alert explanations

[jdonn]

In that case it is simple to say "forces 2♣, could be a bunch of different hands" and clarify if asked.

[aguahombre]

"XX forces 2C and starts a runout with just clubs, just diamonds, or both majors." that seems to be an adequate explanation which doesn't go overboard about future bids and doesn't take much time. If it is true :(

[Fluffy]

Hope this is not offtopic:

 

if the bidding starts

 

pass-(1♦)-pass-(1NT)

2♦

 

should I alert my opponents that we play a (very rare where we play) 2♦ opening for a weak hand with both majors?

[barmar]

The phrase "asking bid" does not, IMHO, include bids like this redouble. An asking bid is one that asks a specific question and the answer is encoded in partner's next bid, e.g. Ogust or Blackwood. A bid that "asks partner to bid XXX" (e.g. Lebensohl or the redouble that starts a runout) is a puppet or marionette.

 

The tricky case is a bid that starts a runout sequence where each partner is supposed to bid 4+-card suits up the line, in the hope of finding a 4-3 fit to stop at. I guess this would show a balanced hand, usually weak.

[peachy]

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.

I agree.

If they play that XX forces 2C regardless of what suits 1NT opener has, then it is the same class of bid as Lebensohl 2NT which forces partner to bid 3C. It is a relay. Speculating on what the relayer might have is an unnecessary part of the explanation, but if opponent asks "what kind of hands use the relay" then it will be a lengthy answer in case of Lebensohl while in case of 1NT (X) XX the answer is shorter = runout to some suit.

[Cascade]

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.

If the source is not authorized to them and they know that then that is dishonest whether or not you want to call them that.

 

The laws of bridge require active avoidance of UI to play by the rules. Yes sometimes you might get that wrong - it is hard to always know where the boundaries are. (Sometimes the directors and appeal committees get these things horribly wrong). But to always take advantage of the UI is to knowingly be dishonest.

[Cascade]

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.

Disagree.

 

This is deliberately hiding information from the opponents.

 

I also disagree with Josh who seems to think that you need to wait for the opponents to ask subsequent questions before giving them all of the information.

 

The laws require all information in response to the initial question.

[Lobowolf]

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.

Disagree.

 

This is deliberately hiding information from the opponents.

 

I also disagree with Josh who seems to think that you need to wait for the opponents to ask subsequent questions before giving them all of the information.

 

The laws require all information in response to the initial question.

I agree with this in principle, and with respect to the 1NT-(X)-XX auction, I think the response should be that it's a relay to 2♣, showing a weak one-suited hand with any suit (if that's what it is, of course).

 

But if the bid were a 2NT Lebensohl call, after, say, 1NT-(2♥), I'd say that it's a relay to 3♣, and shows a wide variety of hands, and ask if they wanted to know, or wait for me to explain the next bid. I think it invites confusion to say that it could be intending to pass 3♣, or bid a new suit, which would be weak if diamonds, but invitational if spades, or perhaps to show 4 spades with a heart stopper, or to show values for 3NT, but deny a spade suit and show a heart stopper...you get the idea.

 

But "Weak 1-suiter with any suit"? You know it, it's fast and simple to explain, and you should tell the opponents. They already asked. It's not what the bid asks partner to do; it's what the bid reveals about the bidder's hand, and his partner should let the opponents in on it.

[jdonn]

Just one more case where common sense dictates not following a completely literal reading of the laws. I should make a list.

 

Best case scenario: I say "relay to 2♣, could be a bunch of different types of hands" and the opponents call the director because I didn't give all information the first time asked. I will have a hard time stopping laughing when the director asks me if it's true.

[Lobowolf]

Just one more case where common sense dictates not following a completely literal reading of the laws. I should make a list.

 

Best case scenario: I say "relay to 2♣, could be a bunch of different types of hands" and the opponents call the director because I didn't give all information the first time asked. I will have a hard time stopping laughing when the director asks me if it's true.

I see obvious advantages to "could be a bunch of different types of hands" as compared to a much more convoluted explanation (as in Lebensohl).

 

I don't see the advantage when the full explanation "any weak 1-suiter" is more brief than the vague one.

[Cascade]

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.

Disagree.

 

This is deliberately hiding information from the opponents.

 

I also disagree with Josh who seems to think that you need to wait for the opponents to ask subsequent questions before giving them all of the information.

 

The laws require all information in response to the initial question.

I agree with this in principle, and with respect to the 1NT-(X)-XX auction, I think the response should be that it's a relay to 2♣, showing a weak one-suited hand with any suit (if that's what it is, of course).

 

But if the bid were a 2NT Lebensohl call, after, say, 1NT-(2♥), I'd say that it's a relay to 3♣, and shows a wide variety of hands, and ask if they wanted to know, or wait for me to explain the next bid. I think it invites confusion to say that it could be intending to pass 3♣, or bid a new suit, which would be weak if diamonds, but invitational if spades, or perhaps to show 4 spades with a heart stopper, or to show values for 3NT, but deny a spade suit and show a heart stopper...you get the idea.

