[avoscill]

We play an unusual system where responder is able to quickly delimit his hand, on which opener often gives a signoff or an invitation. When the opponents ask me, as reponder, to explain opener's bid, I simply answer that his bid is to play (or invitational, depending on the auction), but a few players, at our local tournements, are not satisfied with that answer. They insist that I should tell them exactly how many points has the opener shown. Now, it is true that I may infer, from what I have shown to him, the strength range he should have for his bid, but so can they. But why should I do the arithmetics for my opponents? Not to speak of the fact, known to every bridge player, that HCPs are not the only factor determining a hand's evaluation. Since responder, being a "slave" at this point of the auction, doesn't have to know opener's strength, and opener obviously sees all of his cards - this data is undefined in principle.

As I see it, the above described situations are perfectly equivalent to this simple invitational sequence, common in standard bidding systems:

---

I am pretty confident that, after hearing that 3♠ is invitational, nobody would dream about enquiring about opener's strength. Opener's 3♠ bid was not meant to show anything; it simply gave instructions to the responder, namely to pass with a minimum, bid game with a maximum. When I point out this to them, they argue that, since they are thrown in uncommon bidding situations, they have the right to be given this data. I am aware mine is just a question of principle, but please help me settle it by indicating how it would be ruled by the bridge Laws.

[steve2005]

point counters love pt ranges. so give them a range, you probably have a wide range so they still wont be satisfied.

[1eyedjack]

I can sort of sympathise with your opponents. Your problem is that you are playing a system that is unfamiliar to them, possibly to the point of being utterly alien. In those circumstances you have to go the extra mile, or at least attempt to do so, when giving explanations. Your expressed example is not a good analogy because the opponents will have a good understanding already of the requirements of the 1S opener and 2S raise, so the arithmetic of analysing 3S is not an onerous burden.

[billw55]

An example auction would be helpful.

[nige1]

I disagree with avoscii's argument. If your partnership play unusual methods, opponents are unlikely to understand the cumulative meaning of a sequence of calls or deduce negative inferences available. IMO the law-book should stipulate that, when asked, you must divulge the likely strength and shape (and any other details) of partner's hand, as revealed by his calls.

[avoscill]

billw55, on 2015-July-15, 06:46, said:

An example auction would be helpful.

Here is a typical sequence where I am having problems (with one pair in our club):

---

1♥ is artificial, just showing a balanced hands without 4-card majors, 12+ HCP;
1♠ is also artificial, showing either a negative (0-5) or a limit hand (about 9-11), any shape;
1NT is to play in front the a negative and balanced responder (if the weak responder has a 5+card suit, he will have the means to place the contract there).

How many points does opener have at his point? The lower limit is still 12, but he may be as strong as 20 HCP. In fact he may be even stronger. With a flat 22-count like AQx AQx AQxx KJxx, he may well judge that even if partner contribute with some 4-5 HCP, prospects for game in notrump would be poor. My opponents would like to hear me name explicitly the upper limit of opener's hand. I don't bother about that upper limit, and our convention card doesn't specify it. This problem regards exclusively the opener. If 1NT comes to an opponent in the protective position, he disposes of all the information he is entitled to about opener's hand.

Say reponder doesn't pass but bids 2♦ instead, showing 5+ diamonds and 24-28 ZAR points (about 9-11 HCP). If opener raises to 3D, I explain this as invitational, but again my opponents want to hear the number of his HCPs. This time I find it even more difficulty in determining that number, for he may aim at the notrump game (satisfied to play in a 4♦ partial with an unstopped major) as well as at game in diamonds (e.g. holding four or five trumps and a small doubleton). I repeat, I feel somewhat uneasy in having to speculate about what shows a bid which is in reality a requirement given to partner:

• I order you to pass if 0-5 balanced (1NT)
  
• Pass with a minimum, go ahead with a maximum (3♦)

[helene_t]

You should try to be as helpful as possible. Sometimes "invitational opposite my 9-11" is the best you can do. But in the first example I think something like "12-20" would be better.

