[mycroft]

"He either wants to play 2♦, or he has one of several INV or better hands." More explanation on request, but we've never had to explain except in the context of a further auction.

[jeffford76]

 mycroft, on 2013-September-23, 14:07, said:

"He either wants to play 2♦, or he has one of several INV or better hands." More explanation on request, but we've never had to explain except in the context of a further auction.

This doesn't seem like full disclosure to me when "wants to play 2♦" doesn't actually mean "has diamonds".

[aguahombre]

This thread has been a real eye opener. In my blissful ignorance, I figured when Pard bid 2C she usually wanted to know about what I had in the major(s)...and that WHY she wanted to know might be revealed by and by.

Now, I have seen the light and am preparing a history with frequency charts and graphs for presentation to inquiring opponents.

[mycroft]

 jeffford76, on 2013-September-23, 14:20, said:

This doesn't seem like full disclosure to me when "wants to play 2♦" doesn't actually mean "has diamonds".

And that's why it's the same case as the OP. I used my system in a way that most people (especially who have never played a weak NT) wouldn't, to attempt to minimize the loss of partner (systemically) putting us in the soup.

You probably think that "he wants to know about my hand and suit quality" explanation of Ogust 2NT means that he's interested in game, too.

[barmar]

This is an age-old question: when you make an asking bid, should opponents be entitled to make inferences based on the types of hands that can usually make use of the answers? Or are they totally devoid of meaning?

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2013-September-23, 19:26, said:

This is an age-old question: when you make an asking bid, should opponents be entitled to make inferences based on the types of hands that can usually make use of the answers?

Well, since the everyone on this board agrees that the law does not require an explanation of future bids, I would say no (at the time of the bid being made), since all the opponents are entitled to is the information that the bid is an asking bid, and not what it is asking for.

In fact, come to think of it, the EBU's regulation to announce Stayman is illegal, since it indicates what opener's rebids will mean.

[campboy]

 mycroft, on 2013-September-23, 18:46, said:

You probably think that "he wants to know about my hand and suit quality" explanation of Ogust 2NT means that he's interested in game, too.

In the EBU, there used to be a regulation in the Orange Book (I can't find it in the Blue Book but suspect the reason it's been taken out is to keep the BB short rather than because they've changed their minds) as follows.

Quote

For example, most players play a 2NT response to a weak two as an enquiry, usually to investigate game or slam. Some players also bid 2NT on weak hands with a fit, expecting to gain from the confusion of opponents who expect a strong hand. This is a well-known tactic, but must be disclosed. If the meaning of the 2NT was asked, for example, the description ‘Ogust’ or ‘asking’ is insufficient. The answer must include the possibility of the response being made on a weak hand.

[campboy]

 Vampyr, on 2013-September-23, 19:39, said:

In fact, come to think of it, the EBU's regulation to announce Stayman is illegal, since it indicates what opener's rebids will mean.

The law just stops players asking their opponents about future bids; it doesn't restrict the RA's right to make alert regulations as it sees fit.

[blackshoe]

 campboy, on 2013-September-24, 02:00, said:

In the EBU, there used to be a regulation in the Orange Book (I can't find it in the Blue Book but suspect the reason it's been taken out is to keep the BB short rather than because they've changed their minds) as follows.

Check the White Book. I'd say if it's in neither place it's no longer a valid EBU regulation. OTOH, one could read it as an interpretation of the law rather than a regulation.

[campboy]

 blackshoe, on 2013-September-24, 07:40, said:

Check the White Book. I'd say if it's in neither place it's no longer a valid EBU regulation. OTOH, one could read it as an interpretation of the law rather than a regulation.

I wasn't trying to claim it was a current EBU regulation (Mycroft isn't in the EBU anyway), just giving an example of an RA taking the view that this sort of explanation isn't sufficient.

[GreenMan]

In Monaco-England QF1, board 9, Fantoni opened 1NT 12-14 and Nunes bid 2♣ with a 4324 5-count, ending in 2♠ on a 4-3 fit. BridgeGoth commented, "They will stayman with very very bad hands over 1NT to avoid a penalty double" and "with something like xxxx xxx xxx xxx he would have duplicated this sequence." 2♠-1 was worth 4 IMPs when Helgeness made 1NT+3 at the other table.

FWIW.

[blackshoe]

 campboy, on 2013-September-24, 08:18, said:

I wasn't trying to claim it was a current EBU regulation (Mycroft isn't in the EBU anyway), just giving an example of an RA taking the view that this sort of explanation isn't sufficient.

Okay. It is a good example of that.

[mycroft]

I have been asked in the past if we had ways of bailing from NT with bad hands. I've said "we can get out in any suit, and..." If we had an agreement that we would *never* sit for 1NT with a bad hand, I would tell them. We don't. With that weird dangerous hand, at favourable, I'd likely sit, and run out with our "please bid" run out system, and gamble 500 vs 800 into 600. 1400 vs 1100 vs 800 into 400 is a different matter, and I made my best guess as to a call that would get us a less-bad score.

