another alert question and an oops

[mgoetze]

What information?

As it happens it depends on the rest of your NT structure. Responder may be showing, for instance, one of the following hand types:

(a) at least invitational strength with at least one 4-card major, no 5+ card major unless exactly 5-4 in majors;

(b) exactly invitational strength with no 5-card major or 6-card minor;

© a weak hand with short clubs.

[pran]

As it happens it depends on the rest of your NT structure. Responder may be showing, for instance, one of the following hand types:

(a) at least invitational strength with at least one 4-card major, no 5+ card major unless exactly 5-4 in majors;

(b) exactly invitational strength with no 5-card major or 6-card minor;

(c} a weak hand with short clubs.

If the agreement includes (a) or (b) then (and only then) this information is (of course) part of the information that is required with the explanation.

 

(c} has become general bridge knowledge since an ingenious player discovered this possibility to land in the best possible contract regardless of opener's hand. But it has never been part of Stayman specifications.

 

I see nothing in your post that makes the NT structure relevant for the understanding of the 2♣ Stayman bid.

 

So again: The 2♣ bid can very well be completely described with "asking for a major suit, giving no information about the player's own hand".

[Trinidad]

If the agreement includes (a) or (b) then (and only then) this information is (of course) part of the information that is required with the explanation.

 

(c} has become general bridge knowledge since an ingenious player discovered this possibility to land in the best possible contract regardless of opener's hand. But it has never been part of Stayman specifications.

 

I see nothing in your post that makes the NT structure relevant for the understanding of the 2♣ Stayman bid.

 

So again: The 2♣ bid can very well be completely described with "asking for a major suit, giving no information about the player's own hand".

Not exactly. Whether option {c} is included depends on the rebids. You can include {c} if the responses to Stayman are:

- 2♦: no 4 card M

- 2♥: 4♥

- 2♠: 4♠

other responses shouldn't exist.

 

You could play a slightly different {c} if the responses are:

- 2♦: no 5 card M

- 2♥: 5♥

- 2♠: 5♠

again, other responses shouldn't exist.

 

But as soon as you play a variation where there are meanings for bids of 2NT and higher (e.g. 2NT: Both majors), you can't put option {c} in Stayman (perhaps with the exception of 3M showing a five card suit).

 

Yet another example of the responses defining the possible hand types in the asking bid.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

This discussion would be better placed on rgb or blml.

[mgoetze]

I see nothing in your post that makes the NT structure relevant for the understanding of the 2♣ Stayman bid.

 

Uhhuh. So you didn't notice that some people don't include hand (b) in their Stayman bid because they have a different way to invite? Also some people might have Stayman as the only way to start a single-suited slam-interested hand with a minor. And then there are the Garbage Stayman variants etc.

 

And in fact hand (c) is not always possible, see Trinidad's response. And yet you say you don't need to disclose whether it could be a weak three-suited hand, and you ALSO don't need to disclose what a 2NT response would mean. So you don't want the opponents to be able to figure out the system.

 

So again: The 2♣ bid can very well be completely described with "asking for a major suit, giving no information about the player's own hand".

Sorry, this is complete and utter bullshit. It gives a lot of information for instance with regards to responder having a 5+ card major or not.

[blackshoe]

If there are alternative calls that might have been made that could affect the meaning of the call actually made, the meanings of those alternative calls should be disclosed. That doesn't lead to the conclusion that the meanings of future calls should be made now.

 

"Utter bullshit" is a serious overbid. I recommend you choose another. B-)

[gnasher]

It's only a mild overbid. It would be quite improper to describe a bid as "giving no information about the player's own hand" when it does, in fact, give information about the player's own hand.

 

Because everyone knows what Stayman is, it's an acceptable shorthand initially to describe it as "Stayman" or "Stayman but it could be an invitation without a major". However, if you're giving a detailed explanation you should describe the hand-types that would bid 2♣. For example "Game-forcing with one or two four-card majors (but not a concentrated 4M-5m), or invitational with one or two four-card majors, or invitational without a major, or game-forcing with at least 5-4 or 4-5 in the majors, or a hand that plans to pass any response, or a signoff with at least 4-5 or 5-4 in the majors."

[blackshoe]

I don't have a problem with that kind of description. I've said that before in this thread.

[Vampyr]

This thread does my head in, because I cannot understand how information that would be available on a well-fulled-out convention card, or a discussion of system before the round begins, can suddenly become secret once the bidding has begun.

[pran]

This thread does my head in, because I cannot understand how information that would be available on a well-fulled-out convention card, or a discussion of system before the round begins, can suddenly become secret once the bidding has begun.

Is it then a fair assumption that you cannot (or maybe do not want to) understand the reason why a player may not consult his own convention card (nor other system description notes) during the auction?

 

The reason is the same.

[gnasher]

This thread does my head in, because I cannot understand how information that would be available on a well-fulled-out convention card, or a discussion of system before the round begins, can suddenly become secret once the bidding has begun.

Because the Laws say so, and the WBFLC has confirmed that this is the intended meaning. You might think that this is both absurd and unfair, but that doesn't change what the rules are.

[gnasher]

Is it then a fair assumption that you cannot (or maybe do not want to) understand the reason why a player may not consult his own convention card (nor other system description notes) during the auction?

 

The reason is the same.

Is a discussion of the rationale for a law on-topic in this forum? I'd like to explain to Sven why I disagree with this argument, but I'm not sure if it's allowed.

