[Vampyr]

mikeh, on 2015-July-15, 18:25, said:

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.

More than once a session? I think that once every five sessions is ridiculously frequent.

Anyway, OP, how would you defend against your methods? Which defences would you find the most challenging and troublesome? Write these down and organise them in order to provide a suggested defence to your opponents, which they can refer to during the auction. I think that all jurisdictions allow this.

This, combined with an entirely different attitude towards disclosure, should help ensure a more pleasant playing environment for you and your opponents.

[avoscill]

mikeh, on 2015-July-15, 18:25, said:

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.

It is permitted, we play twice a year at an open tournement in our city, Pula, Croatia. Nobody has ever complained, since it is a pretty simple method. Here in Europe, when an opening bid shows a strain, even if technically is artificial (being a transfer), is not considered Highly Unusual.

mikeh, on 2015-July-15, 18:25, said:

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.

Our 1 bids are simply two-under transfers (of course forcing, as is forcing any artificial bid), so any general agreement about dealing with transfers will do. I can tell you that most average polish pairs which come to play in Pula, when we open e.g. 1♦, showing spades, use 1♠ as take-out without any problem. Anyway, in the front of our convention card we propose this defense for the opponents, and this is the only additional agreement they may need after any opening by our side.

mikeh, on 2015-July-15, 18:25, said:

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 not annoyed in the least. As I said, I simply find illogical being asked what shows an asking bid. And, as someone noted in the posts above, it may even not be correct to give to the opponents a non-agreed information. I personally would not like that the my opponents instructs me how to make inferences. Regarding our "heavily artificial bidding method", it is so simple that could be described in a few sentences, without ever mentioning a suit, since it is all built upon one general rule. But surely it is unusual, since most people play quite complex systems, which they happily call natural (e.g. here in Croatia the club opening promises 2 club cards, while our club opening promises 5 of them).

mikeh, on 2015-July-15, 18:25, said:

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.

Wrong again! For one thing, we are, for many years by now, getting very poor results. And since we play a long time this method with the same people, they are quite well acquainted with it. My partner is an eternal beginner, so the very same opponent which harass him with what I consider irregular questions, a very good player, often understands my bid better then my partner (e.g. in the last example I gave, my partner didn't understand the invitational nature of my 3♦ bid, so he left me there).

mikeh, on 2015-July-15, 18:25, said:

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.

With this post I simply wanted to ascertain whether it is lawfull to request information which has not been agreed upon by a partnership. Here I learned it is. At least, it is generally considered desirable, so I am going to conform, without any annoyances. What is the problem? Maybe that the ACBL and similar organizations think that only experts like to devise bidding systems, obviously abstruse, and besides, with the only aim of confusing the opponents. To me, this attitude is not in the spirit of the game.

[helene_t]

mikeh, on 2015-July-15, 18:25, said:

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

This is obviously a cultural thing. The 1♥ opening has recently become illegal in EBU land but you can still play it in most of the non-anglosaxic World (and Scotland, NZ and OZ of course). There is a pair that plays something very similar in the first division in the Netherlands. It is not a major issue. People have more heated arguments about the stop card regulations than about system regulations.

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on 2015-July-17, 02:55, said:

This is obviously a cultural thing.

Indeed. In some cultures the bidding needs to be natural, even at the very top level. In other cultures the bidding is allowed to be highly artificial at the club level. If you have played in such an artificial culture, you will find out very soon that it is not the end of civilization, but that it can actually be fun to play against this stuff. You might also learn something from the completely different way these players look at bidding.

The reason why very little artificiality is allowed in international play, is that the "natural cultures" have more power than the "artificial cultures". Therefore, the system rules are those of "natural cultures". International play is, therefore, not the right reference. One could just as well compare to "club play in the ACBL".

Clearly, in Pula they are not afraid of artificiality, just like in Poland or Sweden. But, of course, everything needs to be disclosed properly.

Rik

[avoscill]

Vampyr, on 2015-July-15, 19:08, said:

More than once a session? I think that once every five sessions is ridiculously frequent.

