Can I have a convention which changes if opponents ask about it?
We play that after a passed single raise of a suit, person in protective positon (so after 1x - P - 2x - P - P) must bid or double. This makes partner's pass a forcing pass so it is alertable.
BUT, the point of the agreement is that after a pass by opener competing is indicated. If opener knows that protective hand may not pass, they could choose to pass with a hand they would normally go on with. At this point the rational for protective position not passing is lost, or at least diminshed.
So, can I have a system that changes if opponents ask about the bid? It seems wrong but I can't see anything that stops me.
Comments
Is your partners pass alertable? It is only forcing if the opener passes, if the opener raises to 3/4/5x, 2/3 NT or perhaps a trial bid, you are no longer forced to bid.
This is a bit like alerting 2C as 'Strong and Forcing', then after an overcall you pass, 'but I thought you said it was forcing?'. Should we be including conditionals like this into the information we give when asked about a bid?
I would think that the pass was not alertable, but any call from you would be alertable (something along the lines of, after 1x-2x-pass, partner is forced to bid something or double)?
Assuming that partners pass is alertable as 'forcing if opener passes', then when asked the meaning you would say something like: Well it was forcing me to bid or double if you passed, however, now that you have asked the meaning, it is no longer forcing?
I've been told so (on this forum), but it doesn't feel right to me. The purpose of alerting forcing passes is that they usually say something different about the hand than a normal pass would - often strength. That's not the case here, where second player will bid if they can.
Surely all forcing passes cease to become forcing if opponents bid?
Yes partner's call is definitely alertable.
A system like this should probably be listed on your system card (in the section about agreements that your opponents should probably note / prepare a defence to). In that case, the opponents wouldn't need to ask about it in an ideal world; they'd simply just learn about it from your system card, and you wouldn't know whether they knew what it meant or not. So I'm not sure whether something like this is possible to consistently define.
As for whether it's legal, though, the relevant law seems to be 40A2, which implies that the meaning of a call can be based on the calls, (plays but there aren't any by this point), and conditions of the current deal; the legal auction; (by default, unless banned by other Laws) any cards that have been exposed; and any information specified as authorized.
This implies that you can have a system in which the meaning of calls depends on your opponents' tempo (Law 73D). I can't find any Law specifically stating that the fact that the opponents have asked a question is authorized information, though, so that implies that you can't have a system that changes in meaning depending on your opponents' questions.
This does bring up another question, though. Suppose a partnership has a system where calls change in meaning depending on the opponents' tempo (e.g. they agree to use short suit trial bids if the total time taken by the opponents' two previous passes was shorter than some given length of time, or long suit trial bids if it took longer). They make such a call, it's alerted, and the explanation (that the meaning depends on tempo, and giving the circumstances in which each meaning would be used) is given. The meaning of the call in question now depends on information that's unauthorised to the opponents, so legally speaking, they aren't allowed to know what the actual meaning of the call is! (They can know what the agreement is, but that isn't helpful.) Obviously, a system that relies on accurately timing your opponents' tempo strikes me as unworkable in practice because players aren't actually that good at judging time, but for players who could manage it (imagine a partnership of two robots), it strikes me as just inherently superior to using a system that doesn't take the opponents' tempo into account.
So if the opponents are properly informed, you want to stop playing what you have told them you play?
Yes, and no (but mostly no).
I want them to be properly informed, but the problem here is that the agreement only makes sense if opponents don't make use of it. It's very meta.
I'm beginning to think that the solution is not to make it forcing, but have a style that rarely passes in that protective position. It makes sense to me, at pairs, that you would always bid at that point based on the knowledge you have from the auction so far. Is that really an agreement, or just the application of common (bridge) sense?
It's standard that people are keen to protect when the opponents have found a fit and have stopped bidding at the two-level. The rest of what you have said sounds to me like a plan of misinformation.
At what point have I said or even suggested that I want to hide anything from my opponents? The fact that I don't is why I'm raising this here.
"If opener knows that protective hand may not pass, they could choose to pass with a hand they would normally go on with. At this point the rational for protective position not passing is lost, or at least diminshed."
and "the agreement only makes sense if opponents don't make use of it."
Quite. It seems to me that the opponents are entitled to know about an agreement, and that if it doesn't apply just because they know about it then it isn't what you're actually playing.
As you mentioned, something like "We balance very agressively in the protective seat where the opponents have found a fit at the two level" is probably closer to the mark. As Gordon mentioned, this regarded as fairly standard bridge logic by some players.
ais523 gives a good summary of the relevant law, I would add that Law 20 on the explanation of calls doesn't appear to specify that the opponent's having asked a question about the bidding is authorised information. But there's a phrase in Law 16 about "when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures" which I think covers this. So (I think) you can use the information that the opponents asked about the pass. But the description of the pass as forcing isn't correct.
