[eagles123]

from BBO:

random opp with nothing in their profile opens something that could be just about anything, i.e. 2D

you click on it and get the oh so helpful alert:

"natural"

[diana_eva]

eagles123, on 2015-January-18, 14:27, said:

from BBO:

random opp with nothing in their profile opens something that could be just about anything, i.e. 2D

you click on it and get the oh so helpful alert:

"natural"

If both opps are random it's fair enough At least you found out it wasn't multi or some strong artificial opener.

Yep, natural must be the most common explanation I ever get when I ask. Or "forcing" if it's something that most likely is not natural, but we don't know what it is. I rarely ask though, given the random partnerships that happen on BBO. There's a 99% chance the bid is undiscussed, so it's pointless to ask.

[gordontd]

eagles123, on 2015-January-18, 14:27, said:

from BBO:

random opp with nothing in their profile opens something that could be just about anything, i.e. 2D

you click on it and get the oh so helpful alert:

"natural"

Do you really not now know how to treat it?

[mr1303]

At least you don't get "No information available"

[Zelandakh]

gordontd, on 2015-January-18, 15:30, said:

Do you really not now know how to treat it?

In the Acol Club, no; could easily be weak or strong. In MBC it is less of an issue. But Roland's point is that it is clear it is natural - otherwise the player would have already alerted it - so it is equally clear to give the strength here. So it is the Answerer that is being obtuse and that deserves the criticism.

It is worse when the opposing pair is not pick-up. I had a similar thing happen from the "lady" of a husband-wife partnership in the last non-Club tournament I played; the difference being that her explanation (to my partner) was given in the most condascending tone I have ever heard at the bridge table. Not the only incident from her either. In a tournament one has no choice about opps...but you will forgive me for not wanting to play against such people on BBO.

Is it not simple enough either to give a short description of the agreement or write words to the effect of "no agreement"? There is not a jurisdiction in the world where "natural" is full disclosure so why expect it to be sufficient on BBO?

[helene_t]

I can't get get excited about it. Plenty of opps have limited command of the English language, limited understanding of their local disclosure procedures and even less understanding about disclosure in an international online environment.

I have had someone capslock-yelling at me for calling the TD after he failed to alert a 3♣ response to a 1NT opening which later turned out to be a transfer to diamonds. Apparently, 3♣->♦ is standard and non-alertable in his local jurisdiction so it is understandable that it didn't occur to him to alert it, he probably wasn't aware that alert procedure is a matter of regulation rather than law. Even so, I thought that I was entitled to know that I could have made a lead directing double.

If someone says "natural", you can just ask "weak or strong?". But maybe a natural strong 2♦ opening should be treated as weak since some opps open a strong two one AKQxxxxx and out.

[barmar]

Many players know that there are artificial uses of 2♦ -- they've heard of Flannery or Multi. But they probably don't realize that there are some places where the usual strength of natural 2-level calls is different from what they play, so they don't know that you might need this level of detail.

[ggwhiz]

I'm more often on the other side 1nt by them, I bid 2♣ alerted as majors and am asked 3 more times to clarify and do so ad nauseum. I've also had my lightish 3rd seat opener at the 1 level or simple overcall queried multiple times.

At least with your example a private chat of "strength?" should clear it up or reveal the bidder as clueless

[TylerE]

Alternatively, it's a pet peeve of mine when opponents are playing the "click" defense to a weak 2... click on the unalerted 2 bid shows almost a takeout double.

[cherdano]

TylerE, on 2015-January-19, 18:29, said:

Alternatively, it's a pet peeve of mine when opponents are playing the "click" defense to a weak 2... click on the unalerted 2 bid shows almost a takeout double.

But that's easy to defend - just explain your bids without prompting.

[kuhchung]

?????????????????

[TylerE]

cherdano, on 2015-January-19, 18:39, said:

But that's easy to defend - just explain your bids without prompting.

That doesn't help, at least on the Windows client. If they click the bid you will be prompted again and they will still see and hear the re-alert.

