another alert question and an oops

[mycroft]

Yes, but the *key* question - does 2NT promise invitational values - won't really depend on the responses or the kind of hands opener will have.

 

But that is something "shown" by the call (or not shown, as appropriate), so it's something that is disclosable on inquiry.

 

Of course, I have experience against 2♠-p-4NT-5♠ (as the passer)... so "psyching" 2NT doesn't really faze me any more.

[pran]

[...]

At the time 3♦ has been bid it is perfectly legal to request "what would 3♣ have shown in this position?" or even "which other (alternative) responses to the 2NT bid were possible?", but it is not legal at the time of the 2NT bid to ask (for instance): "What will 3♣ or 3♦ show in response to this 2NT bid?"

 

The difference is that in the first case one asks about an alternative call not made instead of the call actually made, in the second case one asks about future calls not yet made.

 

In both cases it affects the meaning of 2NT and the hands it is likely to have, which is disclosable.

[...]

Sure it is disclosable, but not before an "answer call" has actually been made.

 

Is in your opinion the player explaining the 2NT bid supposed to at the same time disclose also the meanings of answering bids for instance 3♣ and 3♦?

 

This is effectively requesting him to state "When I am going to bid 3♦ it will mean [...]. If instead I bid 3♣ the meaning will be [...]." or words to similar effect.

 

Or maybe the player bidding 2NT shall take over after the basics of the 2NT bid has been disclosed and complete this disclosure with information on what 3♣ or 3♦ by partner eventually will mean?

 

Are you seriouos?

[Trinidad]

At the time 3♦ has been bid it is perfectly legal to request "what would 3♣ have shown in this position?" or even "which other (alternative) responses to the 2NT bid were possible?", but it is not legal at the time of the 2NT bid to ask (for instance): "What will 3♣ or 3♦ show in response to this 2NT bid?"

 

The difference is that in the first case one asks about an alternative call not made instead of the call actually made, in the second case one asks about future calls not yet made.

 

In both cases it affects the meaning of 2NT and the hands it is likely to have, which is disclosable.

I had an interesting example of this about a year ago. We play Multi and Muiderberg 2♠ (2♠ = weak with exactly 5♠ and a 4+ minor), as well as a 2♥ opening as weak with both majors. According to our agreements, a 2NT response to all these openings is asking and game invitational or better. We can't really baby psyche a 2NT response like others can after a Muiderberg, because the response scheme will get us quite high.

 

The response scheme is:

3♣: I have the higher suit. (After Multi: I have spades; after 2♥: My spades are better than my hearts; after 2♠: My minor is diamonds). A relay asks for more info as in Ogust.

3♦-3NT: I have the lower suit with an Ogust like meaning (3♦: MIN/weak suit; 3♥: MIN/good suit; 3♠: MAX/weak suit; 3NT: MAX/good suit)

 

So, I am the dealer and I open 2♠, partner alerts, LHO passes, partner thinks for a while and bids 2NT, I alert, RHO asks. I reply that it is an asking bid, it asks for my minor and he can or will get information about my general strength and the quality of my suit. My RHO asks whether my partner often psyches a 2NT response. I explain that he doesn't because, with the amount of information that we can relay, we will be forcing to game if I show a maximum hand and he can't stop me below game anymore.

 

RHO thinks a few seconds and passes, I bid 3♣ to show that my side minor is diamonds, expecting my partner to relay with 3♦ or to bid 3NT or something. But, after my LHO passes, so does my partner!

 

This really annoys my RHO. After all, I just explained that he won't psyche the 2NT response and even explained why. And now, somehow he seems to have done it anyway. RHO asks me what he can have and I can't come up with anything. I even add that normally I would assume that he misbid, but he is smiling too much for that, so that is not what is happening.

 

Finally, RHO passes and I am declaring 3♣. The opening lead is made and it turns out that my partner holds about 5 HCPs in a 1417 hand. He didn't want to play 2♠ or 3♦ and figured out at the table that my rebid will be 3♣ after his 2NT response and that he can just pass that. (And if my rebid would be something else, he would be happy to play 5♣.)

 

Now, I doubt that my RHO would have figured out that my partner could have a weak 1417 even if I would have given him the complete response structure when he asked about 2NT (since he wasn't able to figure it out the next round either). But with the information I gave him after the 2NT bid he wouldn't have had any chance of figuring it out.

