[WellSpyder]

 Math609, on 2011-June-19, 22:15, said:

I would also like to know how they describe this natural bidding sequence (non contested):

1♠ - 2♥
3♥ - 4♥/4♠

As I said before, no experinced player would ask for clarification here. But suppose he did. Would you say "3♥ promises at least 3 hearts"? Would anyone with some experince confirm this understanding? Of course not! We all know that in some situation partners best and only bid is to give a raise on a good doubleton. So we wouldn't dear to say that the 3♥-bid promises 3 hearts. Just a natural bid and natural bridge, can be doubleton.

Is this argument important to the case under discussion (I've long since lost track of the exact auction under discussion)? If so, I think you have weakened your case. I have quite a bit of experience, and I have never seen a hand on which I or anyone else has felt it necessary to raise 2♥ to 3♥ on this sequence with a doubleton. Certainly I'm not aware of hands where there is no other possible bid in a standard system.

[Math609]

 WellSpyder, on 2011-June-20, 01:57, said:

Is this argument important to the case under discussion (I've long since lost track of the exact auction under discussion)? If so, I think you have weakened your case. I have quite a bit of experience, and I have never seen a hand on which I or anyone else has felt it necessary to raise 2♥ to 3♥ on this sequence with a doubleton. Certainly I'm not aware of hands where there is no other possible bid in a standard system.

I can’t see that comparison of two similar bidding sequences is of no value as WellSpyder is implying. On the contrary I think it’s good and healthy for the overall discussion.

So WellSpyder thinks I’ve weakened my case (what case, bye the way? deviation-case?). And how WellSpyder has earned all his experince sounds like research project to me. He has never raised his partner on a doubleton in this common 2/1 sequence and has not either seen anyone else do it. Great Scott! Well, I have a considerable experince and have in decades played with and against the strongest players here in Iceland. Just last week I raised my partner to 3♥ on a AK doubleton and we got to the only winning game on

♠KJ753 ♥AK ♦842 ♣752
♠Q8 ♥QJ954 ♦AKQ9 ♣108

My opinion of the 3♥ bid: It’s a plain and good and solid bridge! It did not cross my mind to bid anything else.
Two or three weeks before that I had a similar problem. I choose to raise partner to 3♥ on KD doubleton and we reached a slam in hearts. Spades were 4-1 so no spade slam. Finesse in diamonds worked and we got a diamond lead, but that's another story. This was our hands:

♠KQ863 ♥KD ♦D6 ♣7532
♠A54 ♥AG10963 ♦AJ4 ♣8

Surely I had the choice here to bid 3♣, but I didn't like it on such a poor suit. 2NT is of course also a possibility but my holding in the minors is not great. But of several options I choose to bid 3♥ which I know is open to discussion because I have other alternatives.

I hope this will clarify the issue for WellSpyder and I hope some day in the future he will find the right moment to raise partners suit in this sequence on a good doubleton.

[WellSpyder]

Thanks, math609, for the example hands. Most of my 30+ years of bridge have been played in the UK, so I don't know what is standard in Iceland, but isn't that part of the point? I certainly would not expect a doubleton ♥ to be a realistic possibility on this auction in England, where the default basic system involves 4-card majors and 2/1 is only forcing for one round (is it forcing to game for you?), and I would not choose a raise to 3♥ on either of the hands you give. I don't think this reflects poor judgment so much as different partnership expectations. So if you partnership expectations are different that is certainly potentially discloseable in my view.

[Math609]

Do we need another brick in the wall? I don’t think so. The lost brick was there all the time, glued to the systemwall. They just didn’t recognize it right away when they saw it. But when they saw it they knew it was the right brick. And this brick didn’t deviate from the other bricks. After all it was a part og the "great" brickwork!

The brick was there, maybe unexpected. But it was there after all. That's why East didn't found any other brick to fit in the wall. No deviation, the brick was a part of the wall!

[mgoetze]

 aguahombre, on 2011-June-19, 20:23, said:

218 posts. IMO, we should discuss this more thoroughly.

I think the only reason this thread is still alive is that there must be some quirk in the Icelandic language which causes Math609 to think that the English sentences "explain your partnership agreements" and "tell the opponents what's in your hand" are semantically equivalent.

[AlexJonson]

 mgoetze, on 2011-June-21, 10:43, said:

I think the only reason this thread is still alive is that there must be some quirk in the Icelandic language which causes Math609 to think that the English sentences "explain your partnership agreements" and "tell the opponents what's in your hand" are semantically equivalent.

Let's not go too far. This kind of situation is difficult. Math has some arguments.

[Math609]

 mgoetze, on 2011-June-21, 10:43, said:

I think the only reason this thread is still alive is that there must be some quirk in the Icelandic language which causes Math609 to think that the English sentences "explain your partnership agreements" and "tell the opponents what's in your hand" are semantically equivalent.

Probably mgoetze got a brick in his head. Now he thinks we are dealing with a language problem

But before that he expressed his opinion on Nige1 (#171):
“Maybe I'm not the only one who has nige1's posts filtered out by default”.

...and on Vampyr (#198):
“My opinion of you was elevated for about 10 seconds! (The time between seeing that you had upvoted bluejak's post, which seemed like a classy action, and reading your retraction...)”

And by the way, is this a “deviation” from a intellectual discussion?

[Vampyr]

Insulting people on the other side of an issue makes one's argument stronger, doesn't it?

[hrothgar]

Interesting piece in http://www.eurobridg...20Committee.pdf which has some bearing on the discussion at hand

Quote

Here is an article written by Edgar Kaplan in 1981-1983:

East, dealer, opens 1♥, South passes, West raises to 2♥, and North overcalls 2NT
with 5-5 in the minors; East passes, and South replies 3♣ holding 6 points with jackthird
of clubs.

