alert explanations

[aguahombre]

When asked about the meaning of an alerted bid, I often have to be careful to stop after a partial explanation. Even though my partner and I know our system, the opponents might not concur that we do. I do not want to cause a later dispute.

 

Example:

 

1) 2D (mini roman, alerted) 2NT alerted.

When asked, I simply say "asking for further clarification". I think it would be wrong to say, "asking for suit below the singleton".

 

2) 2H (weak) 2S alerted.

When asked, I say "forcing, usually natural." I do not say that I am supposed to show my length in that new suit, even though she might have 3 small. When further asked about "usually natural", I simply state that if the suit is not real, she has a big hand, not a psyche.

 

there are many other situations, where I feel I must stop short of telling them what partner's next bid will show. Am I right on this, or am I violating full disclosure? It seems only the less experienced opponents get irritated. Follow-up bids are alerted and fully explained, and after auction full explanations occur.

[ArtK78]

You should always give a full explanation of the meaning of a conventional call when requested. If the opps feel that the explanation is helping your partner more than them, they can request that partner leave the table prior to your providing the explanation.

 

You are not required (in fact, I would go further - not permitted) to provide information about potential follow-up actions. Your explanation should be limited to the meaning of the call made, not all of the ramifications that follow thereafter.

 

I have been told that you are not supposed to ask (and, if asked, not supposed to answer) questions about bids that have not been made. So, questions like "what would a 1♠ bid have meant instead of the bid that you made?" or questions about future bidding after a conventional call are not appropriate. I am not sure about this - perhaps others could add their knowledge about questions concerning bids that have not been made.

[blackshoe]

I agree with Art's first two paragraphs, but not the third, except as regards future bids. When a player asks for an explanation of opponents' auction, he

is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding.

That's in Law 20F1. So if the meaning of the 1♠ alternative call is relevant to the auction in question, then it must be disclosed.

[paulg]

LAW 20 - REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF CALLS

[snip]

F. Explanation of Calls

1. During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question. The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until his turn to call or play. Law 16 may apply and the Regulating Authority may establish regulations for written explanations.
    
   
2. After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing auction. At his turn to play from his hand or from dummy declarer may request an explanation of a defender’s call or card play understandings. Explanations should be given on a like basis to 1 and by the partner of the player whose action
   is explained.
    
   
3. Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply.
    
   

 

As you see, questions about relevant calls not made are definitely permitted.

 

However care must be taken - the reference to Law 16B1 is about unauthorised information given by a question. But this is as true about calls that have been made - the usual example from the club is:

1♣, alert,

"what is that?" - "natural or balanced, 2+♣, non-forcing"

"how many clubs does it show?" - "two or more"

"so it may just be 2 clubs?" - "yes"

"2C" - not alerted <_<

[TimG]

I have been told that you are not supposed to ask (and, if asked, not supposed to answer) questions about bids that have not been made.  So, questions like "what would a 1♠ bid have meant instead of the bid that you made?" or questions about future bidding after a conventional call are not appropriate.  I am not sure about this - perhaps others could add their knowledge about questions concerning bids that have not been made.

I believe that is was once the case in ACBL that you were not permitted to ask about bids not made, things like "what would it have meant if you had bid 2♠ instead of 3♠?", but that this has changed so that it is now OK to ask about alternative calls.

 

I do not know about asking about potential future bids. I can imagine that it could result in UI if not done very carefully. I once had an opponent ask me how high we played negative doubles in the situation at hand and after getting the answer make a bid one level higher. I'm sure his partner had more information than he would have had without the question. But, it also seems to me that the opponent who asked was entitled to the answer.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps that's a reason for Bergen's preference for negative doubles through 5♦. <_<

[jdonn]

I have even asked about bids not made during the play of the hand. Like at trick 5, "what would it have meant if he had bid 1NT over our 1♦ P 1♠ start?" I can't imagine why this wouldn't be allowed.

[Phil]

I have even asked about bids not made during the play of the hand. Like at trick 5, "what would it have meant if he had bid 1NT over our 1♦ P 1♠ start?" I can't imagine why this wouldn't be allowed.

Unless by doing so, you are giving your partner information about your hand, or how to defend, etc..

 

I think Declarer can ask about everything under the sun.

[gnasher]

Unless by doing so, you are giving your partner information about your hand, or how to defend, etc..

 

I think Declarer can ask about everything under the sun.

A defender is allowed whatever questions he likes, even if by doing so he reveals the entire contents of his hand. The rules don't restrict a player's right to ask questions: they just create consequences if these questions convey unauthorised information (or mislead an opponent).

 

The only exception is that you're not allowed to ask a question solely for partner's benefit.

[Jlall]

I heard a story once about a midnight game where these 2 guys were playing and it went:

 

1S ALERT

 

opps asked, "asks for my singleton if I have a GF hand"

 

p 2C ALERT

 

shows a singleton club, and asks for my 6 card suit

 

p 2H ALERT

 

etc. The opps then complimented them on their fine system <_<

[helene_t]

One of my pet peeves is people explaining a bid in terms of what it asks for. "Asking for a stop in that suit" (cuebid FSF) or "asking for a 5-card major" (Puppet Stayman) helps partner but it doesn't help opps.

 

Of course you shouldn't explain the relay to mini-roman as "asking for the suit below the singleton". You could say "asks about distribution", and "asks for further clarification" is fine too. But what opps really want to know is what kind of hands relayer can have. In particular, does the relay show values?

 

As for the 2♠ response to 2♥ I think you examplantion is adequate. Of course if they ask for the full story, give it. I don't think such a 2♠ bid need to be alerted btw but I could be wrong.

