[nige1]

A bit like the Icelandic Pairs topic, but an older, more subtle, and much more controversial example: When opponents ask about the auction, you explain... .

• 2N - 3♣ Opener has 20-22 HCP 4333, 4432 or 5332. Responder relayed (Puppet Stayman).
• 3♦ - 3♥: Opener has no five-card major. He denies precisely two spades and three hearts. Responder promises four spades and may have four hearts..
• 3N. Opener's rebid is natural, denying three or more spades.

Is this explanation acceptable? Although correct, as far as it goes, it omits the key inference: that opener has four hearts. You yourself may have forgotten or be unaware of this inference. Your explanation may be in good faith. Nevertheless, IMO, opponents are entitled to the additional information. Many disagree, pointing out that it is just Bridge Logic.

[campboy]

It's not bridge logic, it's logic logic. You gave a list of shapes for the opening and then said some were later denied; the only shapes in the first list but not the second are 2443 and 2434.

[blackshoe]

How does opener deny 4♥?

[wank]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-15, 11:21, said:

How does opener deny 4♥?

3nt over 3c denies 3s or 4h one presumes

[ggwhiz]

A few years ago we had 3 or 4 local pairs playing home grown systems or modified Polish club that actively used fuzzy disclosure as an advantage and worse, purposely used it in stratified games to bamboozle the rookies.

Led to my favorite committee of all time when a 2♥ opener was alerted as "could be this, could be that, could be something else". Repeated a few times on further inquiry. The opp then bid 3nt wide open in hearts and made it.

When asked in committee why he bid it, he said "Anyone that doesn't have the courtesy to give a proper explanation, doesn't have the courtesy to lead their partners suit". Case closed.

How hard is any opponent supposed to work to figure out your non-mainstream bidding? At the least, it just unfairly wears you out. Just my opinion of course.

[paulg]

nige1, on 2011-March-15, 10:54, said:

• 3N. Opener's rebid is natural, denying three or more spades.

This does not seem like full disclosure to me. When you play methods that are not mainstream then I believe the onus is on the protagonists to provide a full description, particularly at the end of an auction whether there is no danger of passing UI. I would take an extremely dim view if I thought a player was deliberately trying to mislead another through such antics when it is so easy to provide a clear explanation.

I don't regard this as similar to the Icelandic thread.

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2011-March-15, 11:19, said:

It's not bridge logic, it's logic logic. You gave a list of shapes for the opening and then said some were later denied; the only shapes in the first list but not the second are 2443 and 2434.

OK, but I'd rather be told than have to work it out myself.

[phil_20686]

I suspect that the answer to nigel's question depends on what exactly was asked. If they asked about specific bids one after another, then the above explanation is complete. If they asked "what has declarer shown" then they should have just summarised the content as "Declarer has at most two spades and exactly 4 hearts in 20-22 balanced".

In practice, I think that summarising what you have shown is normally better practice than describing every bid, particularly if your opponents are club level players.

[campboy]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-15, 14:48, said:

OK, but I'd rather be told than have to work it out myself.

So would I. If I got an explanation like that and didn't know what distributions were left I would ask.

[phil_20686]

I think a good example of this stuff is found in sequences that bypass serious/non serious 3N. Suppose that we had teh auction:

1s-2d
2s-3s
4d-4s

The opponents ask about the meaning of 4D only. Your agreements are that 4d is a first or second round control, but if they ask about only 4d are you really suppose to volunteer the information that this denies a club control? Suppose you are an unreconstructed LOL, so you would have played 4c = gerber on this auction. Should you now volunteer this information when asked about the meaning of 4d? What about the information that you also play serious 3N so 4d limited your hand. What about the information that you play 2S= 10-14 with a 6 card suit, and that 2S always promises 6 cards so that 4d is now a non serious slam try denying a club control in the context of a hand with 6 spades that was too good to open 2S initially. At what point do you give up? I think that if the opponents ask about a specific bid it is implied that they have followed the rest of the auction, and you are entitled to give only the precise meaning, expecting the opposition to understand from the context. If they ask something open ended like "please explain what declarer has shown" then you should be scrupulous about giving full disclosure, but summarise it. Do not include useless information on hands that partner might have held but turned out not to.

[barmar]

phil_20686, on 2011-March-15, 15:59, said:

I suspect that the answer to nigel's question depends on what exactly was asked.

Not in ACBL jurisdiction, I think. The ACBL Alert Procedures says that opponents don't have to ask the right questions. Any request for information should prompt a complete explanation.

For example, if you alert a bid, and the opponent asks "Was that convention name?", it's not appropriate to simply answer "yes" or "no". You should give the same answer as if they'd simply said "Please explain."

[bluejak]

campboy, on 2011-March-15, 11:19, said:

It's not bridge logic, it's logic logic. You gave a list of shapes for the opening and then said some were later denied; the only shapes in the first list but not the second are 2443 and 2434.