 

Now that I have seen this, it is clear to me that my partner can have a weak hand with a lot of clubs for his 2NT response, but not a weak hand with a lot of diamonds. In principle, this should be part of the explanation of 2NT because it defines which hands will respond 2NT and which won't. There may be other features of this structure that I haven't seen yet and that I, therefore, won't be able to explain. But maybe my RHO will be able to see those possible hands for the 2NT response if I would explain the structure to him. The only reasons why I wouldn't explain the whole structure to him after the 2NT response would be:

- giving UI to my partner

- time: let's stay practical

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

In both cases it affects the meaning of 2NT and the hands it is likely to have, which is disclosable.

Sure it is disclosable, but not before an "answer call" has actually been made.

No, because the possible anwers define the meaning of 2NT. They define what the 2NT hand looks like. And the 2NT bid has been made. The opponents are entitled to all the information that describes the meaning of the 2NT bid since it has been made already.

 

See the example I just gave where the 2NT bid could be made with a weak hand with long clubs because of the response structure that was used. In that case, the "replier" wasn't aware that the 2NT bid could contain a weak hand with long clubs. And neither was the guy who made the 2NT response, until he held such a hand. But maybe the opponent would have been, if only he would have been told what the response structure was.

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

Now, I doubt that my RHO would have figured out that my partner could have a weak 1417 even if I would have given him the complete response structure when he asked about 2NT (since he wasn't able to figure it out the next round either). But with the information I gave him after the 2NT bid he wouldn't have had any chance of figuring it out.......

And, in your anecdotal case ---even though RHO was annoyed --- he still had the opportunity to make a bid in the pass-out seat over your 3C conract. He should have been delighted. Whether he could figure it out or not, he managed not to compete in one of your two suits or in your partner's rounded suits. He came out just fine.

 

I still believe the only scenario where disclosure of what will happen next would be useful would be if he were fishing to determine if an intervening call could conceivably be doubled or redoubled for a nasty result.

 

Partner opens 1NT. Righty asks for your response structure in competition, contemplating a 2m bid showing that and a higher, and holding a ragged 4-4 in each suit. I would prefer that he find this out after the double, not before. And, I consider my position to be more ethical than the question was.

[pran]

No, because the possible anwers define the meaning of 2NT. They define what the 2NT hand looks like. And the 2NT bid has been made. The opponents are entitled to all the information that describes the meaning of the 2NT bid since it has been made already.

 

See the example I just gave where the 2NT bid could be made with a weak hand with long clubs because of the response structure that was used. In that case, the "replier" wasn't aware that the 2NT bid could contain a weak hand with long clubs. And neither was the guy who made the 2NT response, until he held such a hand. But maybe the opponent would have been, if only he would have been told what the response structure was.

 

Rik

I use "Multi". The only thing I know about partner's hand when he bids 2NT is that he requests a more precise description of my hand and that his hand justifies playing at (or above) the three-level whatever I have for my Multi 2♦ opening bid.

 

My answers can be 3♣,3♦,3♥,3♠ or 3NT.

 

When explaining my partner's 2NT bid shall I include a description of each of my possible systemic answers? That is of course very convenient in that partner will be reassured I remember our agreements and also that partner's memory is refreshed by me in case he should need it.

 

Or shall my partner (before I make my answer call) describe each of my possible systemic answers? That is of course equally very convenient in that I will be reassured he remembers our agreements and also that my memory is refreshed by him in case I should need it.

 

So please state which player shall be supposed to describe our answers to the 2NT bid after a Multi 2♦ opening bid before the answer bid has actually been made: The player describing the 2NT bid or the player making the 2NT bid?

 

So far I haven't seen anybody here addressing this very important question.

 

(And BTW: Shall the description include possible calls after an intervening call other than pass by my RHO?)

[kevperk]

Some people aren't aware of much of anything. B-)

 

There is always a set of possible hands with which you would make your asking bid, and a set with which you would not. So I think, when asked for an explanation of an asking bid, you owe opponents a description of the set of hands which would ask, unless such description is clearly "general bridge knowledge". So "asking for further description" is not adequate disclosure.

