answering questions about my bid
Art Hoffman
Recently on OKB I held this hand: Ax, Qxx, Axx, AQTxx. Nonvul I overcalled
RHO's vul 1S opening with 2C. After 2 passes, RHO reopened with a Dbl. I
chose to RDBL and after 2 passes, RHO questioned me privately as to the
meaning of the RDBL. After a brief pause I answered "standard, no
conventional agreement". RHO was not happy with this answer as she wanted
to know what book I read where this bid was described. I felt that I wasn't
obligated to explain my bid further since RHO's profile indicated "expert".
Comments please.
ar...@concentric.net
Comments please.
--
Relayed from the OKbridge discussion list (dis...@okbridge.com)
OKbridge -- Bridge on the Internet -- http://www.okbridge.com
di...@michweb.net
I think your RHO was well within her rights. "Standard" has no meaning
unless one knows the reference. I strongly believe that an explaination
which uses a term ie Drury, Michaels, Lebensohl, etc is lazy and borders on
rudeness. The correct procedure IMNSHO (not so humble) is to explain the
meaning of the bid as below:
Drury - "Limit Raise not showing Clubs"
Michaels - "Takeout for Majors"
Lebensohl - "Relay to 3C - not promising clubs"
In the case mentioned I believe the correct explaination was "Penalty"
dick (vatter on ok)
Robin.M...@durham.ac.uk
ar...@concentric.net wrote:
: Recently on OKB I held this hand: Ax, Qxx, Axx, AQTxx. Nonvul I
overcalled
: RHO's vul 1S opening with 2C. After 2 passes, RHO reopened with a Dbl.
I
: chose to RDBL and after 2 passes, RHO questioned me privately as to the
: meaning of the RDBL. After a brief pause I answered "standard, no
: conventional agreement". RHO was not happy with this answer as she
wanted
: to know what book I read where this bid was described. I felt that I
wasn't
: obligated to explain my bid further since RHO's profile indicated
"expert".
: Comments please.
You are not obliged to tell oppo what your hand is, or even what you think
your bid means, or what you think it ought to mean, or what you think your
partner might take it too mean.
You are _only_ required to explain your agreements (either explicit, or
implicit through experience).
In a pick up partnership, it is common that you will have no agreements
beyond 'sayc' or 'okb 2/1'. In these circumstances this is what I tell
oppo:
'Sorry. No agreement- you have as little idea what my bid means as my
partner :-) '
Or similar.
All sensible players who understand the rules concerning explanation of
bids should be happy with this.
Those who are not, need to have it gently explained to them what the rules
say. Needless to say, they won't believe it.:-)
cheers,
Robin
san...@ix.netcom.com
It is unusual that a reply, such as the one that you gave, would be
mis-understood. I once further inquired, in an ACBL event, the bidders answer of
"standard", and was told that he did not need to teach me how to bid (so I let
him teach the director). When there is confusion by an opponent about the
explanation provided, I will expand my answer so that there is no
misunderstanding on the part of the opponent. You see, some people may think
that redouble is for rescue, rather than strength showing, and the answer you
provided could be misinterpreted. I do not wish an advantage due to the lack of
understanding of my bids by an opponent, they are entitled to know what my
partner knows!
Sandy Barnes
Art Hoffman wrote:
> Recently on OKB I held this hand: Ax, Qxx, Axx, AQTxx. Nonvul I overcalled
> RHO's vul 1S opening with 2C. After 2 passes, RHO reopened with a Dbl. I
> chose to RDBL and after 2 passes, RHO questioned me privately as to the
> meaning of the RDBL. After a brief pause I answered "standard, no
> conventional agreement". RHO was not happy with this answer as she wanted
> to know what book I read where this bid was described. I felt that I wasn't
> obligated to explain my bid further since RHO's profile indicated "expert".
>
> Comments please.
di...@michweb.net
One minor arguement about semantics. The opponents are entititled to know
what your partner should know as opposed to what he actually knows.
I've only played bridge for 37 years so can't say for all time, but for my
time the opponents have always had the right to ask the meaning of any bid
and the answer "Standard" has always been considered non-responsive.
dick (vatter on ok)
-----Original Message-----
A.J. Vlasblom
Art,
I would have given as an answer: "No conventional agreement" thinking: "Ik
lust jullie rauw" (dutch saying = "I like you raw"). Maybe your LHO has the
problem 'to bid or not to bid'. The same for your partner because there is
no agreement. If both pass then the expert has a problem. But I don't think
you have the obligation to reveal that your hand is strong enough to
redouble.
Greetings.
Fons.
