BBO Discussion Forums: What will happen to the game of bridge if the requirement to disclose agreement is removed? - BBO Discussion Forums

In the game of bridge, we are required to disclose the agreements on our bidding and defense playing.

What will happen if this requirement is removed, such that the game is played with secret agreements that we don't need to disclose the meaning of our bids and defense playing to the opponents? I think it will be more interesting as without disclosure, the bidding systems will be designed in a way such that the communication can be done without opponents' guessing the meaning, while disrupting their bidding as possible. Also, it will be harder to deduce the opponent's holdings from the bidding, when all the meanings are kept secret, so you need to use your own communications, and make a guess on their biddings.

If you want to play without agreements in bidding or defense play in an Individual.
If you only want to play without agreements in defense play with the robots.
If you want to play with someone whose bidding and signals make no sense at all contact me.

An interesting concept, but feels like it'd just remove all aspects of skill and end up pure luck based.

It'd also make cheating impossible to detect, and therefore rampant.

pilowsky, on 2021-October-16, 15:35, said:

He's not suggesting removing agreements, just removing disclosure. So each side's bidding is a secret code.

I have an old friend who once suggested this, although AFAIK he was not a regular bridge player (although he seemed familiar with the game). His idea is that figuring out the opponents' code is another aspect of the game.

At first it would just be a guessing game, as Stephen said. But presumably if you play lots of boards against a pair, you'll eventually discover the patterns.

But except for high-level events where you play several dozen boards against the same team, you won't play enough boards against the same pair to be able to figure out the code, except perhaps for the common initial bids of auctions. But imagine playing against a pair playing a strong club -- if you only play 6-7 boards against them, there's a good chance that neither of them will ever get a chance to bid 1♣. It's even worse in a pair game, where you only play 2-3 boards against a pair.

It sounds like it would introduce more randomness, which I don't think is a good thing. In games of skill, the pairs who play best should be the ones winning on average, not the ones who manage to ride the wave of randomness.

barmar, on 2021-October-18, 15:57, said:

My point here is that in Individuals, although there is a specified code you can't be certain your partner will use it or knows it.


This raises the question: If I make a bid can I refuse to provide an explanation on the grounds that I am not aware that I have a specific agreement (say with a pick-up partner) even if I am hoping that my partner will interpret it as artificial (transfers).


I've played in multiple games where people ask me for information about the exact content of my hand as opposed to my expectation of what my partner will think my bid means on the basis of formal or informal understandings.


The problem is the meaning of the simple phrase "what does your bid mean?".

pilowsky, on 2021-October-18, 16:12, said:

You can be pretty sure they'll use something similar. No one would use Precision or Polish Club in an individual where the system is 2/1 or SAYC -- you'll hopelessly confuse your partner, and you're unlikely to get decent results.

Of course, few people know these systems completely, and they have room for variation between different pairs. In an individual, you should avoid using these bids because you can't be sure that even partner will understand, let alone the opponents.

But if you don't know the stated system at all, you just shouldn't enter the tournament. It would be like entering a debate tournament in a country where you don't speak the language.

Do CoC for Individual events always specify the methods to be used?

blackshoe, on 2021-October-20, 11:00, said:

The Scottish Bridge Union has a long history of running ranked individual events and provides the system card that must be used. It has a reasonable amount of detail, varying by the target audience (the novice card is fairly empty after opening bids).

I expect nige1 has won such an individual and come last in it too I can think of nothing worse than playing in it!


Everyone is supposed to play the card and a regular partnership will be fined if they play their own methods that are not on the card.

paulg, on 2021-October-20, 14:04, said:

Why can you think of nothing worse than playing in it, even with a smile?
Sounds like good fun and an unusually meaningful competition to me.

When I tried running a similar event online in my club, the results were far from random and consistently correlated with my assessment of individual ability, except for a few of the better players who fluffed it for one reason or another (some of them were the least familiar with the chosen system, which is probably not typical of other individuals).

Individual events are almost unheard of in ACBL.