[Zelandakh]

"To play opposite 0-5 balanced, typically a balanced hand up to 20hcp or so." Why would you want to make life any more difficult than it already is for your opponents. I believe very strongly that players of unusual systems have an extra responsibility to make sure that their opponents get full disclosure, especially of secondary inferences that come from experience with the methods. I do not think you should be playing very unusual methods at club level if you are unwilling to bend over backwards like this and, quite frankly, not giving hcp ranges for balanced hands seems pretty bad to me. It is a little different on distributional hands - as Helene points out a hcp range can be more difficult there.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2015-July-15, 08:05, said:

You should try to be as helpful as possible. Sometimes "invitational opposite my 9-11" is the best you can do.

You can do better than that. With ~17+ you would not invite, nor with, say, 11-13. Adjust these numbers to suit your system if you need to.

Your "why should I do the arithmetic for the opponents" is totally against the spirit of full disclosure. If you know something, they are entitled to know it.

PS sorry, helene_t, if quoting your post makes it look as if you are the ethically-challenged one. Obviously you are not.

PPS crossed above post...

[billw55]

OK, thanks for the example, that helps.

I think that saying "12-20" is significantly easier than saying "to play", arguing about it, and posting a forum thread. And more informative, also. Honestly if I got this argument from you at the table, I would consider you to be resisting full disclosure.

[barmar]

There are some situations where the hands partner could have for his bidding could be of many different types, and it's hard to enumerate them all in an explanation. But this doesn't seem to be one of them. While it's true that HCP aren't the only determination, and partner could make judgement calls at the borderline, there's no reason why you can't give an explanation that includes approximates like "up to about 20 points, maybe a little higher if with poor distribution or spots".

[blackshoe]

People who insist on specific numbers of point in explanations will also call for redress when the actual count of the hand (without adjustments for judgement) does not match the numbers given. They don't — they may never — understand that point count is just a guide, and not a very good one at that.

[barmar]

Which is why I recommend qualifying with "about".

[billw55]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-15, 09:34, said:

People who insist on specific numbers of point in explanations will also call for redress when the actual count of the hand (without adjustments for judgement) does not match the numbers given. They don't — they may never — understand that point count is just a guide, and not a very good one at that.

Oh yes, I know. "Hey. You have ♣Jx! That makes 21! Zomg psyche, director!!!"

I have never seen a director go along with this. Although quite often, to their credit, they keep a straight face.

[avoscill]

I must admit I'm quite surprised by the general standpoint expressed by all these posts. I rather expected the opposite. Never mind, I will certainly follow your advise about giving my opponents their beloved numbers, being carefull to start with "about" of course. However, there exists another kind of bidding situations which present me with an "explanation" problem. Last time it happened at this point in the auction:

---

I was the dealer, as West, and opened 1♦, which shows 4+ spades and 26+ ZAR points (no upper limit). North overcalled 1NT, 15-17, and I found myself in the passout position with such a good hand. My partner denied, by passing, 9+ HCP (with which he would have doubled), and also a weaker unbalanced hand (he could have bid any 5-card suit naturally, or supported spades). We don't have any agreement here, we just have a generic one saying that, in a not discussed situation, any bid should be considered natural. I didn't find anything better to express my hand, then jumping into my second suit. The problem arose when North asked may partner what 3♦ meant, and was simply told that it was natural. North, who is generally interested in precise point count (but only for the opponents, as can infer from his present overcall!), this time wanted to know the exact length of my suits, and got quite upset when my pard could'nt satisfy him (simply because he didn't know).

My question is: Is it regular to say "I don't know" when there is no agreed meaning for a bid? However, East is going to make some decision, so he has to make some assumptions (e.g. that partner possesses a fifth spade, based on the fact that the spade game is the most probable one). Should he tell them what he assumes too?

[billw55]

avoscill, on 2015-July-15, 11:28, said:

My question is: Is it regular to say "I don't know" when there is no agreed meaning for a bid? However, East is going to make some decision, so he has to make some assumptions (e.g. that partner possesses a fifth spade, based on the fact that the spade game is the most probable one). Should he tell them what he assumes too?

I think "no agreement" is a more appropriate response than "I don't know", although the difference is not large. It sounds like that may have been an acceptable response to the inquiry about 3♦, although also disclosing your "generic one saying that, in a not discussed situation, any bid should be considered natural" is ok and might be considered good sportsmanship.

You inform your opponents of your agreements - explicit and implicit.

East certainly should not inform the opponents about his own assumptions. If opponents want to know about his bid, they should ask you. It certainly appears that the answer will again be "no agreement".

