[bd71]

Playing with an infrequent intermediate partner, and say our agreements aren't any more complex than 2/1 and a few specific conventions discussed. Playing against VERY inexperienced opponents, who don't really know anything beyond very basic Standard American.

What do I do if partner makes a non-alertable bid that we have never discussed and I'm asked what it means? Is my correct answer "undiscussed", or do I tell them what I think the (undiscussed) system definition is, risking UI if partner somehow had a different take?

Basically, I'm having a hard time reconciling 2 different principles I believe I should be following:

1. If you haven't discussed something with your partner, best way to avoid UI is to say "undiscussed." Corrollary: NEVER tell the opponents how you are "taking" partner's bid.
2. Opponents have a right to know what we know about partner's hand.

Bottom line...do the inexperienced opponents ever end up victimized by their lack of awareness of basic bidding?


Does your answer matter depending on whether it's a common/simple system detail, a less-common detail where there are some disagreements out there over the best approach, or if it's an esoteric detail?

Just some specific examples that occur to me, although I'm most interested in the generic answer:

1. 1H-2D (game-forcing with 5+ diamonds). What do I say if I'm asked what 2D means?

2. 1H-1N-2C-2H (weak responding hand, likely only 2 hearts). What do I say if I'm asked what 2H means?

3. 1S-1N-2C-3S (3-card limit raise). What do I say if I'm asked what 3S means?

4. 1S-1N-2S. What do I say if I'm asked how many spades 2S shows?

5. 1S-2C-2S. What do I say if I'm asked how many spades 2S shows? (Here I think I definitely say undiscussed since different people play 5 or 6.)

6. 1S-2S-3C. (Here you haven't discussed help-suit game tries, but you know that ALL local intermediates play them so you're 100% confident that's what partner is doing.) What do I say if I'm asked what 3C means?

[sfi]

"Undiscussed, but this bid is generally played as ..."

In 5, I would say "we haven't discussed whether this shows 6 or not".

Law 40A.1a states that "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players." In most of your examples you would be sure what it meant through mutual experience or awareness of the players, and your opponents are entitled to that knowledge.

[paulg]

I presume that you are playing at a club or perhaps a local competition that is not as cut-throat as national competitions. In such circumstances, I don't really worry too much about giving partner UI but make as much effort as possible to ensure that the inexperienced opponents are not disadvantaged nor discouraged from asking questions.

The answers to 1-4 look obvious.

For 5, I would say something like "we have not explicitly discussed this, but there are two main schools of thought, those who will always have six spades and those who may only have five spades if other bids, like bidding notrump without a stop or raising with poor clubs, look unattractive"

For 6, "we didn't discuss this but I believe everyone at this club uses 3C as a help-suit ask"

[helene_t]

Something like the following (I am making some assumptions about your implicit agreements which may not be correct):

1. If you haven't discussed whether this shows 4 or 5 then I would say "in principle 5 but it is possible that he would also bid it with specifically 3=3=4=3.
2,3,4: I suppose you are confident what your implicit agreement is so just disclose that.
5. Say it is undiscussed but that it in principle denies a fourcard red and that it does not deny extras although it usually won't have. You can also chose to ask p to leave the table before giving this explanation if you are afraid that he might be thinking that he has shown 6 so you want to protect him against the UI that you are not sure if he has 6.
6. Ask p to leave the table and then tell opps that it is almost certainly showing a broken suit and in principle asks you to bid game with a filling honour, but that it could also be a very strong hand with a club control, or possibly a psyche aimed at preventing a club lead although the latter is not likely.

[mycroft]

You're playing "basic 2/1". Therefore, you do in fact have agreements about 1-4; they're implicit in 2/1GF (Well, 2 depends on whether you play constructive raises (if not, it's almost certainly not 3 hearts) - but you and partner will know which way the wind blows on that treatment in your area. More complicated online, of course). Just because you haven't said anything besides "2/1" doesn't mean that you don't have an agreement. Note, I wouldn't expect 5 diamonds for 1 - with 3442 or 3343, the system sort of sticks you with a 2♦ call, at least the way everyone around here plays it.

What would I say? Exactly what you said parenthetically. If asked what you need for a game force, you are now in "well, we haven't discussed that explicitly, but I've noticed we tend to (bid/pass) with flat 11s with Aces" territory, or for real novices, translate that into a reasonable floor for what you'd need for a game force.

5 also tends to be answerable with almost certainty within a certain region. I have a different *preferred* answer to most of my partners, but that's because I learned it the "other" way Out East; but I play it the "common" way here, because that's what (undiscussed beyond "2/1") partner will expect.

6 - how about exactly what you said, again? "undiscussed, but 'everybody' around here plays..."

Basically, if you're confident enough in your agreements to make the calls, you're confident enough to explain it as agreement. That goes from "2/1 with Capp, 1430 and UDCA, pard?" - knowing that from that you know the answer to 1-6, given what you know about your club; to "That's invitational, but in our system, invitational means 'go on a decent 13'" because you've discussed it 10 times in the last 5 years.

[bluejak]

Don't worry about giving UI to partner. It is not illegal to do so, and let his mother worry.

You are required to tell opponents about your explicit and implicit agreements. Most of what you are talking about is implicit agreement territory, so 'fess up.

[campboy]

1-4 you have discussed when you said "2/1". You should explain your agreements to opponents in terms they understand, even if your actual discussion used terms they don't understand.

5 I think you can legitimately describe as undiscussed unless you have some idea which camp partner falls into. I don't see why anyone would ask that specific question unless they already thought "5+" and "6+" were both possible answers, so I don't see anything is gained by saying more.

6 You should say that most people in your area use HSGT. This is local knowledge, not general bridge knowledge.