[Cthulhu D]

pran, on 2012-November-29, 15:33, said:

More on our Norwegian regulation, I think this "solves" many of the problems discussed here:

Opening bids in the range 1NT to 2♠ shall never be alerted, they must immediately be announced (by opener's partner who describes all essential features of the bid).

So for instance when I open 2♦ my partner will immediately say: "Multi, that is weak 6 cards hearts, weak 6 cards spades or 20-21 NT"

I would love this.

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2012-November-29, 15:33, said:

So for instance when I open 2♦ my partner will immediately say: "Multi, that is weak 6 cards hearts, weak 6 cards spades or 20-21 NT"

And when Opener then says something like "You missed option 2" as happened the last time someone opened a multi against me?

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-30, 01:53, said:

And when Opener then says something like "You missed option 2" as happened the last time someone opened a multi against me?

He is violating

Law 20 F 5 said:

(a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. ‘Mistaken explanation’ here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.

(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is
(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.
(ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

[Zelandakh]

I agree with that but pointing it out simply got the response "This is not the Bermuda Bowl!" which was indeed true. The point is that this sort of thing happens routinely in clubs for explanations - how much worse would it be if we went over to announcements for complex conventions (that could be handled by an alert).

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-30, 02:42, said:

I agree with that but pointing it out simply got the response "This is not the Bermuda Bowl!" which was indeed true. The point is that this sort of thing happens routinely in clubs for explanations - how much worse would it be if we went over to announcements for complex conventions (that could be handled by an alert).

What is the difference if the opening bid we are talking about is always alerted and always asked about?

The point is that opening bids in the range 1NT - 2♠ for opening bids very seldom are "complex", but they vary a lot from one partnership understanding to another. Consequently alerts on such bids are hardly of any advantage at all while proper announcments indeed are.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-30, 02:42, said:

I agree with that but pointing it out simply got the response "This is not the Bermuda Bowl!" which was indeed true.

It's also irrelevant — da rulez is da rulez, wherever you are.

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-30, 02:42, said:

The point is that this sort of thing happens routinely in clubs for explanations - how much worse would it be if we went over to announcements for complex conventions (that could be handled by an alert).

Is that a question?

The fact that something happens routinely in clubs is not, IMO, a good reason to make it legal.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2012-November-29, 12:10, said:

My problem is with everyone asking about 2♦. Automatically - "is it weak?" "Yes, if it's anything else WE HAVE TO ALERT!" (even if it's natural but not weak).

I long ago decided not to say things like "of course it's natural, I didn't alert it, did I?"

Especially in the case of novices. When they're playing against more advanced players, who have lots of unfamiliar gadgets on the CC, I think they worry that almost anything could be weird. And they're unsure of what is actually alertable, so they assume the worst.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-28, 20:12, said:

I have always been uncomfortable with the EBU position

No doubt some people are. However, there are a lot of people who prefer people to ask questions as asked. It is a pity that people should have to go on about irrelevancies when you want to know one specific thing. After all, there is a simple solution: if you want a general answer, just ask the simple question "What is the meaning of 3♠?". But it seems reasonable to me that if I ask "How many points does 3♠ show?" that I should get an answer that tells me just that.

Vampyr, on 2012-November-28, 20:12, said:

A player who asks "Weak or strong?" and not even "Weak, strong or intermediate?" is clearly an inexperienced player who has only heard of two possible styles and would not ever imagine that there are others. To answer "weak" and omit to mention that the bid shows diamonds and spades (or whatever) instead of clubs seems really mean, and I wish one didn't automatically get away with it.

My experience is that a player who asks this sort of question is often highly experienced and sometimes arrogant.

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-30, 02:42, said:

I agree with that but pointing it out simply got the response "This is not the Bermuda Bowl!" which was indeed true. The point is that this sort of thing happens routinely in clubs for explanations - how much worse would it be if we went over to announcements for complex conventions (that could be handled by an alert).

Not at all. Announcements are basically simple alerts that give a small amount of information, which is often all that is required. Whether something is alerted or announced, to get details you have to ask or check the SC.

Take, for example, "May be short". While that is often all you need to know, it covers a vast array of types, so assumptions cannot be drawn from it.

[mycroft]

barmar, on 2012-November-30, 12:31, said:

I long ago decided not to say things like "of course it's natural, I didn't alert it, did I?"

Especially in the case of novices. When they're playing against more advanced players, who have lots of unfamiliar gadgets on the CC, I think they worry that almost anything could be weird. And they're unsure of what is actually alertable, so they assume the worst.

Oh, absolutely, in the case of novices, I have no issues. When they have 1500 (or 2500) points, and they have made comments that they are allowed to use their partner's explanations to colour their future bids, and their partners magically get it right when they ask,...

Oh, and the question is always "is it weak?" Not "please explain" or anything else. Lovely.

As I said, in this case it's tempered also by the fact that about 40% of 2♦ openers are conventional around here, and about 30% of the time 2♦ is opened it's Alerted...