Three thoughts -
1) The opponents are entitled to fully understand your bidding methods. The Laws say that. That is independent of the alerting procedures. You are duty bound to make sure there is an adequate means for them to be informed.
2) Having methods that change when they ask about a bid is surely against the spirit of the game.
3) If the knowledge that partner will protect more aggressively than most players leads the fourth hand to pass with some hands while other might bid (and there must be some borderline cases for which this is true), then the pass should be alerted and this explained.
Hi Jeremy
One very stupid thought that I had was that if your opponents "know" what the alert means but don't ask, does that mean that it is forcing or not? If they know and it is no longer a forcing pass should it be alerted because they "know" or should it not be alerted because you know they know? Do you have another agreement then? If you know what I mean? Anyway if they know, then it isn't unexpected and probably should not be alerted anyway. How will your partner know if you know that they know and knows to alert? Who would be authorised to know? And would a Law 20F5 (b) announcement be required before play began if partner didn't alert the pass or even if they did?
Oh I'm going back to my wine.
Cheers
CMOT
P.S. perhaps that should be a G&T after all Patricks nicely brought up the idea of spirits!
For me, I think that the pass should not be alerted, but any balancing bid should be if, systematically, it could be a lot lighter than 'normal'.
So, if the balancing hand agrees to bid with 8+ points, then I would think this to be relatively normal, but if they have agreed to balance with 5+ points, then it should be alerted?
Obviously it should be on the system card and probably that the pass may be slightly stronger than expected
The trouble with the alerting rules being as they are, if we take into account everything that the ops may or may not expect for our opening hand, we can end up alerting everything.
For example, 1H open - Alert - "could be 10 points with 5-5 shape, 10 points and 6H, or a more traditional opening hand". As I know that some people are surprised by 10 point opening hands. This seems to be counter-productive to the ethos of full disclosure - if we alert too much, people get used to mundane explanations and so stop asking. Then when we bid something that really should be alerted and that the ops really should ask about, they don't.
Along similar lines: I've been working on a system in which 2!c (but not the other 2-level openings) is a strong two, in the style of traditional Acol strong 2!d/2!h/2!s (and thus guarantees clubs).
According to current regulations, this should be announced as "strong, forcing" when playing in person, and presumably when playing online too. But if someone bids 2!c announced "strong, forcing", they are likely going to make some assumptions about the bid that don't actually hold in practice.
Would it make more sense to write, say, "natural, strong, forcing" when playing online, even though that doesn't match the prescribed wording for an announcement?
You can't imagine anyone complaining if you do type 'natural, strong, forcing', but you could imagine a complaint if it was described as just 'strong and forcing'.
>
But this possibility is a very positive advantage of always ANNOUNCING and not ALERTING in online bridge. I try to answer every question an opponent could ask in my announcements. So opening bids of a major are annotated "4+" or "5+" and many later bids are annotated as "F" or "NF". This gives people the information they should have, even if they don't realise the need to ask. And it takes almost no time to do.
This is pretty much what I do - it takes not time to type in "RKC BW" or "2 key cards, no QS" or whatever... even though not required to be alerted (even F2F), what harm is there when only the ops see it and not partner?
I have even alerted and announced, "no agreement, prob trans to H".
It seems to be one of the advantages to playing online and self-alerting that we can give more system information away without it being UI to partner.
Having said that, one downside of online play is that so many people do not give any alerts or explanations and either never reply or are so slow to reply that there is then time pressure.
Some of this is technophobes that are afraid to click or type anything in case it goes wrong, some may be people playing the system for advantage?
I know that it is not a problem when I play in our virtual club as I know everyone's system. When I have played in the EBU run sessions, it is more of a problem and to be honest, it does put me off. When I play in our counties virtual club, I know some people's systems but not all and it has, on occasions, been a problem.
Well actually you do need to alert what your response to RKCB means on BBO - but not F2F.
I do find it annoying when no explanations are given - As a matter of course I explain my partner's bid when conventional in my reply since there is an even money chance he has forgotten to alert it himself.
I suppose I could always implement the white book when I am directing
"n. Failing to alert an alertable call: W(10) 3rd+: PP
(10) means that if a player knows their call is alertable you can issue a PP for 1st and 2nd offence.
Will be interesting if the winner of a tournament gets less than 50%
Personally I find it super quick to type out an explanation, so I always do. I also announce my NT ranges, both opens and rebids.
It just seems polite to me. I don't want a good result because the ops were put off from some correct action because they didn't know.
I have even had people thank my partner and I for doing so, "as few people do".