I don't agree. I think a good bidding system (if it is to be played by humans, not machines) is one with plenty undiscussed situations. Ideally, every board should quickly fallback to an "undiscussed" bidding situation... undiscussed, but manaegable by sheer logics and general rules. It is much more interesting and challenging to play from your head than from a one-hundred pages bunch of system notes. The undiscussed situation I gave above (opener's rebid ofter LHO's 1NT overcall) remains undiscussed. I just pointed out to my partner (who doesn't know natural or any other bidding system, and therefore is not good at what Eugenio Chiaradia used to call "normal" bridge) that the natural, normal meaning of a jump in the balancing position is that it conveys strength. The aim of the the bidding process is not (or should not be) to exchange information, but to arrive at the correct contract.

[blackshoe]

The aim is to exchange information that will help you arrive at the correct contract.

[karlson]

avoscill, on 2015-July-16, 16:21, said:

With this post I simply wanted to ascertain whether it is lawfull to request information which has not been agreed upon by a partnership. Here I learned it is.

I think you got the wrong message. No, you're not obliged to give information that has not been agreed upon. But the opponents do not have to ask exactly the right question to get information that is relevant.

Read Zel's post above again. 1♥=4+♠ and 3♦=natural is consistent with everything from 9040 to 4090 to 4243 shape. Now do you really have no agreements that might be useful to the opponents here?

[avoscill]

karlson, on 2015-July-17, 21:40, said:

I think you got the wrong message. No, you're not obliged to give information that has not been agreed upon. But the opponents do not have to ask exactly the right question to get information that is relevant.

If I show to my partner a narrow strength range + a 5-card suit, and he raises my suit, what might be more relevant than saying that he has support and invites me to undertake same action (some normal action, not a codified one) with a maximum? In fact I can't see anything relevant at all except this, and this is the whole point of my post.

karlson, on 2015-July-17, 21:40, said:

Read Zel's post above again. 1♥=4+♠ and 3♦=natural is consistent with everything from 9040 to 4090 to 4243 shape. Now do you really have no agreements that might be useful to the opponents here?

Zel didn't say that my 3♦ rebid was consistent with all that shapes, he simply said that my partner should probably know a little bit more than my opponents with which shapes I would make such a bid. While he's right about this point, my contention is that questions of style are not relevant here. If partner is broke, the only action he can undertake at all is a pass/correct action, so it is my responsibility to hold a hand which could bear such action. If one of my suits were substantially longer than the other, I would simply bid differently. The main difficulty with this hand is to convey to partner the invitational character of a suit jump rebid. If partner is keen enough to notice that, if I wanted to force to (some) game, I could start with an obviously artificial 2NT, we'll be on the right track.

[Vampyr]

avoscill, on 2015-July-17, 11:21, said:

The undiscussed situation I gave above (opener's rebid ofter LHO's 1NT overcall) remains undiscussed.

This is totally unacceptable. If it comes up once, OK, but the second time you must be able to explain it.

Also, if a call comes up that is not explicitly discussed but you can work out the meaning by "logic and general rules" you must also explain the meaning you have thereby worked out to the opponents.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2015-July-18, 11:06, said:

This is totally unacceptable. If it comes up once, OK, bit the second time you must be able to explain it.

Also, if a call comes up that is not explicitly discussed but you can work out the meaning by "logic and general rules" you must also explain the meaning you have thereby worked out to the opponents.

What of "he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players"?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-18, 11:29, said:

What of "he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players"?

I think she meant "logic and general rules" in the context of the inferences from their system, meta-agreements, and partnership experience. So you have to provide enough information about your agreements so that they can apply the same logic.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-July-18, 11:39, said:

I think she meant "logic and general rules" in the context of the inferences from their system, meta-agreements, and partnership experience. So you have to provide enough information about your agreements so that they can apply the same logic.

Fair enough.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2015-July-18, 11:39, said:

I think she meant "logic and general rules" in the context of the inferences from their system, meta-agreements, and partnership experience. So you have to provide enough information about your agreements so that they can apply the same logic.

Mainly I meant this, but we have had countless threads about "general bridge knowledge", mainly in the context of people wishing to hide behind GBK to avoid proper disclosure. Much so-called GBK is not as "general" as these people think, or claim.

