Bridge Experience v Partnership Understanding
This happened to me recently:
I'm playing with a new partner. We have agreed to play red suit transfers.
Partner opens 1NT, I bid 2H (announced as spades), partner bids 3C. Opposition ask what the 3C means.
We have not even discussed (let alone agreed to play) breaking transfers, but I know it's a thing that people do, and I would probablty make the assumption that my partner has done so, and has 4 spades, 14 points and something in clubs.
Is this a part of our system (that I therefore have to tell them about), or is it my experience as a bridge player (which I do not have to explain)?
For 5 bonus points, should I alert the 3C bid?
Jeremy
Comments
Yes, alert the 3C bid as it may well not be natural. When asked, I would suggest: "We have agreed to play Red Suit Transfers but have no agreements on breaking transfers. Partner's bid clearly shows four spades and 14 HCP but we haven't agreed whether 3C shows shortage or length or a feature or lack of feature or anything else in clubs."
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
I would alert because 3C says something about another suit (spades).
I would explain that I could have a hand that wanted to play 2S, so any bid above 2S from opener must show (4+) spade support, and probably a maximum, partner may intend 3C as natural with length/values in clubs, or artificial. I would explain that this not agreement or partnership experience or understanding. but bridge logic.
If there is a danger that partner has 2 spades and 5 clubs, then I hope I have not insulted partner.
How do I know this? We haven't agreed it and it may well not.
And if partner hasn't (because that's not what she thought it meant)? Am I not in danger of unnecessarily giving MI?
You may claim to not be sure what it says about spades but it's almost certain that it says something about them.
BB 2 A 2 These regulations are secondary to the duty of full disclosure (Law 40A). If a player is
uncertain whether the regulations require an alert, but believes it would help the opponents,
he should alert. At the end of the auction the declaring side may offer additional information,
even if not requested. In particular, they are encouraged to draw attention to any calls whose
meaning the defending side have not asked about but may not expect.
BB 2 D 2 Unless a player knows that his partner’s call is not alertable (or announceable) he must alert. If
the player is unsure when asked for its meaning he may refer the opponents to the system
card if it is shown there. If there is no relevant partnership understanding, he must not say
how he intends to interpret his partner’s call. See also 4A6
BB 4 A 6 If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that there is an
understanding (explicit or implicit) for the meaning of the call that does not require one. See
also 2D2
I claim my 5 bonus points.
Is 'almost certain' enough to give a certain explanation?
If, as independent witnesses that have also not discussed this sequence with the relevant players can work out that it is probably agreeing S with a feature in C, then can the ops not also work this out?
I would, however, alert the bid but my explanation would differ depending on my partner and what I know about them. If from a beginner I would explain no partnership understanding, but alerted as may or may not agree S.
If from a known experienced player I would explain that we had not discussed this situation but it prob agrees S and some feature in C.
If from a totally unknown player (which happens) then I would explain no partnership agreement.
Any assumptions I can make using general bridge knowledge can also be made by the ops.
I would be uncomfortable saying that it agrees S when partner had possibly opened a 'dodgy' 1NT with say 1S and 6C and was trying a rescue of some kind. Then there might be a director call regarding MI.
I am not sure how there can be an implicit agreement where you have played together before. There cannot be an explicit agreement as not discussed at all.
I cannot see how explaining no partnership agreement here can be wrong, when any other explanation is making assumptions based on the same information that the ops have?
If the opponents do not play transfers, or have not seen this sequence before, then they will not have had to work this out for themselves, and are not required to. They are entitled to an alert, and to an explanation which explains the bridge logic.
Is this part of the laws of bridge, that explanations should include bridge logic and not just explicit and implicit agreements and understandings? Or is this an interpretation of the laws regarding disclosure?
I just read law 40 part 5a...
5. (a) When explaining the significance of partner’s call
or play in reply to an opponent’s enquiry (see
Law 20) a player shall disclose all special
information conveyed to him through
partnership agreement or partnership experience
but he need not disclose inferences drawn from
his knowledge and experience of matters
generally known to bridge play
What is considered "generally known"?
If the ops do not know what transfers are, then following 1NT - P - 2H *transfer to S... is a bridge lesson now needed? Or is the fact that this shows 5+S etc considered "generally known"?
What if your partner is inexperienced and just trying transfers for the first time? Now is breaking the transfer meaningful in the same way as with an experienced/good player?
What if (like I will be on Wednesday) you are playing with someone new to the area and you have no idea about their knowledge and experience?
I think you should disclose relevant knowledge that that the opponents might not know.
I don't think it has been suggested that you have to give a certain explanation, just that you need to alert it in line with the quoted regulations and give an accurate explanation, which can include as much uncertainty as you think is appropriate.
It specifically says that you do not have to disclose inferences and bridge knowledge.
I agree that one should disclose fully (and I do so) and I tailor the information depending on what I know of the ops... if they are new I give as much as might be helpful, over and above what is required. However, as a director I would not require that of others.
Perhaps the laws need expanding to include that? Or perhaps a more clear definition of "general bridge knowledge" or "bridge logic" is needed?
The regulations quoted above expand on the laws and their interpretation should be followed when playing under them.
Why?
If there is no agreement, they have no right to know what my partner intends by the bid.
Being not sure of partner's bid and having no agreement are not necessarily the same thing. The original post was about having no agreement.
If you can't remember whether you have an agreement about partner's call, or if you know you have an agreement but can't remember what it is, then the TD could send you out of earshot and say to your partner (the caller) something like "Please tell your opponents whether you think you have an agreement about your call, and if so, what that agreement is. But your opponents are not entitled to know what you actually hold in your hand."
Players sometimes fail to call the TD and they send away the caller and ask caller's partner what they are going to take the call as. Arg!
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live