Of course it is logical. It is also MI, and with better players playing weaker ones quite possibly deliberate MI. It is not making your agreements "fully and freely available", but making them fuzzily available through obfuscation.

phil_20686, on 2011-March-15, 16:12, said:

The opponents ask about the meaning of 4D only. Your agreements are that 4d is a first or second round control, but if they ask about only 4d are you really suppose to volunteer the information that this denies a club control?

Yes, of course, because that is part of the agreed meaning.

[nige1]

phil_20686, on 2011-March-15, 15:59, said:

I suspect that the answer to nigel's question depends on what exactly was asked. If they asked about specific bids one after another, then the above explanation is complete. If they asked "what has declarer shown" then they should have just summarised the content as "Declarer has at most two spades and exactly 4 hearts in 20-22 balanced". In practice, I think that summarising what you have shown is normally better practice than describing every bid, particularly if your opponents are club level players.

I completely agree with phil_29686 and I hope the 2018 law-book will explicitly specify that even if you decide to explain each call, you should still provide a final summary that includes such inferences.

[nige1]

barmar, on 2011-March-15, 17:11, said:

Not in ACBL jurisdiction, I think. The ACBL Alert Procedures says that opponents don't have to ask the right questions. Any request for information should prompt a complete explanation. For example, if you alert a bid, and the opponent asks "Was that convention name?", it's not appropriate to simply answer "yes" or "no". You should give the same answer as if they'd simply said "Please explain."

IMO that is an excellent rule: if it isn't already in the law-book, it should be included in 2018 or 2028.

[Cascade]

barmar, on 2011-March-15, 17:11, said:

Not in ACBL jurisdiction, I think. The ACBL Alert Procedures says that opponents don't have to ask the right questions. Any request for information should prompt a complete explanation.

For example, if you alert a bid, and the opponent asks "Was that convention name?", it's not appropriate to simply answer "yes" or "no". You should give the same answer as if they'd simply said "Please explain."

The problem here is that the explanation was complete just not in the form "partner has four hearts".

Its not clear to me that the laws (or regulations) require an answer to be in a specific form. Nor is it clear to me that I must provide lessons in logic to my opponents.

Nevertheless my explanations should not be designed to deliberately mislead. Otherwise succinct and clear should be ok and I don't have an issue with requiring the opponents to process the information provided.

[iviehoff]

In a sense it is a bit like the Icelandic thread, because the opponents don't know for sure whether the sequence of responses available to opener following the 3C enquiry enables opener to show all of the possibilities, and therefore whether opener might have been pushed into a "I haven't got a response for that" situation, and choose the least damaging lie. (Though of course Nigel would have passed and left partner to play in a 3-2 fit.) Further we don't know if opener sometimes chooses to conceal a poor 4-cd suit. Nor if there is any record of bidding off-shape 2N even though the response system doesn't handle it.

[paulg]

iviehoff, on 2011-March-16, 03:06, said:

In a sense it is a bit like the Icelandic thread, because the opponents don't know for sure whether the sequence of responses available to opener following the 3C enquiry enables opener to show all of the possibilities, and therefore whether opener might have been pushed into a "I haven't got a response for that" situation, and choose the least damaging lie. (Though of course Nigel would have passed and left partner to play in a 3-2 fit.) Further we don't know if opener sometimes chooses to conceal a poor 4-cd suit. Nor if there is any record of bidding off-shape 2N even though the response system doesn't handle it.

I expect that the full explanation of the 3♦ response is 'denies two (or fewer) spades and three (or fewer) hearts' when Nigel expands his 2NT opener to include such distributions.

[Gerardo]

3♦ PROMISES a 4 card major, right?

Shouldn't that be alerted?

[helene_t]

No, 3♦ shows 3-4 spades and/or 4 hearts. I think that is the best way of explaining it. Avoid relying on negative inference when the positive inference is just as simple.

3NT I would explain as two spades, four hearts. Yeah opps can figure that out but they might not have paid attention to the explanation of the 3♦ bid.

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2011-March-15, 17:11, said:

Not in ACBL jurisdiction, I think. The ACBL Alert Procedures says that opponents don't have to ask the right questions. Any request for information should prompt a complete explanation.

For example, if you alert a bid, and the opponent asks "Was that convention name?", it's not appropriate to simply answer "yes" or "no". You should give the same answer as if they'd simply said "Please explain."

nige1, on 2011-March-15, 19:25, said:

IMO that is an excellent rule: if it isn't already in the law-book, it should be included in 2018 or 2028.

Not everyone agrees. The EBU L&EC considered a regulation of this sort and decided not some time back: it was the view of some members that players that ask specific questions should get the specific answer asked for. For example, if someone asks "Is that weak" then, if it is weak, the answer "Yes" suffices even if there is something else.

Part of the reason for this is that some members felt that questioners deserved such an answer for such a question even if "Please explain" would have got a more helpful answer. Also, a person who literally only wants the answer to the question asked should not be subjected to what he considers irrelevancies.