[Vampyr]

avoscill, on 2015-July-18, 09:12, said:

Zel didn't say that my 3♦ rebid was consistent with all that shapes, he simply said that my partner should probably know a little bit more than my opponents with which shapes I would make such a bid. While he's right about this point, my contention is that questions of style are not relevant here. If partner is broke, the only action he can undertake at all is a pass/correct action, so it is my responsibility to hold a hand which could bear such action. If one of my suits were substantially longer than the other, I would simply bid differently. The main difficulty with this hand is to convey to partner the invitational character of a suit jump rebid. If partner is keen enough to notice that, if I wanted to force to (some) game, I could start with an obviously artificial 2NT, we'll be on the right track.

"Style" is entirely relevant, as is everything you have discussed above. All are subject to disclosure -- in particular the fact that there are some hands with a disparity in suit length that you would, as you say, have bid differently.

I am surprised that you thought you would have seen different responses in these forums; presumably you asked because you didn't know the answer?

This post has been edited by Vampyr: 2015-July-20, 13:56
Reason for edit: Led to misunderstanding

[Zelandakh]

avoscill, on 2015-July-18, 09:12, said:

If one of my suits were substantially longer than the other, I would simply bid differently.

Assuming your partner might also be aware of this, that is information relevant for the opponents. Try to remember that they have absolutely no idea about your system. it might be obvious to you that some of these hands would be bid differently but not to them...and you need to be able to explain these factors.

[kevperk]

I would suggest to avoscill to imagine that he is the opponent playing against two who are playing his methods. Now imagine that someone who doesn't know the methods is going to take over for him at the moment in question. What information would he know about the bid (and auction) that he would tell the fillin player? That is the information that the opponents should be told. Of course, full disclosure has to be tempered by brevity due to time constraints.

[blackshoe]

kevperk, on 2015-July-18, 15:51, said:

Of course, full disclosure has to be tempered by brevity due to time constraints.

It does? Which law says so?

[avoscill]

Vampyr, on 2015-July-18, 13:22, said:

I am surprised that you thought you would have seen different responses in these forums; do we have a reputation as a bunch of cheaters?

This phrase comes as a good example of one of the two main points in the present discussion. If someone were to ask me what did you mean with this words, "full disclosure" should not compel me to answer: there is enough for anybody to make the correct inferences!

The second point, which seems to have escaped the attention of many here, is the following: if you can make a bid which drives your partner to the correct action without giving away much of your hand, well, that is a good bid. The same holds when you know enough of partner's hand to be able to place the contract. Such sequences happen also in standard bidding. When you hear from the opponents the simple action 2♠-4♠, you know almost nothing about responder's hand, yet nobody complains. I understand that a bidding system where such sequences happen frequently may make you feel uncomfortably. In the USA they solve the problem by simply banning such systems from competitions, and this is not fair.

[Vampyr]

avoscill, on 2015-July-18, 17:25, said:

This phrase comes as a good example of one of the two main points in the present discussion. If someone were to ask me what did you mean with this words, "full disclosure" should not compel me to answer: there is enough for anybody to make the correct inferences!

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Inferences available to you must be made available to your opponents.

Quote

The second point, which seems to have escaped the attention of many here, is the following: if you can make a bid which drives your partner to the correct action without giving away much of your hand, well, that is a good bid. The same holds when you know enough of partner's hand to be able to place the contract. Such sequences happen also in standard bidding. When you hear from the opponents the simple action 2♠-4♠, you know almost nothing about responder's hand, yet nobody complains. I understand that a bidding system where such sequences happen frequently may make you feel uncomfortably. In the USA they solve the problem by simply banning such systems from competitions, and this is not fair.

In the auction you mention, the key difference is that opener also does not know about responder's hand. However, if he knows more than the opponents based on agreements or partnership experience, then he must disclose what he knows, if asked.

You have been told your obligations, and complaining about them will not change a thing. So there is no point being a crybaby.

[karlson]

avoscill, on 2015-July-18, 09:12, said:

If one of my suits were substantially longer than the other, I would simply bid differently.

Great! That's information the opponents are entitled to know.

After all the discussion I actually still have absolutely no idea if this is a normal way to bid 4♠-6♦ in your system, or if you would show diamonds first. Hopefully you get my drift at this point.

Edit: I see that I'm parroting Zelandakh yet again.