Art Hoffman <ar...@concentric.net> schreef in artikel
<6fhrph$5...@examiner.concentric.net>...
anf...@multiweb.nl
--
gball
Art,
Think you are correct. There really isn't an agreed meaning to your redouble.
I personally would take it as a penalty redouble, but if partner thinks it is an
sos.......you feel strong enough to rebid 3 clubs.
Jill
ht...@mindspring.com
At 12:24 AM 3/28/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Recently on OKB I held this hand: Ax, Qxx, Axx, AQTxx. Nonvul I overcalled
>RHO's vul 1S opening with 2C. After 2 passes, RHO reopened with a Dbl. I
>chose to RDBL and after 2 passes, RHO questioned me privately as to the
>meaning of the RDBL. After a brief pause I answered "standard, no
>conventional agreement". RHO was not happy with this answer as she wanted
>to know what book I read where this bid was described. I felt that I wasn't
>obligated to explain my bid further since RHO's profile indicated "expert".
>
>Comments please.
>
You did exactly right in my book.
And any 'expert' who doesn't know a strength-showing redouble when s/he
hears it is rather suspect in that same book.
peace,
the wrong reverend henrysun
lehman presbyterian church, okb
fpsi...@worldnet.att.net
The concept is full disclosure. It is as if you were writing the textbook
on the situation. You tell your opponent what your partnership textbook
says. That the opponent claims to be an expert is irrelevant.
The current theory is that no one is required to know anything about what
you are doing and you are to tell them what your bids mean. This is not
quite the same as telling them what you have, but if you have what your
bids mean, it comes to the same thing.
The only problem I know with self alerting is when you intentionally
violate agreements. Then you hold one thing and describe another. Nothing
wrong with that. If you are honest.
Frank Silver
----------
> From: Art Hoffman <ar...@concentric.net>
> To: dis...@okbridge.com
> Subject: answering questions about my bid
> Date: Friday, March 27, 1998 10:24 PM
>
> Recently on OKB I held this hand: Ax, Qxx, Axx, AQTxx. Nonvul I
overcalled
> RHO's vul 1S opening with 2C. After 2 passes, RHO reopened with a Dbl.
I
> chose to RDBL and after 2 passes, RHO questioned me privately as to the
> meaning of the RDBL. After a brief pause I answered "standard, no
> conventional agreement". RHO was not happy with this answer as she
wanted
> to know what book I read where this bid was described. I felt that I
wasn't
> obligated to explain my bid further since RHO's profile indicated
"expert".
>
> Comments please.
>
>
>
tig...@idx.com.au
I disagree. The opponents are entitled to know your AGREEMENTS. They are
not entitled to benefit from your general bridge knowledge. If the
situation is undiscussed (experience with common partners, or partnership
experience with similar situations should be described as such) that's all
you have to, or indeed should, tell them. It's most improper to describe
agreements that you don't have, and it's not part of the game to describe
your HAND for opponents, just your AGREEMENTS.
If it's a regular partnership there would normally be some sort of
partnership style for the redouble, so that should be disclosed.
Kieran.
----------
> From: Franklin Silver <fpsi...@worldnet.att.net>
> To: Art Hoffman <ar...@concentric.net>; dis...@okbridge.com
> Subject: Re: answering questions about my bid
> Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 5:04
fpsi...@worldnet.att.net
You should tell your opponents what you expect your partner to know about
your redouble. Bridge is not like revenge, which is best served cold and
raw. You have your own 'book' on what your bids mean. Your opponents are
entitled to the book.
Now, this does not require you to follow the methods in your book. It does
require you to reveal those methods, whatever they may be.
Frank Silver
----------
> From: A.J. Vlasblom <anf...@multiweb.nl>
> To: dis...@okbridge.com
> Subject: Re: answering questions about my bid
> Date: Saturday, March 28, 1998 10:22 PM
>
> Art,
> I would have given as an answer: "No conventional agreement" thinking:
"Ik
> lust jullie rauw" (dutch saying = "I like you raw"). Maybe your LHO has
the
> problem 'to bid or not to bid'. The same for your partner because there
is
> no agreement. If both pass then the expert has a problem. But I don't
think
> you have the obligation to reveal that your hand is strong enough to
> redouble.
> Greetings.
> Fons.
>
> Art Hoffman <ar...@concentric.net> schreef in artikel
> <6fhrph$5...@examiner.concentric.net>...
fpsi...@worldnet.att.net
On the same line, every explanation should include the term natural or
artificial. The use of the name of a convention is not sufficient. Among
the reasons for that is not everybody plays the convention the same way.
There is nothing standard in bridge except for the opening bid of 7NT.
That means the bidder shall undertake to win all the tricks. Everything
else is variable, subject to opinion, is usually questionable and is
deserving of some explanation.
