[blackshoe]

I think that if a player wishes to give his opponents more information than that to which they are legally entitled, and those opponents wish to give that information to the player's partner when they are not required to do so, that's up to them. I think that players who put pressure on a player to act in this way are acting unethically, because the current laws do not support it.

If you wish to discuss how the laws should be changed, there is another forum here for that.

[RMB1]

 mich-b, on 2011-January-25, 02:09, said:

The spirit of the game is "you make a bid, all 3 other players understand its meaning , and proceed using this information to the best of their ability" rather than "you make a bid , nobody knows what it means , everybody take their best guess, and proceed playing the hand in the dark".

I disagree. The spirit of the game (as played historically, in rubber bridge, and now online) is that one player makes a bid that suggests playing in that contract and others use their general bridge knowledge to work out what he is likely to hold.

[Free]

I'm not sure which position to take in this matter. Pran has a point, but so does WellSpyder imo. Partner has to guess while opps get a full explanation, it just doesn't seem right.

So, a question to pran.

Suppose you play the first time together, the auction starts with South 3♥-(Dbl)-3♠*-(p)-4♥-(p)-p-(p) (*=psych). West asks what 3♠ meant, South responds they don't have an agreement and that it could be either control, or natural, or even transfer since they play 1♥-(Dbl)-1♠ as transfer. This is obviously no explanation of the call, so West asks North to explain the "information intended" by the 3♠ call. Should North now explain he intended the call natural / that he intended it natural and psyched / that he psyched?

[karlson]

I think that Pran has a very reasonable point, though perhaps taken to an extreme.

I've definitely seen situations where two players technically haven't had any system discussion, but they both know that the other plays convention/treatment X with all of his other regular partners (and say they both know that the other knows this). Can it really be fair to say that it's undiscussed when it comes up?

Similarly with bluejak's example, perhaps it's general bridge knowledge in the UK that 1N is 12-14, but to someone from across the ocean, it might be quite surprising.

It doesn't seem fair to categorize something as general bridge knowledge when the source of the knowledge is experience playing with the same partners, in the same club, or even in the same general geographical area.

[bluejak]

Of course the Laws do not support this, thank goodness. It is a terrible idea, against the spirit of the game, and is just another attempt to depersonalise the game and make it a computer game. It isn't.

In an awful lot of bridge people do not know what is going ion for a variety of reasons. You would spoil this game, and make it just another geek game, by trying to take this away from the game.

As for doing it illegally as you suggest, this is deliberately giving information to partner, and any player who does so should be penalised heavily.

[jschafer]

Thanks for all the responses, they have been interesting to read! Unlike what the OP suggests, when playing against weaker pairs I do agree with the sentiments expressed about disclosing more (than legally obligated) in the spirit of the game. I got quite defensive after what they said and usually I am on the opposite end of the spectrum, over-disclosing rather than strictly what is required legally.

Here my opponents were stronger than my partner and I am relatively sure they knew about the disclosure regulations and the meaning of 3♦ (they knew my p was a beginner and that I would be crazy to assume fit jumps or splinters in a situation like this). I already mentioned normally I would be happy to volunteer a description of 3♦ but I really didn't like their approach of trying to figure out what 3♦ was. First grilling my partner (who was a beginner but had given the correct explanation for 3♦!) and then forcing me to say what I actually held, claiming it was a bridge law. If I am not legally required to share this information, they either knew this wasn't legally obligated in which case I think their behaviour is highly unethical or they were genuinely mistaken and in that case they shouldn't claim it to be a bridge law unless they are certain. I know that the attitude of the opponents shouldn't affect my behaviour at the bridge table but sometimes it is hard not to be defensive when opponents are attempting to influence your game by trying to be intimidating

[jh51]

This discussion reminds me of a situation I was involved with in a club game (in the US) some time ago. I don't recall all the details, but either I or my partner bid a suit during the auction, which was later cue bid by my LHO. RHO became declarer in 3NT and I was on lead. It was relevant to me to know whether the cue bid was showing or asking for a stopper, so I asked RHO. His response was "I am not sure, but I think ...". Since there was ambiguity as to what the agreement was, I asked LHO what in fact their agreement was. His response was that I am not entitled to know what he has in his hand. I think I dic call the director, but I don't recall what happened thereafter.

I felt I was entitled to know the opponents agreement even if one of the pair had forgotten. This was a pair that played together regularly, so I doubted there was no agreement (and that was not what LHO said). I did not feel I was asking what was in his hand (although if the agreement was that it showed a stopper, it would be revealing).

Was I entitled to receive a proper explanation of the cue bid?

[barmar]

 karlson, on 2011-January-25, 04:36, said:

I've definitely seen situations where two players technically haven't had any system discussion, but they both know that the other plays convention/treatment X with all of his other regular partners (and say they both know that the other knows this). Can it really be fair to say that it's undiscussed when it comes up?

I may play an unusual convention with my regular partners, but that doesn't mean I'll spring it on a new partner without discussion. And I wouldn't expect them to assume I'm doing so.

But maybe you're talking about something that's pretty common. If I'm playing with an advanced partner, and time is short when we're discussing systems, I probably wouldn't even mention something like Western Cue Bids, it's just something I assume all good players will recognize. On the other hand, I don't consider it GBK -- if I'm playing against flight C players, I wouldn't expect them to know about it, and will happily explain it if it comes up.