[aguahombre]

I heard a story once about a midnight game where these 2 guys were playing and it went:

 

1S ALERT

 

opps asked, "asks for my singleton if I have a GF hand"

 

p 2C ALERT

 

shows a singleton club, and asks for my 6 card suit

 

p 2H ALERT

 

etc. The opps then complimented them on their fine system :rolleyes:

a good system for cell block D

[barmar]

One of my pet peeves is people explaining a bid in terms of what it asks for. "Asking for a stop in that suit" (cuebid FSF) or "asking for a 5-card major" (Puppet Stayman) helps partner but it doesn't help opps.

I disagree. Asking a question implies that you need to know that specific information, which suggests things about the type of hand you have. Since partner can make that inference from your question, the opponents are entitled to make the same inference, so they need to know what question you're asking.

 

If you're not going to explain an asking bid in terms of what it asks, how are you going to explain it? Are they all just "forcing"? Is the description of Blackwood "Forcing, interested in slam"?

 

The only bids I can think of where you can really give such an empty description are relays. But if a bid asks a specific question, I think the opponents are entitled to know what that is.

[blackshoe]

I suspect that Helene's peeve has more to do with the failure to fully disclose what kinds of hands would ask the question than with the problem of the player telling the bidder what his (the player's) bid in answer will mean.

[barmar]

I don't see the problem with that. Most of the time there are a wide variety of hands that will ask the same question.

 

Sometimes the preceding auction narrows it down. For instance, sometimes the auction suggests that when partner asks for a stopper, he's likely to have at least half a stopper as well, because you had an opportunity to show a stopper earlier. In cases like this I'll say, "partner probably has a half stopper and and asks me to bid 3NT with help there."

 

But what can you say about partner's hand when he bids Blackwood?

[TimG]

I think the problem comes when you explain 4NT as "asks for keycards with spades as trumps".

[aguahombre]

i think if anyone asks about a bid above 3nt in a slam going auction, and they havent been competing, I will ask them to wait til the auction is over. could be 6 key cards, etc.

[blackshoe]

You ask them to wait, they call the director, the director tells you to answer the question. Now what?

[cherdanno]

One of my pet peeves is people explaining a bid in terms of what it asks for. "Asking for a stop in that suit" (cuebid FSF) or "asking for a 5-card major" (Puppet Stayman) helps partner but it doesn't help opps.

I disagree. Asking a question implies that you need to know that specific information, which suggests things about the type of hand you have. Since partner can make that inference from your question, the opponents are entitled to make the same inference, so they need to know what question you're asking.

 

If you're not going to explain an asking bid in terms of what it asks, how are you going to explain it? Are they all just "forcing"? Is the description of Blackwood "Forcing, interested in slam"?

 

The only bids I can think of where you can really give such an empty description are relays. But if a bid asks a specific question, I think the opponents are entitled to know what that is.

1S-2C*

Explanation 1: "Asks whether partner has extras, and to start showing shape in case he has" (or just "GF relay")

Explanation 2: "game-forcing, either natural 2/1 or balanced GF"

Which explanation do you think is correct?

 

1N-(X)-XX*

Explanation 1: "Asks partner to bid 2♣"

Explanation 2: "Weak hand with two suits"

Which explanation do you think is correct?

 

I didn't make either example up.

[aguahombre]

I think 2 and 2. the whole reason I started this string was to get the opinions of others about explanations which imply what my next bid is supposed to mean, or otherwise appear to help partner. Live bridge is the key, since self explanations in private are not a problem.

[gnasher]

I really dislike the assumption that an explanation can be expected to help the explainer's partner. Hearing your partner's explanation can only be helpful if you're dishonest. When an honest player hears his partner's explanation, either it has no effect (because he already thought it meant that) or it constrains his actions (because he thought it meant something else, or he didn't know what it meant).

 

That is a much better reason for phrasing your explanations in a way that describes the bid and not the continuations. If you're in the midst of a misunderstanding, it's best to have as little UI as possible.

[helene_t]

I really dislike the assumption that an explanation can be expected to help the explainer's partner. Hearing your partner's explanation can only be helpful if you're dishonest.

Right. It can create an ethical dilemma, though.

[Fluffy]

Hearing your partner's explanation can only be helpful if you're dishonest.

I would never call the old ladies at my local dishonest (I would risk being hit by an umbrella). But I am pretty sure they will get advantage of every bit of information they can gather, no matter what the source is.

[JoAnneM]

It seems like with the auction 1nt-x-xx, the explanation "forces 3c" should be the only explanation necessary because that is the exact agreement for the bid. You don't really know what partner might do next. It's usually a pass, but it's not guaranteed.

[helene_t]

It seems like with the auction 1nt-x-xx, the explanation "forces 3c" should be the only explanation necessary because that is the exact agreement for the bid. You don't really know what partner might do next. It's usually a pass, but it's not guaranteed.

(Assuming you meant 2♣ rather than 3♣.)

 

Disagree.

 

As a defender I would like to know if it always shows clubs, or all weak variants include clubs. If that is the case, I can bid 2♣ showing both majors (or whatever our generic agreement is for cuebids against transfers).

 

I probably don't want to know that it forces 2♣. XX'er will alert his partner's 2♣ bid and if I don't know what that means, I can ask, and he will say that it is mandatory. So explaining the XX as "forces 2♣" is helpful only in the event that

1) my action over the XX depends on whether 1NTxx may be passed out. For that purpose, "forcing" is sufficient.

2) my action over the XX depends on whether opener may deprive my p from space to bid 2♦/♥/♠. That is unlikely.

 

So "forces to 2♣" is at best no more informative than "forcing", and at worst misleading (because some inexperient players may think it means that it shows clubs, which it probably doesn't).