[Bbradley62]

ggwhiz, on 2015-January-19, 09:29, said:

I'm more often on the other side 1nt by them, I bid 2♣ alerted as majors and am asked 3 more times to clarify and do so ad nauseum. I've also had my lightish 3rd seat opener at the 1 level or simple overcall queried multiple times.

At least with your example a private chat of "strength?" should clear it up or reveal the bidder as clueless

Except in a club game where "everyone plays the same", or in a high-level event, explaining 2♣ simply as "majors" is completely unacceptable. Your initial explanation should include minimum length in the majors as well as some indication of strength range. You deserve follow-up questions if this is how you explain things.

[ArtK78]

Bbradley62, on 2015-January-20, 11:44, said:

Except in a club game where "everyone plays the same", or in a high-level event, explaining 2♣ simply as "majors" is completely unacceptable. Your initial explanation should include minimum length in the majors as well as some indication of strength range. You deserve follow-up questions if this is how you explain things.

Really? I bet that the explanation "majors" is entirely acceptable UNLESS the partnership understanding places restrictions upon the strength of the hand that would be unexpected. Say, for example, that it would be acceptable for a particular partnership to bid 2♣ on xxxx xxxx xx xxx. That would require additional explanation.

[ArtK78]

TylerE, on 2015-January-19, 18:29, said:

Alternatively, it's a pet peeve of mine when opponents are playing the "click" defense to a weak 2... click on the unalerted 2 bid shows almost a takeout double.

Considering that the click on the bid is not visible to the "clicker's" partner, I do not see your point.

Yes, the subsequent explanation is visible to both opponents (assuming there is a subsequent explanation), but the "clicker's" partner will not know that the explanation was prompted by a request by the clicker.

[mycroft]

When very few things are generating explanations, and then this one does, we all know what happened.
when it comes up "preemptive, 6+", and then flashes again, "preemptive, 6+", we all know what happened.

Even if we don't know, we "know", and bid accordingly. Pattern-matching, we is built for it.

FtF, this is the same as "if I ask about 2♦ and bid, I'm borderline; if I just bid, I have my bid." Not so much ask-and-pass, because there are those who have been burned once, so "always" ask - but I bet even they don't with the kind of hand that wouldn't be surprised if it were Flannery.

[helene_t]

I wouldn't worry about that kind of cheating. If opps really want to exchange can use a phone or google chat or whatever. Maybe some are influenced by partner's tanking or by the timing of opps' announcing but in any case it will be much less of an issue online than IRL, where you can also hear partner's questions, see the way he holds his cards etc.

[mycroft]

My problem with it is that it's not "cheating" - if opps really want to collude, they can, and I hope we run them out of the game. But people will ask about the calls that interest them, and the explanation popping up will influence the choice of partner's actions, all without anyone planning anything or any discussion with partner - or even knowledge after the fact that there was any influence at all. It's *just* like the WeaSeL defence to unAnnounced NTs (and preempts) - nobody is claiming that there's any intent in it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, or that it isn't effective.

[helene_t]

Even if you can assume that the explanation is a response to partner's query, you can't know why he queried. He might just ask out of general interest or he might have a weak hand and wanted to preempt if it was strong. That he has a hand that might act over a natural weak two and then passes after it is confirmed that it is a natural weak two is illogical although I suppose it is possible.

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2015-January-21, 02:29, said:

Even if you can assume that the explanation is a response to partner's query, you can't know why he queried. He might just ask out of general interest or he might have a weak hand and wanted to preempt if it was strong. That he has a hand that might act over a natural weak two and then passes after it is confirmed that it is a natural weak two is illogical although I suppose it is possible.

If you know your partner's tendencies, it's not hard to infer why he asked.

But I think you'll drive yourself crazy if you assume the worst every time an opponent asks for clarification. BBO is full of people of all different abilities, or coming from different locations. I think you'll be happier if you assume reasonable motives. Once in a while you might get fixed as a result -- shrug it off. It's just a game, not life and death.