 

But "Weak 1-suiter with any suit"? You know it, it's fast and simple to explain, and you should tell the opponents. They already asked. It's not what the bid asks partner to do; it's what the bid reveals about the bidder's hand, and his partner should let the opponents in on it.

I don't see the problem.

 

"Weak with a lower ranking suit, Invitational with a higher ranking suit, or strong with a heart stopper" and if necessary whatever else seems easily understood and no trouble to me.

[Cascade]

Just one more case where common sense dictates not following a completely literal reading of the laws. I should make a list.

 

Best case scenario: I say "relay to 2♣, could be a bunch of different types of hands" and the opponents call the director because I didn't give all information the first time asked. I will have a hard time stopping laughing when the director asks me if it's true.

Unfortunately you don't get to choose where you are allowed to follow the laws and where you are allowed to ignore them.

[mycroft]

"forcing, artificial. Start of a runout with <list hands>." For me, "forcing, artificial. Unspecified one-suited runout." 2C gets Alerted as "non-forcing, artificial. Forced; 'pass or correct.'"

 

"forces 2C" is a) useless, because it doesn't say anything about strength or suit; ;) tells partner what you are going to do; and c) is not your agreement about the hand - just what you're supposed to do this round. You know what hands XX; the opponents are entitled to that information.

 

The people who bid 1NT-2S "transfer to clubs" when in fact it's a bad hand in either minor drive me nuts for the same reason. "asking me to bid 3C" doesn't say anything. "either minor, weak or slamtry+" does - especially when I have clubs myself.

 

I feel uncomfortable explaining Lebensohl 2NT, because the hand types are so varied. I do try to cheat with the convention name - but it still is "Lebensohl, shows a wide variety of hands. I can enumerate them for you if you wish." "Forces 3C" is a really, really, wrong explanation for Lebensohl 2NT.

[peachy]

I feel uncomfortable explaining Lebensohl 2NT, because the hand types are so varied. I do try to cheat with the convention name - but it still is "Lebensohl, shows a wide variety of hands. I can enumerate them for you if you wish." "Forces 3C" is a really, really, wrong explanation for Lebensohl 2NT.

The 2NT (Lebensohl) does not SHOW any hand or hand type; only the followup after the forced 3C does the showing. I think a simple "forces partner to bid 3C" is fine and if opponents ask "what type of hand would he have to use the Lebensohl 2NT" then the answer is going to be a long one and still does not inform the opponents what hand type the 2NT is showing because the possibilities are numerous and in fact, again, it is not SHOWING anything, it is making a command to partner to bid 3C without even looking at his hand.

[Codo]

The 2NT (Lebensohl) does not SHOW any hand or hand type; only the followup after the forced 3C does the showing. I think a simple "forces partner to bid 3C" is fine and if opponents ask "what type of hand would he have to use the Lebensohl 2NT" then the answer is going to be a long one and still does not inform the opponents what hand type the 2NT is showing because the possibilities are numerous and in fact, again, it is not SHOWING anything, it is making a command to partner to bid 3C without even looking at his hand.

This statement would only be true when you have no implied or explicit agreement how to use Lebensohl.

 

Maybe this is true for you, but it is surely not true for anybody else.

 

And when you have an agreement, you have to explain it.

 

Whether this explanation in practice is just "Lebensohl" and claryfing after being asked or a complete statement depends on you and your opps.

 

When I play competent opps from my own country and a fairly normal Lebensohl structure, the one word will be enough. Against lesser players or people from other places who may have a different understanding of Lebensohl, I would try to explain it in one sentence like Wayne did.

[peachy]

And when you have an agreement, you have to explain it.

I hope you were not reading my comments as "we don't have to explain our agreement". I never said or meant that.

[gnasher]

In a competitive auction it seems pointless not to tell the opponents the information that they most need, which is what the possible hand types are.

 

If it goes (1NT) dbl (rdbl) or (1NT) 2S (2NT), the explanation "forces partner to bid 2/3♣" is completely useless to the opponents. Almost everybody would play different methods over

(a) Any weak one-suiter

than over

(b) Weak with clubs or various strong hands

 

If someone gave me an answer like that, I wouldn't call the director, but I would always ask a followup question, and I would wonder why I had been given such an unhelpful answer.

[helene_t]

The laws require all information in response to the initial question.

So when my regular p opens a SA 1♦ and opps (who play a similar natural system but don't know the specifics of SA, let alone our style) ask what it means, I have to tell them immediately that:

- it denies a balanced 15-17, by which we evaluate the hand as 75% the strength in notrumps plus 25% the strength in a suit contract, and are slightly more likely to downgrade than upgrade.

