[tgphelps]

How exactly should I answer when an opponent asks me what my partner's bid means? I play at low-level events, and perhaps my partner isn't a very good player yet. Often, when I am asked that, we have no agreement about that bid, or perhaps we do have an agreement, but I doubt that she remembers what it is. I can sometimes guess what she meant by a bid, but I can't be sure. Or maybe we DO have an agreement, but *I* have forgotten it!

What am I required to say when I am asked about a bid? And also, what's the polite thing to do?

Also, when I want to ask an opponent what a bid means, how should I phrase the question? Perhaps there's a right and wrong way to ask.

[hrothgar]

 tgphelps, on 2024-July-22, 11:25, said:

How exactly should I answer when an opponent asks me what my partner's bid means?

A lot of regulations will vary depending on where you are playing, who is running the event, whether this is f2f or online.

> And also, what's the polite thing to do?

First and foremost, I think that its an enormous mistake to conflate aesthetics - for example what is "polite" - with the regulations.

For the most part, you probably don't want to be insulting your opponents or swearing at them. But don't confuse external claims about what you "should" do with the actual requirements. In particular, don't ever expect that third parties have any requirement to do so.

> What am I required to say when I am asked about a bid?

Assuming a F2F playing environment where you are playing with another human, you are typically required to explain your partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit. You should not speculate about what those agreements might be or how you are interpreting a given bid. Avoid Bayes like the plague.

If you can't remember, say so.
If you have no agreement, say so.

> Also, when I want to ask an opponent what a bid means, how should I phrase the question

Please explain your agreement regarding foo.

[DavidKok]

At the club level especially, "we have no agreement about this bid" is often the correct response. You are required to disclose what your partnership agreements are, not what you can deduce about partner's hand. The line between them is thin, and I prefer to overexplain (and have gotten penalties for that before), but the regulations state that you should not attempt to explain something when you know you have no agreement, or do not remember if you have an agreement. If the latter is the case and your side ends up declaring, partner will explain your agreement before the opening lead is made.

[blackshoe]

IMO, the best way to form a question about an auction or part of an auction is, if there was an alert (btw, an announcement is a kind of alert) ask "please explain", otherwise ask "please explain your auction". The latter avoids pinpointing interest in a particular call, reducing UI problems.

Agree with previous posters as to what to say when you don't know or don't have an agreement.

Note: if your opponents badger you with repeated questioning when you say you don't know or don't have an agreement, call the director.

If your partner gives an incorrect explanation and your side is declaring, call the director and in his presence correct the explanation after the final pass of the auction but before the opening lead is chosen. If your side is defending, call the director and in his presence correct the explanation after the play is over. If you realize during the auction that you have given an incorrect explanation, you must call the director and in his presence correct the explanation before the opening lead is faced. If you realize during the play that you have given an incorrect explanation, you must call the director and in his presence correct the explanation right away.

[mycroft]

All the responses are correct - in a F2F situation, partner (alerts and) answers questions. Just adding some Law numbers and some clarifications.

You are required to explain your agreements, "express or implied" (40A1, paraphrase). Your opponent "is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding." (20F1)

If your partner is someone who forgets agreements frequently, then that's an issue - and the director may get involved. But if they are your agreements, you explain them, whether or not you "doubt partner remembers what it is". If you don't have an agreement about this auction, but you do about a similar auction, you explain that ("we haven't discussed this, but without the double it would be..." or "no agreement, but 3♥ would be..." or whatever). I may be in the minority, but I believe that with any sort of regular partnership, "no agreement" is never sufficient because it is not complete. "No agreement, but [context you are going to use to guess what partner's done now]". There's almost always a "but" (even if it's "first time we've played, but from playing against him, his system is pretty natural").

If you have forgotten it (it does happen that one knows they have an agreement here, but can't remember what it is. Yes, even if you've been playing for 20 years!) then say so. "We have an agreement. I haven't got it yet" (followed by, once you do get it, "I remember now. Do you still want the information?")

In the ACBL (and this is a good suggestion wherever), the old Alert Procedures said "the proper question is 'please explain'." (as hrothgar said first). Supplementary questions can be more specific, if the response missed what you were concerned about.

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2024-July-28, 16:31, said:

In the ACBL (and this is a good suggestion wherever), the old Alert Procedures said "the proper question is 'please explain'." (as hrothgar said first). Supplementary questions can be more specific, if the response missed what you were concerned about.

Not just in the ACBL.
I am always wary if the question was more specific or suggested a possible explanation.
Alas, it is not an infraction which might have been more practical than "to elict a mistaken response" or "for the benefit of partner".