another alert question and an oops

22 Pages
« First
←
19
20
21
22
→

You cannot start a new topic
You cannot reply to this topic

another alert question and an oops

#401 mgoetze

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 4,942
Joined: 2005-January-28
Gender:Male
Location:Cologne, Germany
Interests:Sleeping, Eating

Posted 2012-April-19, 02:27

pran, on 2012-April-18, 16:46, said:

What information?

As it happens it depends on the rest of your NT structure. Responder may be showing, for instance, one of the following hand types:
(a) at least invitational strength with at least one 4-card major, no 5+ card major unless exactly 5-4 in majors;
(b) exactly invitational strength with no 5-card major or 6-card minor;
© a weak hand with short clubs.

"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
-- Bertrand Russell

#402 pran

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 5,344
Joined: 2009-September-14
Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2012-April-19, 12:21

mgoetze, on 2012-April-19, 02:27, said:

If the agreement includes (a) or (b) then (and only then) this information is (of course) part of the information that is required with the explanation.

(c} has become general bridge knowledge since an ingenious player discovered this possibility to land in the best possible contract regardless of opener's hand. But it has never been part of Stayman specifications.

I see nothing in your post that makes the NT structure relevant for the understanding of the 2♣ Stayman bid.

So again: The 2♣ bid can very well be completely described with "asking for a major suit, giving no information about the player's own hand".

#403 Trinidad

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 4,531
Joined: 2005-October-09
Location:Netherlands

Posted 2012-April-21, 01:00

pran, on 2012-April-19, 12:21, said:

Not exactly. Whether option {c} is included depends on the rebids. You can include {c} if the responses to Stayman are:
- 2♦: no 4 card M
- 2♥: 4♥
- 2♠: 4♠
other responses shouldn't exist.

You could play a slightly different {c} if the responses are:
- 2♦: no 5 card M
- 2♥: 5♥
- 2♠: 5♠
again, other responses shouldn't exist.

But as soon as you play a variation where there are meanings for bids of 2NT and higher (e.g. 2NT: Both majors), you can't put option {c} in Stayman (perhaps with the exception of 3M showing a five card suit).

Yet another example of the responses defining the possible hand types in the asking bid.

Rik

I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg

#404 blackshoe

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 17,596
Joined: 2006-April-17
Gender:Male
Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-April-21, 02:29

This discussion would be better placed on rgb or blml.

--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean

#405 mgoetze

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 4,942
Joined: 2005-January-28
Gender:Male
Location:Cologne, Germany
Interests:Sleeping, Eating

Posted 2012-April-21, 11:39

pran, on 2012-April-19, 12:21, said:

I see nothing in your post that makes the NT structure relevant for the understanding of the 2♣ Stayman bid.

Uhhuh. So you didn't notice that some people don't include hand (b) in their Stayman bid because they have a different way to invite? Also some people might have Stayman as the only way to start a single-suited slam-interested hand with a minor. And then there are the Garbage Stayman variants etc.

And in fact hand (c) is not always possible, see Trinidad's response. And yet you say you don't need to disclose whether it could be a weak three-suited hand, and you ALSO don't need to disclose what a 2NT response would mean. So you don't want the opponents to be able to figure out the system.

Quote

So again: The 2♣ bid can very well be completely described with "asking for a major suit, giving no information about the player's own hand".

Sorry, this is complete and utter bullshit. It gives a lot of information for instance with regards to responder having a 5+ card major or not.

"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
-- Bertrand Russell

#406 blackshoe

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 17,596
Joined: 2006-April-17
Gender:Male
Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-April-21, 15:59

If there are alternative calls that might have been made that could affect the meaning of the call actually made, the meanings of those alternative calls should be disclosed. That doesn't lead to the conclusion that the meanings of future calls should be made now.

"Utter bullshit" is a serious overbid. I recommend you choose another. B-)

#407 gnasher

Andy Bowles

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 11,993
Joined: 2007-May-03
Gender:Male
Location:London, UK

Posted 2012-April-21, 16:59

It's only a mild overbid. It would be quite improper to describe a bid as "giving no information about the player's own hand" when it does, in fact, give information about the player's own hand.

Because everyone knows what Stayman is, it's an acceptable shorthand initially to describe it as "Stayman" or "Stayman but it could be an invitation without a major". However, if you're giving a detailed explanation you should describe the hand-types that would bid 2♣. For example "Game-forcing with one or two four-card majors (but not a concentrated 4M-5m), or invitational with one or two four-card majors, or invitational without a major, or game-forcing with at least 5-4 or 4-5 in the majors, or a hand that plans to pass any response, or a signoff with at least 4-5 or 5-4 in the majors."

... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn

#408 blackshoe

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 17,596
Joined: 2006-April-17
Gender:Male
Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-April-21, 19:42

I don't have a problem with that kind of description. I've said that before in this thread.

#409 Vampyr

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 10,611
Joined: 2009-September-15
Gender:Female
Location:London

Posted 2012-April-21, 22:33

This thread does my head in, because I cannot understand how information that would be available on a well-fulled-out convention card, or a discussion of system before the round begins, can suddenly become secret once the bidding has begun.