 

On the other question, about disclosing the meanings of calls not yet made, I believe strongly that neither the laws nor the principle of full disclosure require this, so I would not do it unless specifically so instructed by the TD — and then I would believe his ruling is in error.

So, do you believe an explanation of a 2NT response to a weak two bid should include "Ogust" in the response (assuming that is the agreement)"? For those who know Ogust, this amounts to disclosing the meaning of calls not yet made. Or, in other situations, the responses to the call are on their card. Or, if one know the opponents methods. I'm not sure of the answer to all this, but it can't be right for the correct procedure to help side making the calls.

[blackshoe]

Do I think that including the name of a convention is a necessary condition of "full disclosure"? No, I do not. Neither is it sufficient.

 

If the responses to Ogust are on the card, then they're on the card. Since opponents are allowed (and IMO should be encouraged) to look at the card, they will know them. I see no problem with that. But if the responses are not on the card, I do not believe opponents have a right to compel disclosure of the meanings of those responses until one of them is made.

[kevperk]

Do I think that including the name of a convention is a necessary condition of "full disclosure"? No, I do not. Neither is it sufficient.

 

If the responses to Ogust are on the card, then they're on the card. Since opponents are allowed (and IMO should be encouraged) to look at the card, they will know them. I see no problem with that. But if the responses are not on the card, I do not believe opponents have a right to compel disclosure of the meanings of those responses until one of them is made.

Sorry, when I asked should it include Ogust, I meant do you see any problem with including the name, thereby implying what the responses will be. I guess I should have asked should it not include "Ogust" in the explanation.

[aguahombre]

Some of us are on a rant/campaign/whatever...to avoid naming anything and encourage others to NEVER name-drop.

[blackshoe]

The problem with convention names is that people make assumptions based on the name that are often incorrect. A case in point: I learned "Walsh style" responses in the context of Romex. I was aware that Walsh (the player) developed Walsh (the system) but was unaware for some time that his treatment (Walsh) was different from the one with which I was familiar. Specifically, in the original Walsh style, a 1♦ response to one club denies a four card major unless responder has GF values. In Romex, the response denies a four card major unless responder has at least invitational values. Another example: Romex uses "two-way check back" after 1x-1y-1NT, but it's not the same two way check back most modern players seem to expect, because 2♣ is not a puppet to 2♦. The Romex version of two way check back acts much the same way as "two way Stayman", where 2♣ asks with invitational values, and 2♦ asks with GF values, but they both ask for a 4 card major. So <name of convention> clearly isn't good enough on its own. The name in addition to full disclosure of the meaning should be okay, although I suppose there's still some chance that somebody might get confused by what he thinks the name means.

[Zelandakh]

No, because the possible anwers define the meaning of 2NT.

I would say that your agreements define the meaning of 2NT. Your agreement was that 2NT is made on invitational or better hands. Your agreement now is that it is made on invitational or better hands or a weak hand with long clubs. Perhaps if you think about it more you can find additional possibilities too. As long as you disclose what the agreements actually are then I do not see a problem.

[Trinidad]

No, because the possible anwers define the meaning of 2NT.

I would say that your agreements define the meaning of 2NT. Your agreement was that 2NT is made on invitational or better hands.

I agree that the agreements define the meaning of 2NT. But we do have the agreement about the responses. As a matter of fact, that agreement about responses came first. Later (though not by much), the agreement that 2NT was invitational or better seemed to follow logically from the response structure. The only thing that we really discussed was that a MAX hand would be forcing to game and that we cannot stop in 4m.

 

The agreement about the responses influences the hand types that will bid 2NT.

 

Rik

[campboy]

Sorry, when I asked should it include Ogust, I meant do you see any problem with including the name, thereby implying what the responses will be. I guess I should have asked should it not include "Ogust" in the explanation.

Saying "Ogust" doesn't give much extra information over "asking about strength and suit quality", since either rules out other common methods such as feature- or singleton-asking, so I think this is unlikely to be a problem.

[Trinidad]

I use "Multi". The only thing I know about partner's hand when he bids 2NT is that he requests a more precise description of my hand and that his hand justifies playing at (or above) the three-level whatever I have for my Multi 2♦ opening bid.

 

My answers can be 3♣,3♦,3♥,3♠ or 3NT.