Yes, sometimes there is a problem with players who do not understand this explanation, and think that every bid has a definite agreed meaning. Some of them are able to learn better, others not. My guess is they know it won't float and therefore won't actually call the director.

[weejonnie]

avoscill, on 2015-July-15, 11:28, said:

I must admit I'm quite surprised by the general standpoint expressed by all these posts. I rather expected the opposite. Never mind, I will certainly follow your advise about giving my opponents their beloved numbers, being carefull to start with "about" of course. However, there exists another kind of bidding situations which present me with an "explanation" problem. Last time it happened at this point in the auction:

---

I was the dealer, as West, and opened 1♦, which shows 4+ spades and 26+ ZAR points (no upper limit). North overcalled 1NT, 15-17, and I found myself in the passout position with such a good hand. My partner denied, by passing, 9+ HCP (with which he would have doubled), and also a weaker unbalanced hand (he could have bid any 5-card suit naturally, or supported spades). We don't have any agreement here, we just have a generic one saying that, in a not discussed situation, any bid should be considered natural. I didn't find anything better to express my hand, then jumping into my second suit. The problem arose when North asked may partner what 3♦ meant, and was simply told that it was natural. North, who is generally interested in precise point count (but only for the opponents, as can infer from his present overcall!), this time wanted to know the exact length of my suits, and got quite upset when my pard could'nt satisfy him (simply because he didn't know).

My question is: Is it regular to say "I don't know" when there is no agreed meaning for a bid? However, East is going to make some decision, so he has to make some assumptions (e.g. that partner possesses a fifth spade, based on the fact that the spade game is the most probable one). Should he tell them what he assumes too?

If you don't know then it is quite correct to tell your opponents that you don't know. If people get shirty I usually tell them that bridge is about tricks, not points. On NO account should you give a point range when you haven't got one agreed.

If your opponent keeps asking questions then you could suggest that you call the director. When he arrives make a complaint about opponents harrassing you and your partner through persistent questioning.

[barmar]

weejonnie, on 2015-July-15, 14:02, said:

If your opponent keeps asking questions then you could suggest that you call the director. When he arrives make a complaint about opponents harrassing you and your partner through persistent questioning.

If the opponents are truly confused, rather than trying to annoy you, then it's not harassment.

They probably have the same opinion about your obstinate refusal to answer their questions clearly. It's a race to see who gets fed up first and calls the director to complain about the other side.

[Zelandakh]

It is fine to say that the sequence is undiscussed and that there is no agreement but only if that is really the case. Here, for example, it would be sensible to spell out for the opponents if there were really any lengths possible or if it might be that some hands were not possible. Is it really the case that any hand of any strength from a 4090 to a 9040 (and down to a 4342/4243) would bid this way? I suspect not and suspect that your partner had a little bit more information than the opponents here. And that is not fine.

[mikeh]

My guess, from the examples given, is that you are playing, at the club level, a method that would not be permitted in most international play, and if it were permitted, it would be on the basis that you first afforded all opponents several weeks warning including a very detailed convention card, and you'd probably have to have your system notes vetted by the organizers.

Your methods are such that even the most experienced players would want some opportunity to discuss defences: your 1 bids seem not only to be artificial but also forcing.

I find it particularly revealing that you are annoyed at the opps who simply want an opportunity to play on a slightly more level playing field than you think is fair. You are using an unusual, heavily artificial bidding method, based on an unusual metric for strength, while playing against opponents with whose methods you are, I suspect, far more familiar than they can possibly be with yours, and you are annoyed at them for asking too many questions?

I am sure that your method gains you a lot of advantages at the club level, and even more sure that most, if not all, of those advantages stem from the inability of the opps to understand or counter your methods.....maybe because they lack the ability to do so even of afforded time, but certainly because they don't have time, nor sufficient information.

I often rail against the ACBL, which organization stifles most experimentation, but, especially at the club level, they have a point, and that point is made ever the more valid by attitudes such as yours seems to be. My view...play anything you want, but make damn sure that you give the opps whatever information they lawfully request. And if you find yourselves falling back on 'undiscussed' or 'no agreement' more than once a session, make a ***** agreement, or stop playing the method until you have one. If I were a club owner, I would ban you from using the method if you consistently failed to answer or provided non-answers.