[pitack]

I'm brand new to BBO (12 logins) and was playing in an Indy tournament with the auction 1♥ (p) 2♥ (p) ? to me. My hand was:

♠xxx
♥AJ9xx
♦KQ10x
♣A

FWIW, I liked my hand and decided to explore game with 3♦, presuming no conventional game tries would apply in such a tournament. LHO (with a large number attached to his profile) asked for an explanation. I replied "no agreement". He persisted with "you must explain if asked". I was taken aback by this follow-up, but replied "natural", at which point he summoned the TD. After the hand LHO said that we self-alert here.

My questions are:

• Did I need to alert 3♦?
  
• Was my "no agreement" response insufficient?
  
• Should I have even answered the follow-up?
  
• Was my LHO reasonable, including calling the TD?

Thanks!

[mgoetze]

1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.

[inquiry]

mgoetze, on 2014-April-26, 14:18, said:

1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.

1. No
2. Yes
3. No
4. No

I think mgoetze misclicked no on number 2. You alert your conventional agreement, you had none, so no alert needed. Your opponent can ask your agreement if he likes, the answer in this case is you have no agreement. This is acceptable, correct, and ends the inquiry. You don't have to explain what is in your hand, only your agreement.... you had no agreement. QED

[barmar]

In an Indy, there are practically no special agreements. If you're lucky, at the beginning of the round you and your partner might agree to play the conventions listed in one of your profiles, but this is pretty rare. The opponents know as much about your "agreements" as you do -- basically it's "bid something and hope that partner interprets it as you intended."

Some players think that in this case you're supposed to describe what you intend, but they're wrong.

[Bbradley62]

pitack, on 2014-April-26, 12:39, said:

(2)Was my "no agreement" response insufficient?

inquiry, on 2014-April-26, 15:43, said:

1. No
2. Yes
3. No
4. No

I think mgoetze misclicked no on number 2. You alert your conventional agreement, you had none, so no alert needed. Your opponent can ask your agreement if he likes, the answer in this case is you have no agreement. This is acceptable, correct, and ends the inquiry. You don't have to explain what is in your hand, only your agreement.... you had no agreement. QED

I think Ben misread OP's post. "No agreement" is exactly the correct response.

Good job winning that tournament, by the way.

[mgoetze]

inquiry, on 2014-April-26, 15:43, said:

I think mgoetze misclicked no on number 2. You alert your conventional agreement, you had none, so no alert needed. Your opponent can ask your agreement if he likes, the answer in this case is you have no agreement. This is acceptable, correct, and ends the inquiry. You don't have to explain what is in your hand, only your agreement.... you had no agreement. QED

The question was "Was my 'no agreement' response insufficient?"

"No agreement" is a completely sufficient response, hence it is not insufficient, and therefore I stand by my answer of "no".

[Bbradley62]

What did the tournament director say when (s)he arrived at the table?

[barmar]

mgoetze, on 2014-April-26, 15:54, said:

The question was "Was my 'no agreement' response insufficient?"

"No agreement" is a completely sufficient response, hence it is not insufficient, and therefore I stand by my answer of "no".

Multiple negatives in a question often end up confusing people.

[hrothgar]

What organization was sponsoring the tournament?

[Bbradley62]

ACBL

[inquiry]

mgoetze, on 2014-April-26, 15:54, said:

The question was "Was my 'no agreement' response insufficient?"

"No agreement" is a completely sufficient response, hence it is not insufficient, and therefore I stand by my answer of "no".

ok... maybe I misread but I was right, we both agreed that the no agreement was the correct response when asked. What I was trying to do was not disagree with you because I was certain you knew that no agreement was correct response. My bad I guess, I have not been making myself clear lately here it seems.

[helene_t]

We have had this discussion a few times before.

Obviously if you have an implicit agreement (partner has the French flag so he probably plays SEF...) you should disclose it. And obviously if you have no agreement (implicit or otherwise) at all, there is nothing to disclose. I think the controversy arises when it is not really clear whether you have a tiny bit of implicit agreement or not. Also, if you play in a jurisdiction where certain very common artificial bids (say, Stayman) are alertable, there is a case for alerting them even without agreement because failure to alert may suggest that you have the unusual agreement that a 2♣ response to 1NT is natural.

In an indy I think the TD would do well to broadcast at the beginning of the tourney that you shouldn't alert or explain anything, or ask opps to do so, as you can have no agreements. But there can be exceptions. If two Polish players happen to partner each other in one round and both have WJ2005 on their card they may both assume that they are playing WJ2005, which opps may not be familiar with. In that case they should alert and explain.