[pran]

Is a discussion of the rationale for a law on-topic in this forum? I'd like to explain to Sven why I disagree with this argument, but I'm not sure if it's allowed.

You are right, this is not the forum for such a discussion. The correct forum would be "Changing laws and regulations".

 

And as I both understand the rationale for this law and fully appreciate it I don't think that I am much interested in any further discussion.

[blackshoe]

You can always start a new thread in "Changing Laws…" if you want to continue/spin off such a discussion. In this case, though, if your purpose is discussion with Sven, it would seem pointless, since he's not interested.

[barmar]

It's only a mild overbid. It would be quite improper to describe a bid as "giving no information about the player's own hand" when it does, in fact, give information about the player's own hand.

 

Because everyone knows what Stayman is, it's an acceptable shorthand initially to describe it as "Stayman" or "Stayman but it could be an invitation without a major". However, if you're giving a detailed explanation you should describe the hand-types that would bid 2♣. For example "Game-forcing with one or two four-card majors (but not a concentrated 4M-5m), or invitational with one or two four-card majors, or invitational without a major, or game-forcing with at least 5-4 or 4-5 in the majors, or a hand that plans to pass any response, or a signoff with at least 4-5 or 5-4 in the majors."

But as soon as you say "plans to pass any response", you're inviting questions about the response structure. Whether you might have ♦ depends on whether 2♦ is a possible response and what it shows.

[Vampyr]

Is it then a fair assumption that you cannot (or maybe do not want to) understand the reason why a player may not consult his own convention card (nor other system description notes) during the auction?

 

The reason is the same.

 

I am certain that the reason is not the same.

[pran]

But as soon as you say "plans to pass any response", you're inviting questions about the response structure. Whether you might have ♦ depends on whether 2♦ is a possible response and what it shows.

An explanation including the clause: "plans to pass any response" is improper, and (if partner can hear it) a direct violation of Law 73B1.

[pran]

Is it then a fair assumption that you cannot (or maybe do not want to) understand the reason why a player may not consult his own convention card (nor other system description notes) during the auction?

 

The reason is the same.

I am certain that the reason is not the same.

QED

[barmar]

An explanation including the clause: "plans to pass any response" is improper, and (if partner can hear it) a direct violation of Law 73B1.

How is it a violation of 73B1? In what way is describing what partner might do a communication to him? Are you suggesting that he might not have considered that possible action at the time he bid 2♣, and this explanation would give him the idea that he could do so?

 

Certainly, saying "or he has a weak hand with 5-6 ♦ and 3-4 in each major" is a better way to describe this possibility. Although if the opponents don't know the response structure, they won't know whether you'll be able to play 2♦ or 3♦ in the case where ♦ is your best fit. But it's not clear that the Law entitles them to this information, they're just entitled to know what the bid shows about the hand.

[Vampyr]

If the reason that it is, perhaps, illegal to give the opponents information about future bids were that partner would be reminded of his own system, then the situation would change when screens are in use. I have not noticed any proponents of the above position mentioning that this is the case.

 

Anyway, what the opponents are entitled to trumps UI considerations. Were this not the case, there would be no explanations at all.

 

In any case I shall continue to give my opponents any information they ask for. Even if they are not, strictly speaking, "entitled" to some of it, I would prefer to be more helpful than less.

[pran]

If the reason that it is, perhaps, illegal to give the opponents information about future bids were that partner would be reminded of his own system, then the situation would change when screens are in use. I have not noticed any proponents of the above position mentioning that this is the case.

 

Anyway, what the opponents are entitled to trumps UI considerations. Were this not the case, there would be no explanations at all.

 

In any case I shall continue to give my opponents any information they ask for. Even if they are not, strictly speaking, "entitled" to some of it, I would prefer to be more helpful than less.

Fine, but be aware that you are scating on very thin ice if your partner from your explanation of possible future calls "could have been reminded of your agreements so that a misbid or misunderstanding was avoided". ("Of course I knew this" is on its own a self-serving, not necessarily convincing argument.)

 

This danger is not present so long as you limit your explanations to prior calls, nor is it present when screens are in use if queries and answers are made (quietly) in writing. But remember that the laws are (still) written for face to face bridge without screens. Correct procedures with screens are a matter of regulations, not of law.

[barmar]

If partner forgot that their system allows him to bid 2♣ with a hand that would pass any response, isn't it too late for such a reminder to do him any good?

[pran]

If partner forgot that their system allows him to bid 2♣ with a hand that would pass any response, isn't it too late for such a reminder to do him any good?

Say that West has opened 1NT and an explanation is requested by North at his turn to call.

 

If East now includes descriptions of his own various possible response calls it can be a wakeup to West: "Don't forget that when eventually I bid 2♣ it can be with the intention to pass your next call".

 

If instead West is now requested to complete East's description of the 1NT opening bid with descriptions of the possible response calls by East it can be a wakeup to East: "Don't forget your possibility to bid 2♣ with the intention to pass my response whatever it will be".

 

In either case these are most valuable reminders.

 

Similar situations will exist whenever explanation(s) is(are) requested (or given) for possible future call(s).

[bluejak]

Is a discussion of the rationale for a law on-topic in this forum? I'd like to explain to Sven why I disagree with this argument, but I'm not sure if it's allowed.

In my view, yes. If you are suggesting changing it, then it is the wrong forum, but I cannot see anything wrong with explaining the way the Law is currently.