[Gazumper]

During a recent Indy tournament the TD said that failure to alert conventional bids could lead to a penalty. I then said that bids should also be explained to your own partner in that case and the TD disagreed.

This doesn't make any sense to me. This was an Indy tournament with no pre agreements, if opps don't understand a conventional bid why should they get an explanation and my partner not? What if I want to make a bid based on judgement and I don't hold the exact requirements for my explanation? Do I have to tell the contents of my hand to avoid a penalty? Ludicrous.

Well I said my piece.

[mycroft]

If you expect partner to get your call, you must explain it to your opponents. If it turns out that your partner didn't get it, well, then you shouldn't have made it. But putting the opponents to the guess - or not Alerting and Alertable call, and effectively "telling" the opponents the wrong information so they *can't* legitimately make the guess - is not legal.

Indy's are weird; indy's without a fixed convention card are even weirder.

[flametree]

What's an Indy?

[kenberg]

An indy is an event designed to test the patience of players and directors. You seat four people at a table that do not know each other and have them play two hands without any discussion of methods. Then they repeat this with new partners and opponents. Actually, in the acbl indy it is stated that SAYC is the default method. No one, often including the directors, knows what this means but it adds an extra element of fun because everyone thinks that they know, they just think differently.

As for the OP, I alert all artificial bids except maybe stayman and blackwood. I fnd it best not to make many.

[barmar]

It's hard to apply the rules of disclosure as described in the Laws to Indy tournaments. The disclosure laws generally presume that partnerships that have established agreements and meta-agreements.

The basic philosophy of disclosure in bridge is that the opponents should have the same information about your bids as partner does. In an indy, partner is often guessing, so it seems fair that the opponents should have to guess as well. That suggests that there should never be a need to alert anything.

On the other hand, you should still follow your RA's alerting rules. For instance, ACBL requires announcing Jacoby Transfers, even though just about everyone uses them. If you're playing in an ACBL indy, you should announce them as required -- not because it's a special agreement that you've discussed with your partner, but because ACBL requires it.

[TimG]

barmar said:

1321927645[/url]' post='590814']

The basic philosophy of disclosure in bridge is that the opponents should have the same information about your bids as partner does. In an indy, partner is often guessing, so it seems fair that the opponents should have to guess as well. That suggests that there should never be a need to alert anything.

i'm not at all confident that this is the spirit of discloure Laws. Opponents are entitled to know about agreements. If I am playing in an indy and make a bid that partner might have to guess about, I don't think this means that the opponents should also have to guess. I should explain what I presume our agreement to be. Or, it is my opinion that this is (or should be) the spirit of the Law. I realize there is difference of opinion in this area.

[helene_t]

kenberg, on 2011-November-21, 19:03, said:

An indy is an event designed to test the patience of players and directors.

I disagree.

Pairs tournament cause headaches to directors. Because pairs may (or may not) have agreements. Which means that they may (or may not) have things to disclose. Which means that you have to write up disclosure procedures for your tourneys. Players won't read them. Players will (at best) adhere to their own Vietnamese alert procedures when playing against pairs who expect them to follow Botzwanan alert procedures. Players don't speak English. And when they claim to have a certain (lack of) agreement, you will have to decide whether you believe them. If no, you upset them. If yes, you may upset their opps.

I always make indy's when I direct. I know that most players prefer pairs, just as I do as a player. But as a director I don't have the nerves for pairs.

Directing and indy is very smooth. Just say in the opening chat: "This is an indy so you will have no agreements to disclose. Don't alert anything. Don't ask opps about the meaning of the bids. If they ask you, tell them politely that you have no agreements to disclose".

Since I introduced that policy I have directed dozens of tourneys without a single disclosure-related call.

An added benefit of indys is that you don't have nearly as many issues with players who get upset with their partner. And very few will leave because their partner gets disconnected.

[mfa1010]

flametree, on 2011-November-21, 18:44, said:

What's an Indy?

The bridge equivalent of masochism.

[barmar]

TimG, on 2011-November-23, 08:25, said:

I should explain what I presume our agreement to be. Or, it is my opinion that this is (or should be) the spirit of the Law. I realize there is difference of opinion in this area.

Why can't they presume just as easily as you? What makes you even think you HAVE an agreement when it's an indy?

I was playing in a Free Automated Fun tourney last night. Everyone is supposed to play 2/1 GF according to the rules of the tourney. Partner opened 1♦ and RHO bid 2NTl, which I assumed was Unusual 2NT. But he didn't have ♣ and ♥, he had a balanced 20 count. Yet somehow how LHO seemed to be on the same wavelength, because he bid 3♣ with a singleton and length in both majors, and they found their 4♥ contract.

If RHO were to explain his bid, he wouldn't be explaining our agreement, since we presumably "agreed" to play 2/1, which includes Unusual 2NT.

[TimG]

barmar said:

1322191648[/url]' post='591568']
Why can't they presume just as easily as you? What makes you even think you HAVE an agreement when it's an indy?.

if I'm playing in an Indy with no explicit agreement beyong "standard", my partner opens 1N, I respond 2C, and an opponent asks, I will tell them it is "Stayman, artificial asking about a four-card major" or some such. I will not say "standard" or otherwise dodge the question.
If my partner opens 1M and I jump to 3M, I will explain to the opponents (if they ask) whether I intend the raise as preemptive, miixed, limit, or forcing even though my partner and I have no explicit agreement (I don't believe it is covered by "standard").
In short, if I make a bid that might have multiple meanings, I will disclose to the opponents what I intend even without an explicit agreement. I believe the fact that I'm willing to make the jump raise implies there is an implicit agreement and that implicit agreement should be disclosed. Sure, my partner might be guessing, and the letter of the Law probably allows me to leave the opponents guessing as well. But, I would prefer to disclose more than required, and believe (or hope ) that this is also the spirit of the Laws.