Frank Silver
----------
> From: Dick Vatter <di...@michweb.net>
> To: Art Hoffman <ar...@concentric.net>; dis...@okbridge.com
> Subject: Re: answering questions about my bid
> Date: Saturday, March 28, 1998 5:21 AM
>
> I think your RHO was well within her rights. "Standard" has no meaning
> unless one knows the reference. I strongly believe that an explaination
> which uses a term ie Drury, Michaels, Lebensohl, etc is lazy and borders
on
> rudeness. The correct procedure IMNSHO (not so humble) is to explain the
> meaning of the bid as below:
>
> Drury - "Limit Raise not showing Clubs"
> Michaels - "Takeout for Majors"
> Lebensohl - "Relay to 3C - not promising clubs"
>
> In the case mentioned I believe the correct explaination was "Penalty"
>
> dick (vatter on ok)
> -----Original Message-----
fpsi...@worldnet.att.net
Have to disagree with you, Robin. What partner might actually understand
or know is not really the issue. What he should understand or know is. In
the hand given, it is obvious that Arth thinks the redouble means a
stronger than normal overcall. If that is in fact what he thinks standard
is, that is what he should explain.
I would never expect the hand given because it has nowhere near 8 tricks in
it. To me standard would be a very strong hand expecting to win at least
seven tricks.
Clearly he and I have different ideas of standard.
The last time my partner redoubled, with a better hand than arth's, the
hand was limitted to 6 tricks. the minus 1000 was not quite our best
result. Partner did have a great looking 6-4. The layout was very
unlucky. Hearts broke 5-1-1. Tough.
So, explain what you think standard is. You will be amazed at what
different experts will say for each auction.
Frank Silver
----------
> From: Robin Michaels <Robin.M...@durham.ac.uk>
> To: dis...@okbridge.com
> Subject: Re: answering questions about my bid
> Date: Saturday, March 28, 1998 10:31 AM
>
> ar...@concentric.net wrote:
> : Recently on OKB I held this hand: Ax, Qxx, Axx, AQTxx. Nonvul I
> overcalled
> : RHO's vul 1S opening with 2C. After 2 passes, RHO reopened with a Dbl.
> I
> : chose to RDBL and after 2 passes, RHO questioned me privately as to the
> : meaning of the RDBL. After a brief pause I answered "standard, no
> : conventional agreement". RHO was not happy with this answer as she
> wanted
> : to know what book I read where this bid was described. I felt that I
> wasn't
> : obligated to explain my bid further since RHO's profile indicated
> "expert".
>
> : Comments please.
>
> You are not obliged to tell oppo what your hand is, or even what you
think
> your bid means, or what you think it ought to mean, or what you think
your
> partner might take it too mean.
> You are _only_ required to explain your agreements (either explicit, or
> implicit through experience).
> In a pick up partnership, it is common that you will have no agreements
> beyond 'sayc' or 'okb 2/1'. In these circumstances this is what I tell
> oppo:
> 'Sorry. No agreement- you have as little idea what my bid means as my
> partner :-) '
> Or similar.
> All sensible players who understand the rules concerning explanation of
> bids should be happy with this.
> Those who are not, need to have it gently explained to them what the
rules
> say. Needless to say, they won't believe it.:-)
>
> cheers,
> Robin
fpsi...@worldnet.att.net
We do not disagree by much. The problem is that general knowledge in one
geographical area, standard, is different from general knowledge in another
geographical area, also standard but quite different from the standard you
know.
Now it is a fine line to walk to decide what is the result of ones
expertise at analysis, the conclusions one draws from a sequence, and what
a sequence might mean. The opponents are entitled to what you believe the
sequence means. Your conclusions are your own, and are generally
influenced by the cards in your hands or other private information that you
have a right to.
The problem is in defining what an agreement is. Clearly most of the time
you make a call, it is with the expectation or hope that your partner will
understand what your bid means. If there is any real basis for that
expectation, then you are really obligated by the laws of the game to tell
your opponents what the bidding means. NOT WHAT YOU HOLD. What the
bidding is supposed to mean.
Until you come up with a universally accepted standard, it will be
necessary to either change the laws, or answer seemingly foolish or
simplistic questions that even someone self labeled as an expert might ask.
The laws require you to become a teacher for that instant.
Now, a week or so ago I had an auction that was effectively 1H 2C; 3H 5H,
6H. When queried about the raise to 5H, I explained that my 3H bid showed
an absolutely solid suit in a good hand, that I had no idea what the 5H bid
meant and that I thought my partner also had no idea what the bid meant but
was hoping I would bid a slam. When later asked, my partner said "I wanted
him to bid the slam, I wasn't strong enough to bid it myself".