 

When explaining my partner's 2NT bid shall I include a description of each of my possible systemic answers? That is of course very convenient in that partner will be reassured I remember our agreements and also that partner's memory is refreshed by me in case he should need it.

I think every one agrees that you shall not explain anything at first. The question is: suppose that your RHO wants to know the response structure, is he entitled to that information? This is a question of principle or philosophy; in practice this is unlikely to happen. My answer is yes, but -for practical reasons- only if he specifically asks for it.

 

I can imagine that the conversation might go:

2NT-Alert!

"What does that mean?"

- "He asks me to describe my hand."

"What specifically is he asking for?"

- "He is asking what my major is and he is asking whether I have a minimum or a maximum hand."

"Can he have a weak hand and be joking?"

- "Well, our responses are conventional and if I show a maximum, the auction is GF, so..."

"Could you tell me what your responses would be?"

- "You want me to tell you how I will respond with the various hand types?"

"Yes, please."

- "Well, 3♣ would mean..."

etc.

Or shall my partner (before I make my answer call) describe each of my possible systemic answers? That is of course equally very convenient in that I will be reassured he remembers our agreements and also that my memory is refreshed by him in case I should need it.

 

So please state which player shall be supposed to describe our answers to the 2NT bid after a Multi 2♦ opening bid before the answer bid has actually been made: The player describing the 2NT bid or the player making the 2NT bid?

The partner of the 2NT bidder has to explain. After all, the question is about what the 2NT hand looks like by asking what the 2NT bidder is anticipating.

So far I haven't seen anybody here addressing this very important question.

 

(And BTW: Shall the description include possible calls after an intervening call other than pass by my RHO?)

NO.The question is about the 2NT bid. The 2NT bid is made allowing for all the answers when LHO passes. Part of the explanation of the 2NT bid is in what the 2NT bidder anticipates as responses. Of course, the actual answers will change when LHO doesnot pass. But a decent structure in competition will be set up in such a way that the responses will not get higher than the 2NT bidder normally had anticipated for the case where LHO would pass.

 

One is not supposed to answer questions about "what would you do if I would...?". Throughout this case, we have not been talking about information about opener's hand. We are talking about information in the 2NT response. A small fraction of the information in the 2NT response is defined by the possible responses and their meaning. There is no doubt in my mind that the opponents are entitled to all the information in the 2NT bid. Therefore, this includes that small fraction. In practice, I would only give that if the opponents were specifically asking for it (which would be never). But if they would ask, it is crystal clear to me that I have to answer.

 

Now, this discussion is very theoretical with few implications in practice. But the fundamental idea is that you will have to tell your opponents everything you know about your partner's hand (other than GBK). That includes what bids from you your partner was anticipating when he made the bid.

 

Out of principle, I do not want to replace the fundamental idea: "You are supposed to tell the opponents everything you know about partner's hand (other than GBK)." by: "You are supposed to tell the opponents almost everything you know about partner's hand (other than GBK)."

 

Rik

[pran]

Not a bad response, but I can say for sure that before telling opponents - and my partner - how my future calls are to be understood I shall definitely have the Director present at the table, controlling the dialogs, so that my side is protected from any accusation of using UI later in the auction.

 

The only relevant reason my RHO can have at this time for requesting information about my answer calls to the (in this case) 2NT bid is for deciding whether (and in case how) or not he shall interfere in the auction now.

 

But I see some inconsistency here: If he is entitled to a (full) disclosure of my future calls in case of no intervention then why shall he not also be entitled to a (full) disclosure of my future calls in case of his intervention?

[aguahombre]

But I see some inconsistency here: If he is entitled to a (full) disclosure of my future calls in case of no intervention then why shall he not also be entitled to a (full) disclosure of my future calls in case of his intervention?

Exactly. And the answer should be: he isn't, and he isn't.

[bluejak]

Sure it is disclosable, but not before an "answer call" has actually been made.

 

Is in your opinion the player explaining the 2NT bid supposed to at the same time disclose also the meanings of answering bids for instance 3♣ and 3♦?

 

This is effectively requesting him to state "When I am going to bid 3♦ it will mean [...]. If instead I bid 3♣ the meaning will be [...]." or words to similar effect.