[pran]

 jh51, on 2011-January-25, 14:44, said:

This discussion reminds me of a situation I was involved with in a club game (in the US) some time ago. I don't recall all the details, but either I or my partner bid a suit during the auction, which was later cue bid by my LHO. RHO became declarer in 3NT and I was on lead. It was relevant to me to know whether the cue bid was showing or asking for a stopper, so I asked RHO. His response was "I am not sure, but I think ...". Since there was ambiguity as to what the agreement was, I asked LHO what in fact their agreement was. His response was that I am not entitled to know what he has in his hand. I think I dic call the director, but I don't recall what happened thereafter.

I felt I was entitled to know the opponents agreement even if one of the pair had forgotten. This was a pair that played together regularly, so I doubted there was no agreement (and that was not what LHO said). I did not feel I was asking what was in his hand (although if the agreement was that it showed a stopper, it would be revealing).

Was I entitled to receive a proper explanation of the cue bid?

Sure, see Law 20F5{b} - {ii}
Presumed declarer and his partner are jointly responsible for correct explanation being given to presumed defenders after the closing pass and before the opening lead is made face down.

If either presumed declarer or his partner thinks that his partner has given an incorrect (including incomplete) explanation during the auction or the clarification period then he must on his own initiative call the director (sometimes ignored) and then make sure that opponents receive correct and complete explanation.

[FrancesHinden]

 jh51, on 2011-January-25, 14:44, said:

This discussion reminds me of a situation I was involved with in a club game (in the US) some time ago. I don't recall all the details, but either I or my partner bid a suit during the auction, which was later cue bid by my LHO. RHO became declarer in 3NT and I was on lead. It was relevant to me to know whether the cue bid was showing or asking for a stopper, so I asked RHO. His response was "I am not sure, but I think ...". Since there was ambiguity as to what the agreement was, I asked LHO what in fact their agreement was. His response was that I am not entitled to know what he has in his hand. I think I dic call the director, but I don't recall what happened thereafter.

I felt I was entitled to know the opponents agreement even if one of the pair had forgotten. This was a pair that played together regularly, so I doubted there was no agreement (and that was not what LHO said). I did not feel I was asking what was in his hand (although if the agreement was that it showed a stopper, it would be revealing).

Was I entitled to receive a proper explanation of the cue bid?

You're entitled to know what their agreement was. He's right, you aren't entitled to know what's in his hand.

[FrancesHinden]

 karlson, on 2011-January-25, 04:36, said:

I think that Pran has a very reasonable point, though perhaps taken to an extreme.

I've definitely seen situations where two players technically haven't had any system discussion, but they both know that the other plays convention/treatment X with all of his other regular partners (and say they both know that the other knows this). Can it really be fair to say that it's undiscussed when it comes up?

Similarly with bluejak's example, perhaps it's general bridge knowledge in the UK that 1N is 12-14, but to someone from across the ocean, it might be quite surprising.

It doesn't seem fair to categorize something as general bridge knowledge when the source of the knowledge is experience playing with the same partners, in the same club, or even in the same general geographical area.

I agree with this. I hate using "GBK" as an excuse for not disclosing an agreement early in the auction.
I recently played 8 boards (the last set of a Gold Cup match) with someone I'd never played with before. Our system discussion went as far as "weak NT, 5-card majors, standard leads, signals and discards, otherwise whatever's obvious". There was lots of stuff I assumed we were playing (Stayman, red suit transfers....). When the first board started (1S) 2S I alerted it, explained the level of our agreements, and said it was virtually certain to be hearts + a minor. As I already knew that half the opponents were playing a direct cue as the old-fashioned "any very strong hand" I certainly was not going to claim that Michaels was "GBK"


I sometimes explain a call as "we haven't discussed this, but I know he plays it as X with my husband", or "we haven't discussed this particular auction, but we play a similar sequence as Y". My partner once explained my call as "According to the system file this means X, but the auction has never come up before so she may not have remembered" (I had!). On the original auction that started the thread, you should disclose if you have discussed what 2D would mean, and what a jump to 3D would mean not in competition. But you aren't obliged to say what's in your hand.

[blackshoe]

 FrancesHinden, on 2011-January-29, 06:01, said:

You're entitled to know what their agreement was. He's right, you aren't entitled to know what's in his hand.

He didn't ask what was in the opponent's hand, he asked "what in fact their agreement was". As you say, he is entitled to know that, and for the opponent to decline to answer on the completely irrelevant grounds that "you're not entitled to know what's in my hand" is grounds for a PP, in my opinion.

[Trinidad]

 FrancesHinden, on 2011-January-29, 06:01, said:

You're entitled to know what their agreement was. He's right, you aren't entitled to know what's in his hand.

 blackshoe, on 2011-January-29, 07:19, said:

He didn't ask what was in the opponent's hand, he asked "what in fact their agreement was". As you say, he is entitled to know that, and for the opponent to decline to answer on the completely irrelevant grounds that "you're not entitled to know what's in my hand" is grounds for a PP, in my opinion.

I think it is grounds for some education by the TD. I am opposed to giving PPs for offenses that are most likely caused by ignorance.

Rik

[blackshoe]

"Possibly" caused by ignorance I'll buy. "Most likely" is an overbid.