Now West asks South whether North’s 2NT bid was natural, or unusual. South
answers, ‘this is the first time we’ve played – we have no agreement’. Obviously,
though, South has interpreted the bid as unusual; has he given misinformation?
That depends on how South figured out what North’s bid meant.

Case 1
South has no clue; he simply flipped a mental coin and guessed right. No infraction:
E-W are not entitled to learn what South’s guess is

Case 2
South decided to treat the overcall as unusual because he judged that most players
use it that way. Also, partner was unlikely to be very strong, since this East never
psyches, and West, a Roth-Stoner by early training, always has sound values for a
raise. No infraction: E-W have no claim to share South’s general bridge knowledge,
or to learn what inferences South has drawn from their bidding habits.

Case 3
South presumed that 2NT was for minors because he himself held king-jack fifth in
hearts. No infraction: deductions South draws from his own cards are his own affairs.

Case 4
South judged that 2NT was for minors because he had often played with North’s
regular partner, who treated most no trump overcalls as unusual. Misinformation:
South had particular knowledge relating to his partner, knowledge the opponents
were entitled to share.

Case 5
South figured out that the overcall was unusual from the fact that North had used an
ambiguous no trump bid earlier in the session, intending it as take out for minors.
Misinformation: South’s experience with partner’s bidding habits crated an implicit
agreements; it was the opponent’s rights to know of it.

The Committee considered situations where an obscure call is made and the partner
informs opponent that his side has no agreement concerning it. It was noted that
neither the WBF in its code of practice, nor the ACBL, recognizes ‘convention disruption’
as an infraction in itself. The Chief Director referred to the requirement for the
responder to give full information, including agreements relating to relevant alternative
calls. The Committee observed that the Director in forming an opinion as to the
existence of a partnership understanding should take into account subsequent action
in the auction. In relation to Laws 75C and 75D the Director is required to determine
what agreements the partnership has.

[blackshoe]

Case five seems to imply that one swallow does indeed make a summer, which is contrary to my understanding of the correct interpretation of this part of the laws*. Perhaps the facts of this particular case make it an exception?

*I mean that my understanding is that one instance of such a bid (2NT not agreed as unusual, but intended as such) does not establish an implicit agreement; there has to be some frequency of the particular "forget".

[alphatango]

I think there is a significant difference between:

Situation A: There is a prior agreement (explicit or implicit), which is violated, and
Situation B: There is no prior agreement, and a player nevertheless uses that call (hoping that partner will be on the same wavelength from general bridge knowledge, or that he will be able to clarify his hand later in the auction).

For example: If I agree a 12-14 NT with partner and open a 16 HCP 1NT, that is situation A -- I haven't (necessarily) established a new implicit agreement by violating my previous agreement. But if I have no agreement with partner as to the strength of our 1NT opening and choose to open 1NT with a 16-count, that is situation B and does establish an implicit agrement (our 1NT range is now known to include 16-counts, although the rest of the range may not yet be defined).

[pran]

Too many players seem to use the "not discussed" or "no agreement" technicality as an excuse to avoid giving opponents the disclosure they are entitled to.

IMHO such players have completely failed to understand the concept of fair play.

I believe that whenever a player uses a particular call it is with an expectation that partner will understand the call as intended, and there must be some reason for this expectation. This reason should be known to opponents.

Players should also be aware that knowledge is not "general bridge knowledge" unless it is known by bridge players in general.

If a player truly and honestly has no idea of the meaning of his partner's call then of course he has no information to disclose, but how often is that really the case? I suspect: Almost never.

[Vampyr]

 pran, on 2011-July-08, 02:48, said:

Players should also be aware that knowledge is not "general bridge knowledge" unless it is known by bridge players in general.

For example, in case 2 above, the player may guess at the meaning of a call because it is the expected meaning that people who share their common bridge culture would assume. This is not general bridge knowledge.

[blackshoe]

How is a player who has not played all over the world supposed to be able to differentiate between the common bridge culture locally and general bridge knowledge? Are we to interpret this law as "if you haven't played in events all over the world, nothing you know is "general bridge knowledge"?

[aguahombre]

I thought general bridge knowledge was another way of describing logic or common sense (general), not awareness of regional differences.

Examples:
--a player who has denied a suit previously, and who introduces that suit later must intend the bid as artificial (impossible 2S in a forcing NT auction).
--a player who has chosen not to open the bidding and later bids NT without any call from partner, does not have a natural intent.

Either of these, if not previously discussed --and partner needs to figure it out also, would fall under the definition of GBK.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2011-July-08, 09:24, said:

How is a player who has not played all over the world supposed to be able to differentiate between the common bridge culture locally and general bridge knowledge?

Last week I played for the first time with a very good player. We had agreed "rubber bridge methods" (basically no conventions but initial takeout doubles, Stayman, Blackwood and Truscott).

An auction went, starting with me: P-P-1♦-X; 2♠

What is 2♠ in rubber bridge methods? Partner correctly assumed that it was a fit bid. Was this assumption based on the fact that this treatment would be normal in places where we both play? Or is it "general bridge knowledge" that 2♠ could scarcely be anything else?

I think that if players have a damn good idea of what partner's bid is and the opponents don't, they should disclose it, if necessary with disclaimers. If the opponents don't know it, the knowledge is not that general. So I guess the answer to the above question is that the opponents' potential knowledge can be a guideline for "general bridge knowledge".

[pran]

There is an easy advice to the question of "general bridge knowledge":

If you are not sure that your opponents posess the knowledge in question then it is not general bridge knowledge.