouldn't be allowed to socialize at the same time?

Heh - that's what we use Skype for. This weekend, our table had two Skype sessions going - one for each partnership.

Needless to say, any issues of UI were very much self-policed.

[GrahamJson]

What annoys me are players who use every convention under the sun, get into a mess, and then ask for a redeal or, worse, just leave the table. I think playing with random partners everyone should try to keep things simple, thus avoiding having to ask many questions during the auction. Even asking "03 or 14" gives away information, i.e. That the questioner is treating 4NT as RKKB, when perhaps this isn't obvious. And I also have seen players appearing to use defensive methods that happen to fit the hand, in particular 2C announced as "natural" when I suspect on other occasions it will be Landy or something else.

One player I have noticed is fond of announcing his 1NT response to 1H/S as " forcing", but only when he has a hand that is not the usual 5-10 balanced type.

[The_Badger]

barmar, on 2016-August-01, 00:25, said:

Are you suggesting that when friends get together to play bridge online, they shouldn't be allowed to socialize at the same time?

Not in the slightest, Barry. I can't multitask myself (being a man). But too much chatter can interfere with the game. I always chat at length about hands played and everything else away from the table. Banter at a table is great, but intricate discussion just slows the game down, even when a friendly table gets together.

There's a happy balance of general banter and bridge that makes for a good table

[msjennifer]

Reading all what all have said so far ,I have come to the conclusion that 90p.c.think that all BBO tournaments are just a tea table game.As per laws of duplicate bridge ,conversation of any kind is forbidden once the bidding starts ,with the exception of asking the meanings of alerted bids by the opponents only and not by bids made by the partner.if this is violated then director can be called and after judging the severity of crime he can always give an adjusted score to the innocent pair and penalise the guilty pair appropriately and with a warning.I have serious doubts about when and where these laws are going to be enforced.The players have to describe the system ,gadgets and conventions they use instead of just writing SAYC or Precision or Polish club etc in their profile.If this is made compulsory it will avoid many bitter situations.

[zillahandp]

In casual play it seems to me right that anyone can have undos, ask questions anytime as it is impossible to agree a defined system with random partners and the score is irrelevant, most people are playing for fun and to learn, or should be, if they want something else play in the competitions where it must be as in a formal competition. Full rules, claims explained in detail etc.
The few decent players in casual play are usually teaching and, so far as am concerned, their pupils can ask any questions they want, anytime, have undos as the important thing is that they are keen to learn and the more good players the better as there are precious few good players who play in Bbo other than in closed competitions.
I feel very sanguine, which means strongly by the way, we should give everyone who wants to lean or teach the maximum latitude so to do.
Incidentally I have noticed it is by and large the weaker players who bother about this and the score in casual play.

[1eyedjack]

BBO platform offers a wide variety of playing environments; paid tourneys, free tourneys, tourneys with TDs, tourneys without TDs, clocked tourneys, unclocked tourneys, tourneys affiliated to NBOs, or not, tourneys with minimum completion rates, custom entry lists, etc, robot tourneys that unofficially sanction system note consultation mid hand, through to public and private clubs outside of tourneys, even down to a distinction between a "main" bridge club and a "relaxed" bridge club.

If you want to play with tournament-standard terms and conditions, your tastes are provided for. All that it requires is that you direct yourself to one of the hundreds of events on BBO that cater to those tastes. That leaves the relaxed club for kitchen bridge, for those that want that.

[barmar]

msjennifer, on 2016-August-01, 04:46, said:

Reading all what all have said so far ,I have come to the conclusion that 90p.c.think that all BBO tournaments are just a tea table game.As per laws of duplicate bridge ,conversation of any kind is forbidden once the bidding starts ,with the exception of asking the meanings of alerted bids by the opponents only and not by bids made by the partner.i

We're not talking about tournaments. What we're discussing generally just goes on in casual bridge tables, where people pop in and immediately start playing. The Laws regarding communication and memory aids between partners make a tacit assumption that the partners have previously made agreements, and they're expected to remember them on their own. But that assumption doesn't fit the environment where you just start playing without any discussion of agreements.

We do allow this kind of thing in the Sunday BBF Indy, though.

[barmar]

GrahamJson, on 2016-August-01, 04:06, said:

Even asking "03 or 14" gives away information, i.e. That the questioner is treating 4NT as RKKB, when perhaps this isn't obvious.

What's the alternative? You bid 4NT, now you have to guess what partner's response means, because you never discussed it before you started playing. Do you really think that's fair?

When I play in the BBF Indy, I assume everyone is playing RKC, but I can't assume 1430 or 3014 unless they have something in their profile, we need to make sure we're on the same page when it comes up.

[1eyedjack]

barmar, on 2016-August-01, 11:39, said:

What's the alternative? You bid 4NT, now you have to guess what partner's response means, because you never discussed it before you started playing. Do you really think that's fair?

When I play in the BBF Indy, I assume everyone is playing RKC, but I can't assume 1430 or 3014 unless they have something in their profile, we need to make sure we're on the same page when it comes up.

I think that you may have missed the (genuine) objection. If there is no doubt that 4N is blackwood OF A SORT, then I would have absolutely no objection to them discussing on the fly what sort of blackwood is in play.

But even if you play a variant of blackwood, there remain occasions when 4N is not blackwood of any veneer, but is quantitative. And it is a regular form of confusion between partnerships, sometimes comprising quite experienced players, whether 4N in a particular instance is quantitative on the one hand or, on the other, some variant of Blackwood.

As an opponent of someone bidding 4N, I personally think that it should be fair game to allow them the opportunity to foul up a quant v Bwood interpretation. Allowing them to state "0314" allows them an easy exit to that potential confusion and I think that the game is lessened as a result.

[661_Pete]

I think I'm learning to 'chill' out on the BBO pick-up tables, because anything else, you won't last the course! At least, in the Acol room, most of the regulars there seem to be fairly chilled already. I say 'most' but not 'all' - there are some I feel I have to avoid!

People who don't (OK: a bit illegally) alert partner when they really ought to, can also be troublesome. The discussion about the various types of blackwood reminds me of an incident a little while ago. I bit 4NT and my partner responded 5♦, at the same time alerting my opponents via the official alert box, but not me, that this meant "no aces". Now both our cards simply identified "blackwood", no indication of "1403" or anything of the sort. To me this implies standard blackwood. So I of course took it as "one ace" and bid an unmakeable slam. To deliberately alert opponents that he was misleading me, was way out of order, I think. At any rate, I was - slightly - annoyed!

Whatever: that player hasn't played with me since - and I'm not likely to accept them as partner.... One has to draw the line somewhere!

But as I said, that person's very much the 'exception that proves the rule'. Most people in the Acol room seem to be honest enough.

[1eyedjack]

I have no doubt that he genuinely thought, albeit mistakenly and without justification, that 5D showed no Aces. Perhaps he thought (again in error) that he had discussed it with you in the past. Perhaps he plays 1430 so regularly that he knee-jerked it this time. Whatever, if he had no aces, and if he thought that 5D showed no aces, then he was absolutely correct to advise the opponents, without advising you, of that fact. I very much doubt that he bid it to mislead you. To resolve never to play together again as a result is of course your prerogative. There is no shortage of players out there to fill the gap. But I can't help thinking that it is a bit of an overreaction, and who knows if you gave it a bit more slack you might enjoy having that partner. Or there may have been other undercurrents, of course. I wasn't there.