This is an interesting discussion. I wonder how different it is in the UK, where "everybody" is familiar, at least, with weak NTs (I know that David, at least, thought that bidding 2♣ "to play" after 1NT-X with xxx xxxx xxx xxx, and then redoubling for rescue, was so expected that he would do it with a pickup. I wouldn't dare over here without discussion!

[aguahombre]

 mycroft, on 2013-September-24, 09:15, said:

This is an interesting discussion. I wonder how different it is in the UK, where "everybody" is familiar, at least, with weak NTs (I know that David, at least, thought that bidding 2♣ "to play" after 1NT-X with xxx xxxx xxx xxx, and then redoubling for rescue, was so expected that he would do it with a pickup. I wouldn't dare over here without discussion!

UK input on threads about ACBL regulations, disclosure issues, etc., is almost always quite a valuable contribution. Here, however ---as you suggested---the British are coming from a whole different mindset. They certainly are more accustomed to weak notrumps; they are also, apparently, more used to 2c not being any form of Stayman at all; they require it to be announced, and the types of hands which would bid 2C probably should be disclosed much more fully.

As strong (to the point of sarcastic) as my view is over here about this topic ---if I were in UK, that view would seem to be inappropriate.

[barmar]

 aguahombre, on 2013-September-24, 10:01, said:

UK input on threads about ACBL regulations, disclosure issues, etc., is almost always quite a valuable contribution. Here, however ---as you suggested---the British are coming from a whole different mindset. They certainly are more accustomed to weak notrumps; they are also, apparently, more used to 2c not being any form of Stayman at all; they require it to be announced, and the types of hands which would bid 2C probably should be disclosed much more fully.

As strong (to the point of sarcastic) as my view is over here about this topic ---if I were in UK, that view would seem to be inappropriate.

Is it really common for 2♣ not to be Stayman? Stayman used to be alerted simply because the old British alert rule was the simple "alert all artificial bids" rule; when they added announcements, I suspect they moved it to the annouceable category because they weren't ready to go cold turkey (pretty much the same reason why we still announce Jacoby Transfers in ACBL, despite the fact that they're practically universal and taught to most beginners).

[gnasher]

Quote

This is an age-old question: when you make an asking bid, should opponents be entitled to make inferences based on the types of hands that can usually make use of the answers?

Yes, the opponents are entitled to know what hands you would make the bid on, both from partnership experience and by inference from the partnership's agreements relating to the later auction. In the absence of any regulation that requires further disclosure, you don't have to tell them what 1NT-2♣;2♥ would mean, but you do have to tell them that 2♣ includes invitational hands with a major, weak hands with both majors, 3433 Yarboroughs, and whatever else is included.

When you use a description like "Non-Forcing Stayman", that's just an abbreviation for a full explanation of the bid. Such an explanation will often be sufficient, of course, but if the opponents don't understand that explanation they're entitled to a full list of hand-types.

[jeffford76]

 mycroft, on 2013-September-23, 18:46, said:

You probably think that "he wants to know about my hand and suit quality" explanation of Ogust 2NT means that he's interested in game, too.

No, I don't think it necessarily means that, but I also don't think it's a fair explanation of the bid if systemically it is used on both strong and weak hands.

I'm also not sure that systemically using it with weak hands doesn't fall afoul of the ACBL regulations on destructive conventions.

I once sent this email to rulings@acbl.org (yes, I know this doesn't get mean the answer is official):

Quote

I have the following agreement with some of my partners:

Over a weak-2 bid, 2NT asks about the strength of the hand and suit quality of the preempt suit, and can be done with a hand of any quality. (That is, you may be planning to take the same action no matter what the answer is.) This is fully explained to the opponents if they ask what we are playing 2NT as.

The ask is made sometimes with strong hands and sometimes with weak hands to make it more difficult for opponents to know when to compete with marginal hands. I was surprised to be told by a local tournament director that this is an illegal agreement. Is this correct?

I couldn't find anything barring it on the GCC, but he claimed it was a "psychic control". I didn't really understand his argument as to why.

This was the response from Rick Beye:

Quote

It is illegal to use this method to intentionally disrupt the opponent's methods (your explanation). Further, to have an AGREEMENT with a partner to do so is clearly an undisclosed, illegal controlled psychic action. Please discontinue this practice.

Look on the GCC under disallowed:

http://www.acbl.org/...ntion-Chart.pdf

Obviously this answer is nonsense since a bid can't be a psyche when you are telling the opponents your partnership agreement, but further correspondence made clear that his position was that to play the convention this way was not constructive and not allowed.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2013-September-24, 10:11, said:

Is it really common for 2♣ not to be Stayman?

No. You will get the odd pair playing something like Helmic or Keri, but I would estimate these as fewer than 1%.

[gnasher]

I believe that the rationale for announcing Stayman in England is to make the rules simple to state and easy to understand. In England all conventional calls are either announced or alerted. Making a special exception for Stayman would just complicate the rules for no great benefit.

[GreenMan]

 jeffford76, on 2013-September-24, 10:59, said:

Obviously this answer is nonsense since a bid can't be a psyche when you are telling the opponents your partnership agreement, but further correspondence made clear that his position was that to play the convention this way was not constructive and not allowed.

The ACBL sees your agreement as destructive rather than obstructive, therefore illegal, and I agree with them.