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-November-30, 13:32, said:

No doubt some people are. However, there are a lot of people who prefer people to ask questions as asked. It is a pity that people should have to go on about irrelevancies when you want to know one specific thing.

One of the problems is that it creates inconsistencies.

I assume most jurisdictions say that simply naming a convention is not considered appropriate disclosure -- when asked for an explanation of 1M-2NT, you shouldn't just say "Jacoby". But suppose the opponent asks "Jacoby?" -- is it appropriate to give a yes/no answer?

One of the reasons for not allowing convention names is that players may have different understandings of precisely what it means -- you may play Jacoby 2NT differently from the opponents. The fact that the asked the question in that form does not mean they have the same understanding as you, so why would it be appropriate to give that answer?

Unless you think that they should protect themselves against this problem by asking the more general question -- asking "Jacoby?" implies that they don't care about the specifics of your treatment.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-November-30, 13:32, said:

No doubt some people are. However, there are a lot of people who prefer people to ask questions as asked. It is a pity that people should have to go on about irrelevancies when you want to know one specific thing.

Indeed, but it is usually possible to answer in a way which avoids either annoying the opponents or allowing them to be misled. For example:

"Is that weak or strong?"
"It's weak. You do know that it's artificial, don't you?"

If somebody is so unreasonable as to be annoyed by that, it's his problem not mine.

Quote

My experience is that a player who asks this sort of question is often highly experienced and sometimes arrogant.

Yes, or at least they think they're highly experienced. Faced with such an attitude, I can see the temptation to stick them with the consequences of their arrogance, but it's still wrong. Bridge is a much better game if everybody knows what their opponents' bids mean.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2012-December-01, 03:14, said:

"It's weak. You do know that it's artificial, don't you?"

Something about that form of response rubs me the wrong way.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2012-December-01, 03:14, said:

Indeed, but it is usually possible to answer in a way which avoids either annoying the opponents or allowing them to be misled. For example:

"Is that weak or strong?"
"It's weak. You do know that it's artificial, don't you?"

If somebody is so unreasonable as to be annoyed by that, it's his problem not mine.

barmar, on 2012-December-01, 16:40, said:

Something about that form of response rubs me the wrong way.

It struck me the same way. Perhaps just "It's weak and artificial" and leave it at that unless they ask more.

[mycroft]

Heh, another one for the books.

---

"Were there any artificial calls in this auction?"
"Yes"
"Please explain them"
"Well, 4♣ was Gerber."
Pause.
"And?"
"4♦ showed one."

3000 MPs. I wonder how many came from disclosure like this.

[barmar]

Doesn't 4♦ show 0 or 4?

[blackshoe]

If 4♦ shows one, I guess pass shows zero.

[mycroft]

Usually, yes, it would. I'm guessing (because partner *did* show up with one) that they're playing 1430 Gerber (popular around here for some reason).

In this person's case, it fits with his other explanation patterns (absolute minimum he can get away with, frequently trying to figure out which call someone is interested in), and his stated policies behind explanations ("I will not discuss meanings for these bids so I can say 'no agreement' after two years and 700 MPs worth of experience with this partner", and "I will use my partner's explanations in my calls. Anything else would voluntarily give me a bad score").

With others around here, I'd just assume that "isn't that standard?" would apply - which is still no excuse, and is more reason for "this is why you explain what the bid means, and not what it's called. Some people play the same convention different from you", but there it is.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2012-November-26, 19:15, said:

At first sight this looks like a normal bid by South who then, after discovering MI, is trying to gain from a ruling/appeal.

And it is not clear that there is misexplanation. A penalty double is defined in the EBU as one that "suggests that the doubler believes, on the basis of his hand and the auction to date, that his side’s best result on the board will be obtained by defending the doubled contract." I expect it is similar in Australia. There is no reason it has to show a trump stack, and it is much more likely to have values in the majors, and I would expect West to pass if South did. I would also reinstate the table result.

[barmar]

Why would someone holding values in the majors, and whose partner hasn't promised length in diamonds, think that their side's best result would be obtained by defending a diamond partscore?

At high bidding levels, penalty doubles don't necessarily suggest a trump stack -- you think they're sacrificing and you're going to beat them just on strength. But it's rarely possible to penalize a 2-level contract profitably without one of the defenders having lots of trumps (occasionally you can get a defensive crossruff going, but it's hard to know that in two rounds of bidding, so it's rare to be able to double on this basis). So it's simple bridge logic that a low-level penalty double suggests length in the suit being doubled (or expectation that partner has the length).

[lamford]

barmar, on 2012-December-10, 00:27, said:

Why would someone holding values in the majors, and whose partner hasn't promised length in diamonds, think that their side's best result would be obtained by defending a diamond partscore?

Because the precision diamond's expected length in diamonds has risen dramatically when RHO has 10 cards in the majors and we have 7. Just as with auctions such as 1NT-(2C/D, Astro, Apstro or whatever)-Double suggests that the side's best result might well be defending a doubled contract, including the suit bid, and therefore most players would require some holding in the doubled suit, but often only xxx or Hx.