[sarsen]

Am I the only one who is bothered by the refusal of many people to explain their bids or to say that they have no agreement?

No agreement is a good rule in face to face bridge to avoid U.I. but I fail to see why this is an acceptable answer when the partner has no clue a question was asked let alone how you answered it.

Simple example:

My partner opens 1NT. I have no clue if we are playing transfers as we've not made an agreement.
According the the ACBL online directors, "We have no agreement" is a perfectly acceptable answer, but how on earth can it hurt to tell any opponent who asks what you mean by the bid in addition to saying you have no agreement? Nothing is revealed to your partner, and there are no secrets being kept from opponents?

How is it sporting to answer no agreement when you know exactly what you mean by your bid. Is it fair that because you and partner failed to make an agreement and have to guess, opponents should also be forced to guess what your bid means?

So, I answer 2♦ and when opponent asks I am actually allowed to tell the opponent that we have no agreement. I do not have to tell him that I mean it as a transfer, forcing Stayman or natural. I know what I mean, but because I have to guess my opponent also must guess? Why is this acceptable?

I alert my bids as we have no agreement, but I mean this bid to be.... I believe that there should be no secrets in bridge. So yes, you do not have to say what is in your hand, but isn't the opponent entitled to know if your suit is diamonds, hearts or neither?

Telling your opponent online when it cannot alert your partner seems ethical and fair to me. Refusing to explain your bid based on the fact that you have no agreement seems scummy to me. Refusing to explain your bid because you think it is obvious seems so rude.So, why is this how it is done online?

I used the example of a transfer auction to clearly illustrate why I think refusing to say what your bid means or answering that there is no agreement is spurious. The bidder knows what his bid means and should not keep that secret from the opponents. And yet, any secret can be kept as long as one responds, we have no agreement or I don't know. "I don't know" Really? The bidder doesn't know if he has diamonds or hearts or is asking for a four card major? Give me a break!

[diana_eva]

You know what your bid means, but your partner might not know what your bid means. So if you will make an undiscussed bid such as a splinter and partner passes it out, informed opponents will not double you, and you end up playing in some 3-1 fit. While if you say no agreement, which is the truth, they are all in the fog, and you might still have a way out if they are doubling it. On the other hand, if you make a bid that is not specifically discussed but you have high expectations that your partner will understand it then it;s normal to reveal "undiscussed, but it's usually a transfer". I think it's not completely honest to reply "no agreement" to all your bids, but it is acceptable to say "no agreement" when you really aren;t sure that your partner understands what you mean,

[Bbradley62]

In other words, you are entitled to know as much as the partner of the bidder knows, but not more.

[johnu]

I wouldn't make a conventional bid like a Jacoby 2♦ transfer if I didn't think partner knows the meaning, so announce in a live game, alert online. I don't play online, random partner tournaments, but I would give partner my convention card before the start of the round or play their card if they have one. Why would you make a conventional/alertable bid if it's a tossup whether your partner will understand the bid?

[helene_t]

If it is at all possible that I am in a better position to know how p will take my bid than opps are (for example because my partner is flying the Botzwana flag and I happen to be familiar with standard Botzwanan yellow card), then I will say something like "transfer, I hope". I frequently do the same when playing with a semiregular partner.

But if playing with a total stranger, say a substitute or in an indy and partner's profile doesn't give me any clues, then I will just say "undiscussed".

Pick-up partnerships are already handicapped by virtue of being, well, pick-up. It would be most unfair to handicap them further by requiring them to disclose things which they aren't required to disclose according to the rules.