Clearly I could have said standard, no agreement, etc. but, I do not think
those answers are ever right. And they always leave a bad feeling in the
ears, and hearts, of the questioner.
Frank Silver
----------
> From: Kieran Dyke <tig...@idx.com.au>
> To: fpsi...@worldnet.att.net; Art Hoffman <ar...@concentric.net>;
dis...@okbridge.com
> Subject: Re: answering questions about my bid
> Date: Sunday, March 29, 1998 9:09 PM
>
> I disagree. The opponents are entitled to know your AGREEMENTS. They are
> not entitled to benefit from your general bridge knowledge. If the
> situation is undiscussed (experience with common partners, or partnership
> experience with similar situations should be described as such) that's
all
> you have to, or indeed should, tell them. It's most improper to describe
> agreements that you don't have, and it's not part of the game to describe
> your HAND for opponents, just your AGREEMENTS.
>
> If it's a regular partnership there would normally be some sort of
> partnership style for the redouble, so that should be disclosed.
>
> Kieran.
>
> ----------
> > From: Franklin Silver <fpsi...@worldnet.att.net>
> > To: Art Hoffman <ar...@concentric.net>; dis...@okbridge.com
> > Subject: Re: answering questions about my bid
> > Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 5:04
> >
> > The concept is full disclosure. It is as if you were writing the
> textbook
> > on the situation. You tell your opponent what your partnership
textbook
> > says. That the opponent claims to be an expert is irrelevant.
> >
> > The current theory is that no one is required to know anything about
what
> > you are doing and you are to tell them what your bids mean. This is
not
> > quite the same as telling them what you have, but if you have what your
> > bids mean, it comes to the same thing.
> >
> > The only problem I know with self alerting is when you intentionally
> > violate agreements. Then you hold one thing and describe another.
> Nothing
> > wrong with that. If you are honest.
> >
> > Frank Silver
> >
> > ----------
> > > From: Art Hoffman <ar...@concentric.net>
> > > To: dis...@okbridge.com
> > > Subject: answering questions about my bid
> > > Date: Friday, March 27, 1998 10:24 PM
> > >
> > > Recently on OKB I held this hand: Ax, Qxx, Axx, AQTxx. Nonvul I
> > overcalled
> > > RHO's vul 1S opening with 2C. After 2 passes, RHO reopened with a
Dbl.
>
> > I
> > > chose to RDBL and after 2 passes, RHO questioned me privately as to
the
> > > meaning of the RDBL. After a brief pause I answered "standard, no
> > > conventional agreement". RHO was not happy with this answer as she
> > wanted
> > > to know what book I read where this bid was described. I felt that I
> > wasn't
> > > obligated to explain my bid further since RHO's profile indicated
> > "expert".
> > >
> > > Comments please.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
gb...@sprintmail.com
Art,
Think you are correct. There really isn't an agreed meaning to your redouble.
I personally would take it as a penalty redouble, but if partner thinks it is an
sos.......you feel strong enough to rebid 3 clubs.
Jill
ji...@lainet.com
I personally think this is not what the redouble means, but what the Pass
by partner means. I expect partner to pull when they don't have a penalty
pass of 2Cs, so the pass of the XX means the same thing.
Don't worry if the opponents have erred, rely on your partner's decision.
NOW, if your partner is unpredictable, that is not the 2C xx's fault.
There was no Alert, so it must mean extra values. Enough to want to play
2Cs XXed.
The hand in question did not qualify, but each person has their opinion.
jimm
----------
> From: Franklin Silver <fpsi...@worldnet.att.net>
> To: Kieran Dyke <tig...@idx.com.au>
> Cc: dis...@okbridge.com
> Subject: Re: answering questions about my bid
> Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 10:10 PM
renee...@worldnet.att.net
If you and partner have no agreement. Your response should be, "No
conventional agreement." or words that convey that, e.g. "No discussion" -
"We have not agreed on anything." If both partners get into the habit of
responding in this way, you will have fewer problems.
To say that it is standard is not quite acceptable. In the absence of an
alert, the opponent would assume it is standard. But if an opponent asks, he
might be asking something like - do you have a special agreement or
understanding.
dave...@gmail.com
> Recently on OKB I held this hand: Ax, Qxx, Axx, AQTxx. Nonvul I overcalled
> RHO's vul 1S opening with 2C. After 2 passes, RHO reopened with a Dbl. I
> chose to RDBL and after 2 passes, RHO questioned me privately as to the
> meaning of the RDBL. After a brief pause I answered "standard, no
> conventional agreement". RHO was not happy with this answer as she wanted
> to know what book I read where this bid was described. I felt that I wasn't
> obligated to explain my bid further since RHO's profile indicated "expert".
>
> Comments please.