[diana_eva]

If this was an ACBL indy, there's a default SAYC CC loaded to the table and everyone plays that (at least in theory). [Derailing a bit: I've played indy with 2/1 partners who didn't pass my 1NT over 1M so there was an implicit agreement that we're actually playing 1NT forcing but it was a guess. I wouldn't alert 1NT forcing in such context because my 1st expectation is that we ARE playing SAYC and the default CC.]

For the given sequence I think natural game try would be a normal explanation when opps ask about it. If SAYC is assumed, that's what it is, and it's OK to disclose it as such. IMO the TD should have explained that there is a CC that applies to that particular tournament. TD should see that you are new to the site and you might not be aware that such a CC exists. Opps calling TD was not really necessary. They probably knew what it was anyway - after all they were playing the same CC - but in ACBL tourneys, players tend to be very quick to call TD for anything.

In free indies the rules, if any, are very blurry, so we're more on a guess than in ACBL or other org tournaments.

[PhilG007]

If a bid is intended to carry an artificial meaning,then it should be alerted for the sake of propriety. The BBO robots are programmed to alert all conventional bids. LHO should not have enquired if there was no alert given. And the TD should not have been summoned as there was no case to answer.

[pitack]

Wow! Thanks for all the replies and discussion. I feel much better now.

barmar, on 2014-April-26, 16:02, said:

Multiple negatives in a question often end up confusing people.

Yeah, sorry--I noticed the poor wording too late.

Bbradley62, on 2014-April-26, 15:59, said:

What did the tournament director say when (s)he arrived at the table?

That was the odd part: the TD said nothing. This was my first hand with a TD call, so I sat there waiting for something to happen. Then people started asking me why I wasn't bidding! I obviously need to read up on how the whole TD stuff works.

Bbradley62, on 2014-April-26, 15:52, said:

Good job winning that tournament, by the way.

Thanks for telling me! BBO originally showed me finishing 2nd. Wonder if an adjustment was made later...

[granguru]

1. NO
2. NO
3. NO
4. NO

1. it is obvious. there is no agreement with partner
2. it is obviously sufficient, as there was no agreement. Nevertheless ACBL member tend to take advantage of the rules and force you to explain your own hand even partner will not know your description. This is having an unfair advantage. You are not entitled to describe your real hand farther than your biddibg suggests. Furthermore, opponent attitude is unethical.
In order to follow fair play rules you might explain voluntarily something more, but definitively you are OK with what you have explained already. You could have said "Natural" to avoid the probable conflict following a negative answer.
4. Definitively NO. S/He is the kind of person who makes new players run out of the clubs and making them quit tournaments forever. Unfortunately some BBO directors dont understand this and make terrible mistakes in many of these situations, by not explaining defensive player rights and acting accordingly.

[wayne_b]

It is never correct to ask bidder for an explanation; questions should directed to bidder's partner. What is of import is what the partner took the bid to mean, anything else does not matter.

[gordontd]

wayne_b, on 2014-April-27, 23:34, said:

It is never correct to ask bidder for an explanation; questions should directed to bidder's partner. What is of import is what the partner took the bid to mean, anything else does not matter.

This is wrong. In the online game, it is the bidder who self-alerts, but in any event it is the understanding between the partners that matters, not the partner's interpretation.

Oh, and please don't shout - it doesn't give your posts greater authority.

[barmar]

diana_eva, on 2014-April-27, 04:28, said:

For the given sequence I think natural game try would be a normal explanation when opps ask about it. If SAYC is assumed, that's what it is, and it's OK to disclose it as such. IMO the TD should have explained that there is a CC that applies to that particular tournament. TD should see that you are new to the site and you might not be aware that such a CC exists. Opps calling TD was not really necessary. They probably knew what it was anyway - after all they were playing the same CC - but in ACBL tourneys, players tend to be very quick to call TD for anything.

The SAYC CC doesn't say what this bid means, so this is irrelevant. But I think the default assumption, with no special agreement mentioned in the CC, is that it's the non-alertable meaning according to the ACBL Alert Procedures, which is some form of natural game try.

[1eyedjack]

hrothgar, on 2014-April-26, 16:04, said:

What organization was sponsoring the tournament?

Are you aware of any two sponsoring organizations for which the responses would differ on this point?