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein

#410 pran

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 5,344
Joined: 2009-September-14
Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2012-April-22, 00:20

Vampyr, on 2012-April-21, 22:33, said:

Is it then a fair assumption that you cannot (or maybe do not want to) understand the reason why a player may not consult his own convention card (nor other system description notes) during the auction?

The reason is the same.

#411 gnasher

Andy Bowles

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 11,993
Joined: 2007-May-03
Gender:Male
Location:London, UK

Posted 2012-April-22, 03:13

Vampyr, on 2012-April-21, 22:33, said:

Because the Laws say so, and the WBFLC has confirmed that this is the intended meaning. You might think that this is both absurd and unfair, but that doesn't change what the rules are.

... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn

#412 gnasher

Andy Bowles

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 11,993
Joined: 2007-May-03
Gender:Male
Location:London, UK

Posted 2012-April-22, 03:16

pran, on 2012-April-22, 00:20, said:

Is a discussion of the rationale for a law on-topic in this forum? I'd like to explain to Sven why I disagree with this argument, but I'm not sure if it's allowed.

... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn

#413 pran

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 5,344
Joined: 2009-September-14
Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2012-April-22, 04:35

gnasher, on 2012-April-22, 03:16, said:

Is a discussion of the rationale for a law on-topic in this forum? I'd like to explain to Sven why I disagree with this argument, but I'm not sure if it's allowed.

You are right, this is not the forum for such a discussion. The correct forum would be "Changing laws and regulations".

And as I both understand the rationale for this law and fully appreciate it I don't think that I am much interested in any further discussion.

#414 blackshoe

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 17,596
Joined: 2006-April-17
Gender:Male
Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-April-22, 06:25

You can always start a new thread in "Changing Laws…" if you want to continue/spin off such a discussion. In this case, though, if your purpose is discussion with Sven, it would seem pointless, since he's not interested.

#415 barmar

Group: Admin
Posts: 21,422
Joined: 2004-August-21
Gender:Male

Posted 2012-April-22, 14:55

gnasher, on 2012-April-21, 16:59, said:

But as soon as you say "plans to pass any response", you're inviting questions about the response structure. Whether you might have ♦ depends on whether 2♦ is a possible response and what it shows.

#416 Vampyr

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 10,611
Joined: 2009-September-15
Gender:Female
Location:London

Posted 2012-April-22, 16:31

pran, on 2012-April-22, 00:20, said:

I am certain that the reason is not the same.

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein

#417 pran

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 5,344
Joined: 2009-September-14
Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2012-April-23, 01:16

barmar, on 2012-April-22, 14:55, said:

An explanation including the clause: "plans to pass any response" is improper, and (if partner can hear it) a direct violation of Law 73B1.

#418 pran

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 5,344
Joined: 2009-September-14
Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2012-April-23, 01:20

pran, on 2012-April-22, 00:20, said:

Vampyr, on 2012-April-22, 16:31, said:

I am certain that the reason is not the same.

QED

#419 barmar

Group: Admin
Posts: 21,422
Joined: 2004-August-21
Gender:Male

Posted 2012-April-23, 09:09

pran, on 2012-April-23, 01:16, said:

An explanation including the clause: "plans to pass any response" is improper, and (if partner can hear it) a direct violation of Law 73B1.

How is it a violation of 73B1? In what way is describing what partner might do a communication to him? Are you suggesting that he might not have considered that possible action at the time he bid 2♣, and this explanation would give him the idea that he could do so?

Certainly, saying "or he has a weak hand with 5-6 ♦ and 3-4 in each major" is a better way to describe this possibility. Although if the opponents don't know the response structure, they won't know whether you'll be able to play 2♦ or 3♦ in the case where ♦ is your best fit. But it's not clear that the Law entitles them to this information, they're just entitled to know what the bid shows about the hand.

#420 Vampyr

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 10,611
Joined: 2009-September-15
Gender:Female
Location:London

Posted 2012-April-23, 10:20

If the reason that it is, perhaps, illegal to give the opponents information about future bids were that partner would be reminded of his own system, then the situation would change when screens are in use. I have not noticed any proponents of the above position mentioning that this is the case.

Anyway, what the opponents are entitled to trumps UI considerations. Were this not the case, there would be no explanations at all.

In any case I shall continue to give my opponents any information they ask for. Even if they are not, strictly speaking, "entitled" to some of it, I would prefer to be more helpful than less.

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein

22 Pages
« First
←
19
20
21
22
→

You cannot start a new topic
You cannot reply to this topic

BBO Discussion Forums: another alert question and an oops - BBO Discussion Forums

another alert question and an oops

#401 mgoetze

#402 pran

#403 Trinidad

#404 blackshoe

#405 mgoetze

#406 blackshoe

#407 gnasher

#408 blackshoe

#409 Vampyr

#410 pran

#411 gnasher

#412 gnasher

#413 pran

#414 blackshoe

#415 barmar

#416 Vampyr

#417 pran

#418 pran

#419 barmar

#420 Vampyr

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

Delete Post

Skin and Language

Execution Stats

BBO Discussion Forums: another alert question and an oops - BBO Discussion Forums

another alert question and an oops

1 User(s) are reading this topic 0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

Delete Post

Skin and Language

Execution Stats

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users