The New England region used to run an annual Individual Regional, but it was discontinued about 5 years ago due to waning attendance. It didn't have a prescribed convention card -- each round started with one of the players in each partnership (typically the weaker one) offering a CC for the other to play (I think the CoC allowed consulting the CC during the bidding). AFAIK, there are no other individuals at tournament level.

My pre-COVID club also ran a couple of individual events each year. We had a prescribed CC, but it had a bunch of conventions marked in red that were optional. The players would quickly agree which, if any, of the red conventions they would include (the strong players could be assumed to be familiar with all of them, so the weaker player would usually declare what they'll play).

what it will do is disconnect the two sides, like an uncoupled system of equations. Another analogy would be two conversations going on at the same time in a crowded noisy bar. It would remove a lot of UI and MI, but I'm not sure it would be as interesting a game.

There would be a lot of people playing in 3-0 fits?

Playing online bridge I would like to know What will happen to the game of bridge if the requirement to disclose agreement is enforced?

glen, on 2021-November-02, 04:18, said:

It would become a better game.
But don't hold your breath.

pescetom, on 2021-November-03, 16:19, said:

The key problem is that hardly anyone knows what the penalties are. Directors included.
If there aren't any consequences then it isn't a 'law', it's a vague 'guideline'.


I don't know what happens at your club or if my personal experience is too limited, but here are some questions from real-life situations in Club Bridge.
For each one, can you tell me what the penalty for failure to comply is, and when and who is responsible for calling the Director?
1. Failure to announce that a 1♣ opening is 'short', 'better minor' or strong.
2. Failure to alert that 2♦ in a Stayman sequence is "no 5CM".
3. Failure to announce that a response of 1 Major in a Stayman sequence specifically means a 5CM and not a 4CM.
4. Failure to alert the specific meaning of 2NT or 3x over one major is Jacoby or artificial Bergen.
5. Failure to explain a series of artificial cue bids before the opening lead.

All of these situations happen regularly, and when attention is called to them, nothing happens.

barmar, on 2021-November-01, 16:06, said:

Possibly next the waning attendance was due to people having to use multiple convention cards, and of course the more thoroughly written ones will confer an advantage. Better to prescribe one CC, and then you don’t even have to break the Laws by consulting your own - you can look at the opponents’!

pilowsky, on 2021-November-03, 16:50, said:

In your 2&3, I suspect that it is the 5-card Stayman bid that must be alerted; this is the norm in most jurisdictions.

As to your 5, it is also the norm that bids above 3NT, after the first round of the bidding, are not alertable.

5-card Stayman: Ah, but not in ACBL or NZ at least (not sure about Oz). Explicitly so that opener can't tell responder what his rebid will mean by Alert of lack thereof. If both are Alertable because "simplicity", of course, then we're back in the same boat.

To answer the original question: it is the responsibility of everyone at the table, when attention has been drawn to an irregularity, to call the Director. Misexplanations - including failures to Alert or explain as required - are irregularities.
The Director will adjust if the misinformation caused damage. There is usually no defined penalty for misinformation - which I admit is an issue, because there's no education for the "everybody knows, who cares about the 'forced noise'?" people - who will feel justified if we rule "you weren't misinformed, you knew" or "you were misinformed, but there was no damage", and aggressively hard done by if we rule "you failed to do something technically required, but 'everybody knows', and despite the fact these people also play this, they were misinformed, and were damaged".

I expect to see a lot of this in the next few weeks as our local gets back to face-to-face play, for the first time under the new Alert regulations.

pilowsky, on 2021-November-03, 16:50, said:

As mycroft said, it is the responsibility of all players to call the director when an irregularity occurs.
These 5 situations depend upon national regulations and of course some situations are easier to regulate than others (Stayman is an inherent sore spot).
TDs also have discretion about penalties and are often reluctant to issue them in a club situation.
In my club:
1. a mild reprimand, but a penalty after 3-4 times
2. a reprimand, penalty next time
3. like 2
4. like 1 (but an alert is due for any non-natural meaning, not just specific meanings)
5. no action (no alert required above 3NT beyond first round, players in doubt about high level bids are encouraged to ask 'please explain the auction').