- 6322 would be opened 1NT if the suit is weaker than AQT9xx or if we have positional stoppers in two sidesuits. Same for 2254 and 4252. 2452 also, and also if evaluates to less than an average 17. Also 4=4=4=1 and 1=4=4=4 if the singleton is an ace or a king, unless the diamonds contain 3 of the top 4 honours.

- Could include a 5-card major only if it has 6+ diamonds, and not if 5-6 reds with less than GF strength opposite a positive response if the hearts are better than the diamonds.

- etc etc (in total some 300 lines of text)

 

The law may say that but it has nothing to do with reality.

 

Of course I must tell them everything that is likely to be important to them if it is not something they would think of asking about otherwise. And also I should try to avoid the need for them to ask additional questions, since those additional questions might give me and my p information which we are not entitled to.

 

But if a call can be based on multiple weak and multiple strong variants, I think it is best to explain just the weak variants and add ".... or certain strong hands".

[cherdanno]

I feel uncomfortable explaining Lebensohl 2NT, because the hand types are so varied.  I do try to cheat with the convention name - but it still is "Lebensohl, shows a wide variety of hands.  I can enumerate them for you if you wish."  "Forces 3C" is a really, really, wrong explanation for Lebensohl 2NT.

The 2NT (Lebensohl) does not SHOW any hand or hand type; only the followup after the forced 3C does the showing. I think a simple "forces partner to bid 3C" is fine and if opponents ask "what type of hand would he have to use the Lebensohl 2NT" then the answer is going to be a long one and still does not inform the opponents what hand type the 2NT is showing because the possibilities are numerous and in fact, again, it is not SHOWING anything, it is making a command to partner to bid 3C without even looking at his hand.

Sorry, but in my opinion you fail to understand the word 'agreement'. Due to your agreement, the 2NT bidder can only have a couple of specific hand types. That is an agreement, and you should explain it as it may be important for opponents.

(Just assume for a second that you haven't discussed the follow-up auction

2NT (3S) P (P)

X

I suppose the partner of the 2NT bidder will have a guess what kind of hands double shows. And that's because you have an agreement about what 2NT showed.)

[blackshoe]

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

 

That is the reality. That players disregard it, either willfully or through ignorance, does not make it any less real. Such players take the chance of running afoul of the second part of this law:

The director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation is crucial for an opponent’s choice of action and that opponent is thereby damaged.

Granted, "crucial" is a pretty stiff criterion. Still, it's clear that not doing as this law requires may well get you a director call and a score adjustment.

[jdonn]

The laws require all information in response to the initial question.

...

The law may say that but it has nothing to do with reality.

And I think he knows that...

[Lobowolf]

The laws require all information in response to the initial question.

So when my regular p opens a SA 1♦ and opps (who play a similar natural system but don't know the specifics of SA, let alone our style) ask what it means, I have to tell them immediately that:

- it denies a balanced 15-17, by which we evaluate the hand as 75% the strength in notrumps plus 25% the strength in a suit contract, and are slightly more likely to downgrade than upgrade.

- 6322 would be opened 1NT if the suit is weaker than AQT9xx or if we have positional stoppers in two sidesuits. Same for 2254 and 4252. 2452 also, and also if evaluates to less than an average 17. Also 4=4=4=1 and 1=4=4=4 if the singleton is an ace or a king, unless the diamonds contain 3 of the top 4 honours.

- Could include a 5-card major only if it has 6+ diamonds, and not if 5-6 reds with less than GF strength opposite a positive response if the hearts are better than the diamonds.

- etc etc (in total some 300 lines of text)

I'm not sure that anyone is suggesting that. It seems to me the camps are those who (when asked about 1♦ by someone knowing nothing about SA) would say something like, "Generally 11-21 HCPs and at least 4 diamonds, 3 if specifically 4-4-3-2" and those who would say something like, "It's non-forcing."

[aguahombre]

"Weak with a lower ranking suit, Invitational with a higher ranking suit, or strong with a heart stopper"  and if necessary whatever else seems easily understood and no trouble to me.

That is more concise than my usual explanation, thanks --will use it.

 

And for the "other" lebensohl, after partner's reverse -- "Artificial, showing less than 9 HCP." (Stopping there, because it does not require a 3C response even though it requires some further action because of the reverse itself?)

[JoAnneM]

Yes, I meant 2c, sorry.

[helene_t]

It seems to me the camps are those who (when asked about 1♦ by someone knowing nothing about SA) would say something like, "Generally 11-21 HCPs and at least 4 diamonds, 3 if specifically 4-4-3-2" and those who would say something like, "It's non-forcing."

I think everybody would say something like your first version. In fact I would give a little more information if playing at the local club where everyone assumes weak notrump.

 

Anyway, it's a very far cry of "all information" that the 1♦ opening conveys to me otbo special agreements.