 

Or maybe the player bidding 2NT shall take over after the basics of the 2NT bid has been disclosed and complete this disclosure with information on what 3♣ or 3♦ by partner eventually will mean?

 

Are you seriouos?

I do not understand most of what people are saying, which has nothing to do with bridge. No-one wants to spend twenty minutes after each call enquiring.

 

But I am very very suspicious about the ethics of anyone who wants to hide what a call asks for. Of course I am not trying to find out what every response is and why, but I want to know what people mean by their call, and this idea that you do not need to Fully Disclose what you are playing because it is an asking bid is against the general ethical approach of the game. And what reason is there to do so?

 

In practical terms, ethical players tell you these things anyway. If you ask what a 2NT response to 2♠ is they tell you whether ti shows values, whether it asks for features, or an artificial description like Ogust, and if you ask whether any responses are at the four-level they tell you without problem. I am very very dubious about the ethics of someone who tries to hide this information.

 

Anyway, since you ask whether I am serious, why do you think anyone who hides this information has any right on his side?

[blackshoe]

The question, I think, is what constitutes "hiding this information?"

 

If I alert my partner's 2NT response to my major suit weak two opening, am asked, and describe it as "asking for information about trump quality and overall strength" am I hiding something? If so, what? If not, why is this not an adequate response to the question?

[Trinidad]

The question, I think, is what constitutes "hiding this information?"

 

If I alert my partner's 2NT response to my major suit weak two opening, am asked, and describe it as "asking for information about trump quality and overall strength" am I hiding something? If so, what? If not, why is this not an adequate response to the question?

I think that would be a fine response to the question. But what would you do if the opponents ask you a follow up question like: "How do the responses work?"? Do you give this information (which does say something about the 2NT bid)? Or do you hide the information by replying: "You can ask that once the response has been made."?

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

But I see some inconsistency here: If he is entitled to a (full) disclosure of my future calls in case of no intervention then why shall he not also be entitled to a (full) disclosure of my future calls in case of his intervention?

Because the meaning of future calls without intervention is what the 2NT bidder anticipated when he bid 2NT. Therefore, these meanings are relevant since they define the hands that bid 2NT.

 

The 2NT bidder can predict what the auction will be like with the different hand types that partner might show if the opponents pass and he can anticipate so that he can handle the auction.

 

The 2NT bidder did not anticipate the meaning of future calls with intervention. After all, intervention is out of his control. Even the meaning of intervening calls is out of his control. Therefore, the 2NT bidder can't really anticipate what will happen. And since he can't anticipate in the case of intervention, what happens after intervention does not define the 2NT hand. But what happens after the expected pass by LHO does define the 2NT hand.

 

Rik

[bluejak]

The question, I think, is what constitutes "hiding this information?"

 

If I alert my partner's 2NT response to my major suit weak two opening, am asked, and describe it as "asking for information about trump quality and overall strength" am I hiding something? If so, what? If not, why is this not an adequate response to the question?

I was just about ot give an answer when ...

 

Trinidad already said it!

 

If I ask a follow-up question, and as some people here and on RGB have proposed, you refuse to answer, that is hiding something. For example, "Are any of your responses at game level?", "Is opener allowed to rebid at game level?", "Does he split his range into two or three ranges?".

[Vampyr]

I can't find the post that mentions giving an explanation and adding "it has been known to be 'fake'". I always say this, do others who have had this experience do it too?

[blackshoe]

But what would you do if the opponents ask you a follow up question like: "How do the responses work?"? Do you give this information (which does say something about the 2NT bid)? Or do you hide the information by replying: "You can ask that once the response has been made."?

 

"There are five responses. Four of them answer the two questions I'm asking, in all possible combinations, the fifth does as well, but specifically shows a solid suit". If they persist along the lines of "which bid means what", I'll call the director. And the only thing I'm trying to "hide" is what specific future bids mean, because as far as I'm concerned they're not entitled to that information.

[Vampyr]

"There are five responses. Four of them answer the two questions I'm asking, in all possible combinations, the fifth does as well, but specifically shows a solid suit". If they persist along the lines of "which bid means what", I'll call the director. And the only thing I'm trying to "hide" is what specific future bids mean, because as far as I'm concerned they're not entitled to that information.

 

Bizarre.