[bluejak]

If all your calls are made with the expectation that partner will understand you are a very lucky or very clever player. It certainly does not happen to me! To be honest, I would be very surprised if it was really true for you. There are so many sequences and so many hands, and with non-regular partners so many undiscussed sequences that I really believe truthfully that, like most people, every so often you make a call and just hope partner sees it one way. But if it is a hope then it is not an agreement.

[Zelandakh]

TimG, on 2012-February-25, 16:19, said:

I agree, but think we are in the minority. If I make an artificial (or natural) bid, it is with the expectation that partner will understand. That expectation, to me, amounts to an implicit agreement and must be disclosed. I understand that others will disagree about whether an "expectation" amounts to an "implicit agreement" or even whether making a bid carries with it an "expectation of understanding". But, I have no problem erring on the side of telling the opponents more than they are technically entitled to.

Let us say under your (and mich's) rules that I bid the fourth suit, hearts say, and say it is natural. My partner, who is not in on the joke, thinks this is asking for a stopper and ends up declaring 3NT. 3NT should go down but the defence err thinking declarer does not have heart support. Are they entitled to redress now for misinformation? After all, my explanation suggests we have an agreement whereas in truth we do not.

The BBO rules make it explicitly clear that "no agreement" is a perfectly acceptable answer if your side does in fact not have an agreement. I obviously make every bid with the hope that partner will understand it. That does mean there is an agreement in place and opponents are entitled to know that we are winging it without any agreements.

[ArtK78]

TimG, on 2012-February-25, 16:19, said:

I agree, but think we are in the minority. If I make an artificial (or natural) bid, it is with the expectation that partner will understand. That expectation, to me, amounts to an implicit agreement and must be disclosed. I understand that others will disagree about whether an "expectation" amounts to an "implicit agreement" or even whether making a bid carries with it an "expectation of understanding". But, I have no problem erring on the side of telling the opponents more than they are technically entitled to.

With all due respect, your "expectation" does not amount to an agreement. If you want to inform your opps that you expect a bid to mean x you must also inform them that this is not based on any explicit agreement. And this explanation to your opps must be done in a manner so as not to inform your partner of your "expectation." An online environment is good for this. In f2f play, you would have to have your partner excused from the table in order to inform the opps of your "expectation."

[TimG]

ArtK78, on 2012-February-27, 09:34, said:

An online environment is good for this. In f2f play, you would have to have your partner excused from the table in order to inform the opps of your "expectation."

Art, in my post, I took care to bold this quoted passage: "In an environment where self alerts apply (Online or F2F with screens)".

Zelandakh, I am not overly concerned with the scenario you present. The defenders will only be guessing once if I tell them what I intend as opposed to guessing twice if neither my partner nor I tell them what is expected or intended. In practice, I can describe the call with a preface such as "intended as" so that the opponents understand we may not be on real firm ground. But, the opponents would likely understand that to be the case in an individual tournament anyway. In an event being played behind screens, I doubt there is much call for "no agreement", even if there is no implicit agreement, almost all partnerships will have some experience together that will lend itself to some sort of explanation for the opponents.

Tim

[olegru]

In a self-alerted environment if:
1. We have an agreement (explicit or implicit) I will alert and explain agreement;
2. We have no agreement, but I have reasonable expectation that partner has better chances compare to opponents to understand my bid correctly I will always alert and explain “I hope it is …”
3. Chances for opponents to get my bid correct are as good as my partners there is no any obligations to me to give opponents unfair advantage by providing additional information compare to my partner. Sometimes I can make selfalert and put “no agreement” in the box. But that is it.

In BBO games third case at least as often as any of others.
By the way there is a good term used in the editorial article of the latest TBW to descried policy you are advocating “ethical unsportsmanlike dumping.”

[jillybean]

ArtK78, on 2012-February-27, 09:34, said:

With all due respect, your "expectation" does not amount to an agreement. If you want to inform your opps that you expect a bid to mean x you must also inform them that this is not based on any explicit agreement. And this explanation to your opps must be done in a manner so as not to inform your partner of your "expectation." An online environment is good for this. In f2f play, you would have to have your partner excused from the table in order to inform the opps of your "expectation."

f2f play your partner would be explaining the bid, not you.
If I am "forced" to explain a bid where I have no agreement, I explain it to the table. My partner is then privy to the same information the opponents have.

[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2012-February-27, 17:49, said:

f2f play your partner would be explaining the bid, not you.
If I am "forced" to explain a bid where I have no agreement, I explain it to the table. My partner is then privy to the same information the opponents have.

Of course then your partner has UI. He may have the same information, but he's not in the same position - there's no restrictions on the opponents' use of the info.

[jillybean]

jillybean, on 2012-February-27, 17:49, said:

f2f play your partner would be explaining the bid, not you.
If I am "forced" to explain a bid where I have no agreement, I explain it to the table. My partner is then privy to the same information the opponents have.

blackshoe, on 2012-February-27, 19:12, said:

Of course then your partner has UI. He may have the same information, but he's not in the same position - there's no restrictions on the opponents' use of the info.

Not suprisingly, those who force players to explain their bids or hands to their opponents have no concept of UI.

[mycroft]

I repeat what I have said in another one:
Online, with self-Alerts, you make a call you hope your partner will get. You have no idea if he will - he's from Lunastan - but you hope. You don't Alert it because "no Agreement". Say there's one common Alertable meaning, one common non-Alertable one.

1) The intended meaning is non-Alertable, partner takes it as the non-Alertable meaning.
- the opponents actually have an advantage here guessing, because you didn't Alert it.
2) The intended meaning is non-Alertable, partner takes it as the Alertable meaning.
- tough luck, partner guessed wrong.
3) The intended meaning is Alertable, partner takes it as non-Alertable.
- Again, partner guessed wrong. Probably not a problem.
4) The intended meaning is Alertable, partner takes it as Alertable.
- the opponents are *never going to get this one*, because you *didn't Alert it*.

I totally understand those who don't want to have to give information to the opponents partner doesn't have, but unfortunately, the self-Alert structure is such that you're *doing it anyway*. So, I drop back to "I'm going to assume partner's going to get my call; my call (if partner gets it) has an Alertable meaning; I'll Alert it." vice "non-Alertable/not Alert". I'm of the opinion that that's more in the spirit of Full Disclosure, and *certainly* will cause less trouble after the fact, than the above alternative.

Alerting the call as "no agreement" would also work - if you immediately self-explain. Otherwise, in the common case I posited above, the opponents are going to assume you've Alerted it because it has the traditional Alertable meaning.

I guess I have a little more of a burr in my side about this one because, while we make a large number of "no agreement" calls with pickups, most people don't Alert the "no agreement, but I'm bidding it as natural" ones, so when there is a "no agreement" Alert, it is almost certainly "no agreement, but I'm bidding it as conventional". But I Could Be Wrong about that - it's just my feeling.

[TimG]

mycroft, on 2012-February-28, 13:01, said:

You don't Alert it because "no Agreement". Say there's one common Alertable meaning, one common non-Alertable one.

Don't your online alerts always come with an explanation?

[mycroft]

Mine do, certainly. Others? not so much.

(And technically, mine don't, always. If I'm in the middle of a crazy relay/asking bid auction, I'll alert the call, then go back and self-explain immediately, so that I'm using "other people's time" to write out what's going on.)